Basically the title

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Seconding that’s a not-how-things-were.

    The lovely thing with legacy architectures (6502, 68k, x86, z80, etc.) that were in use during that time is that they were very very simple: all you needed to do was put executable code on a ROM at the correct memory address, and the system would boot it.

    There wasn’t anything required other than making sure the code was where the CPU would go looking for it, and then it’d handle it from there.

    Sure, booting an OS meant that you needed whatever booted the CPU to then chain into the OS bootloader and provide all the things the OS was expecting (BIOS functions, etc.) but the actual bootstrap from ‘off’ to ‘running code’ was literally just an EPROM burner away.

    It’s a lot more complicated now, but users would, for the most part, not tolerate removing the ability to boot any OS they feel like, so there’s enough pressure that locked shit won’t migrate down to all consumer hardware.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      but users would, for the most part, not tolerate removing the ability to boot any OS they feel like, so there’s enough pressure that locked shit won’t migrate down to all consumer hardware.

      what makes you think that?

    • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      There was still real competition in the x86 OS space back then, also. Like IBM had OS/2 and DOS 7, and made hardware, so they certainly wouldn’t want it locked to a Microsoft OS.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        competition in the x86 OS space back then

        Oh yeah: there were a stuuuupid amount of OSes.

        On the DOS side you had MS, IBM, and Digital Research.

        You also had a bunch of commercial UNIXes: NextStep, Solaris, Xenix/SCO, etc. along with Linux and a variety of BSDs. There were also a ton of Sys4/5 implementations that were single-vendor specific so they could sell their hardware (which was x86 and not something more exotic) that have vanished to time because that business model only worked for a couple of years, if that.

        There was of course two different Windows (NT, 9x), OS/2 which of course could also run (some) Windows apps, and a whole host of oddballs like QNX and BeOS and Plan9 or even CP/M86.

        It was a lot less of a stodgy Linux-or-Windows monoculture, and I miss it.

        • bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I ran OS/2 Warp as my primary for like a year, I loved it, and it could even play many Windows/DOS games with fiddling

          • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 hours ago

            …I still have some OS/2 (or, rather, ArcaOS) systems running here.

            Mostly for a very limited subset of things that never really migrated across to “modern” windows - I have a BBS running on there because 16 bit DOS apps on OS/2 was pretty much the best way to run them when it was 1994, and in 2024 it’s still the best way to deal with them.