I am just wondering IF this is Possible to do?
As I don’t see a Core that is made for it.
1 Like
It should be possible on Dosbox-pure, you would have to boot from the install disk and install the OS.
1 Like
It is not possible, OS/2 like Win3x is a graphical layer running on top of DOS, it is not a standalone operating system and PURE has a DOS clone.
What you can do is to make a DOSBox-SVN formatted disk, install the corresponding DOS and then OS/2, then that ‘.img’ image can be loaded in Pure, to make use of its special features. Just as it is done with Windows 3.1.
1 Like
Really? 
I’m a bit confused. I was able to boot from and install MS-DOS 6 in DOSBox-pure. The method is pretty much the same as using SVN.
It is not superfluous to make this clear 
Actually, I don’t know DOSBox, I’ve never used it, and Pure I’m just trying it out. Once I tried to create a virtual disk from Pure and I couldn’t. You can install DOS, but it installs in a virtual disk D like any other program, there I wouldn’t know how to install win3.1 or how to boot from that operating system, because it will always look for C to boot, it will need some bat files.
No my friend, it is not. 
You can use the guides for installing ms-dos in dosbox and they will work just fine with pure.
I think it may be easier to use PCem to create the HDD image.
This may be debatable, there are people who don’t know what Windows 95 is, let alone OS/2. 
That is what I did, or tried to do, but Pure does not allow to create virtual disks. Anyway I don’t want to get too complicated, for these cases I have my friend archive.org.
But what you need is not an .img, it’s the content, the win3.1 I got was a zip, it runs from a .bat. I imagine that the image is to make the installation as if it were C:
There are certainly people who don’t know what a floppy disk is.
This confuses me also, nowhere does anyone imply that Pure can. Do you mean that pure cannot mount a virtual disk?
I’m going to give installing OS/2 a shot and see what happens.
So while I was making the attempt I remembered a bit of computer history. OS/2 doesn’t run on top of DOS like win 31, win 95, or win98. It has much more in common (Literally) with Windows NT, 2000, and XP. In fact most of the code used as a base for NT was developed while Microsoft and IBM worked together on OS/2.
So, unlike Windows 3.1 or 98, you can’t just have the files in the C drive and run an exe.
I am setting up OS/2 in PCem but I don’t have much hope that it can run in DOSBox. Even if the HDD boots, there will be no way of inserting a floppy disk or cdrom. We’ll see… maybe I’m wrong.
Honestly I don’t know, I tried to create an image, following a tutorial but I couldn’t, my knowledge is very limited. I know that Pure when you load a zip, it creates a virtual disk.
mmmh, but that’s from version 2.0, which was rewritten by IBM, OS/2 v1.0 was a multi-tasking DOS. Anyway, NT3.0 was a layer, it wasn’t embedded, you could use it by text. I never actually met that system in person, I saw it in once on a PowerPC overhead.
Out of curiosity, I tried to install 4.0 as a normal Windows and it is not possible, RetroArch closes.
So I managed to get DOSBox to at least try and boot from the OS/2 3.0 HDD.
I am assuming that DOSBox is incompatible with the protected mode OS/2 needs.
PCem works wonders though and if you have dual monitors you can use the new beta WindowCast core to use shaders.
https://forums.libretro.com/t/official-release-thread-for-windowcast-core/40464/78
Better than nothing I suppose. 
1 Like
I mean, you have at least 4 ways to use shaders with PCEM now (at least on Win10+), but I can see why you are hyped up specifically about WindowCast
1 Like
The main thing would be Mega Bezel comparability. I am just learning about PCem’s shader ability though.
I think it’s pretty impressive.
You could also try using 86Box (which was formerly PCem’s experimental branch) and capturing it with WindowCast. It has wider set of supported hardware, some of which would be ideal for OS/2, though it isn’t as stable as the original PCem was.
1 Like
I was just toying around with it now.
I did install eComStation 2.1 on PCem and, while it was fun, I don’t really see the point.
Not much point in installing OS/2 either.
I have OS/2 installed on at least on of my vintage IBM PS/2 systems, because I want them running the OS that was available at the time.
But with the option of running Windows games and software on DOSBox, this whole adventure has really just been a fun exercise.
Fantastic, it is the essence of retro, in this adventure you learn, you discover. For my part, I already know what OS/2 is, it used to be something obscure and unknown. I also got this video gem, and a flood of memories came pouring in, I remember watching some of these programs as a kid and thinking, “amazing”.
1 Like
I spent several years developing software for OS/2 at a very large multinational company. I can confidently say that OS/2 is not, and never was, a layer on top of DOS.
If you really want all the gory details of what OS/2 is and how it works you can read The Design of OS/2.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone said that.
Let me explain myself better. OS/2 is a text-only system, and loads the graphical user interface (GUI) named “Presentation Manager” similar to how Windows 3.x does.
Thanks for the book, it looks like a lot of fun. 
1 Like
You literally did in the post I replied to.
It would be correct to say that OS/2 has a base operating system and runs a graphical user interface that runs on top of that - but that also applies to OSX, iOS, Android, WindowsNT and later, desktop Linux has XWindows and Wayland, etc.
It’s rarer to find an OS with a GUI that doesn’t work that way - MacOS and RiscOS are the only examples that come to mind.
"OS/2 like Win3x is a graphical layer running on top of DOS"
“OS/2 is not, and never was, a layer on top of DOS.”
My English is very basic, but I thought these two phrases are two different things. I have to improve my English.
Thanks for the clarification, but in this case we are talking that DOSBox from RetroArch only allows to install embedded Windows, that’s why the comparison with 3.x.