This is great, thanks for releasing your work. Very impressive.
You may get some interest from others in the retrocomputing/permacomputing sphere if you implement an Uxn emulator; it is extremely simple and can run on very limited hardware. https://100r.co/site/uxn.html
Vintage hardware would be a great host for Uxn programs, so I suspect this would generate some excitement.
You’re welcome. You’d probably appreciate its focus on long-term stability; the authors wanted an environment for their software that would ensure code could stay frozen in a working state forever. The only thing that may need updates is the VM, as the host OS and userland will shift over time, but the VM is designed to be exceptionally easy to implement and maintain. That comes at the cost of some capabilities, but they were specifically aiming for simpler software, so it works out.
> it's quite a feat to fit this into 4 MB on a 386.
I had 2 different Librex 386SX laptops, with 4MB of RAM, on long-term loan from work around 1992. One was quite chunky, the 2nd was a slimline thing with an off-centre hinge.
I ran OS/2 2.0 on them both.
So I could run multiple DOS apps, and a WinOS2 VM containing Windows 3.0, meaning I could run Win16 apps as well. And native OS/2 apps, although I didn't have many.
A 386 with 4MB is small now but at the time this was a fairly serious workstation-level PC. At the time my work desktop was a 386DX but it had only 1MB of RAM.
In its time a 4MB 386 could run any one of multiple multitasking 32-bit protected-mode OSes, including OS/2 2.x, SCO Xenix, Coherent 3 or 4, DR Concurrent DOS/386, and so on.
This was a high-end bit of kit and with one of these OSes, or even with Quarterdeck DESQview, it could multitask half a dozen large and demanding DOS apps, or maybe a couple of the still fairly new Windows apps such as WinWord 1, or Excel 2.
That's a wonderful machine. I'd love to see that style of keyboard on new stuff.
Its wild to me to think of how much old computers could do relative to new. WordPerfect for DOS was always responsive and quick wheb I used it. I've seen ms word cludge up machines that should have plenty of power to run a word processor.
> I'd love to see that style of keyboard on new stuff.
OMG yes please. :-)
Yep, WP for DOS was quick. Rather clunky UI compared to MS Word for DOS, IMHO, but fast. A friend of mine used a simple method to demo its speed: on his cheap monochrome 286 home computer, he loaded the book he was working on -- one big file, a few hundred pages -- and just held down the cursor key to scroll through the whole thing. It kept the entire doc in RAM and the text just blurred as it zoomed through the entire book in under a minute.
Compared then (early 1990s) to Windows where a similar text took tens of minutes, as my faster computer struggled to load in pages of text from disk, render the fonts, etc.
In the late 1980s, Amstrad introduced new CP/M machines, the PCW range:
They sold for over a decade and shifted about 8 million units. A CP/M computer, in the early Windows era.
Maybe it's time to do that again: a very low-spec machine, but with a crisp e-ink screen and a great premium-grade mechanical keyboard, shipping with a modern FOSS DOS, a compilation of free DOS apps, and some nice friendly graphical launcher. Wrapped up as an easy appliance that doesn't do Internet stuff at all, but makes it trivially easy to save your work on USB media or zap it to modern devices wirelessly.
Form factor of a big late-20th-century laptop, with a massive battery so it can double as a power bank for your phone or something.
My first Linux box was a 386SX with 3 megs of RAM (1 meg on the motherboard plus a 2 meg expansion.) It was a tight fit (SLS Linux, I think?) This would've been around 1992 or 93.
I had a 386SX-16 running OS/2 from 2.1 to 3.0. It was usually fine, you could multitask several OS/2 and DOS applications or a WinOS2 session. It was very easy to get it swapping, though, and when it was swapping, it ground to a halt. It helped a lot putting 8MB on it, though 4 of those were on an ISA card and very slow.
Reminds me of my early-1990s home network server: a late-1980s IBM PS/2 Model 80, a 386 tower built with a moulded iron case. Super tough, fancy 32-bit IBM expansion bus. 4MB of RAM on the motherboard, another 4MB in an expansion slot.
I attached a couple of big SCSI drives and ran Windows NT 3.51 Server on it. When not logged in, it only used a couple of megs of RAM for the OS so file serving performance was tolerable -- and the hardware was literally bulletproof. I dropped one down a flight of stairs in my first job. The computer survived but it knocked lumps out of the concrete stairs on the way down.
For you to downvote my small comment, and then go on to lecture me about things you have barely any grasp or memory of, is just astounding to me. I currently own at least 5 computers with 4 MB of RAM, part of a collection of computers that is too large to count (hence the project on github).
A 386 with 4MB was the bare minimum to run Windows 3.11, which is considered the first mainstream GUI for PCs. Technically they required 3 MB, but recommended 4 MB.
Topping it all off, you're being disingenuous by suggesting running OS/2 desktop applications with just 4 MB of RAM. OS/2 was _notoriously_ memory hungry. At the very least it required more RAM than Win 3.11 (which recommended 4 MB). While OS/2 required 4 MB, suggested 8 MB as a minimum, but really needed 16 MB to do anything remotely useful.
And for you to not remember that is pretty telling.
Windows 3.1 was probably the first mainstream version of Windows, with significantly less memory requirements (and it ran no problem on a 286 IIRC). Windows 3.11 came almost 1.5 years later (despite the minor version bump), and mostly added networking, which _was_ memory hungry, but back then, people were happily running their computers isolated, especially at home.
I guess my point is, 4MB was really a lot of memory around 1992, and fitting a windowing environment in 640K was more the norm, and not an especially outstanding feat. Just think about GEOS and how it ran on the C64... or the Amiga (with a preemptive OS running on 256KB), or the Atari ST...
That "for Workgroups" meant a whole different OS with a networking layer, protocol stacks, additional dialog boxes in File Manager to map and disconnect network drives and more.
WfWg was both a client and a server.
The first version was WfWg 3.1 which could run on a 286.
The one everyone deployed was WfWg 3.11 which despite its minor version bump was a 32-bit only OS needing 4MB of RAM because it only supported 386 Enhanced Mode. This was the version to contain some of the new tech from the forthcoming Windows 4.0, codenamed "Chicago" and later named "Windows 95".
WfWg 3.11 had 32-bit File Access as well as 3.1's 32-bit Disk Access. 32bFA was internally VFAT.VXD and that's why the Linux FAT16/FAT32 driver is called `VFAT.`
It had a 32-bit network stack in a VXD as well, which optionally supported a LAN-only 32-bit TCP/IP stack.
I used a 386sx with 4MB of RAM with OS/2 2.1. It was usable for a lot of things. I certainly used word processors, terminal emulators, and casual games in that config. It did swap something terrible if you pushed it beyond its pretty narrow limits, and unlike Windows 3.1, it had enough promise to encourage you to do so. I found it more useful than Windows 3.1 on the same hardware, because it could reliably run a serial modem download in the background while I did word processing.
With 8MB, it was still pretty easy to send it into swap storms, but the range of what I could multitask was greater. Eventually (very late) I replaced it with a 486 with 16MB, and OS/2 absolutely flew on it. Had lots of headroom beyond what I actually used at the time.
Different people are going to have different experiences, based on what they had and what they used it for.
If you've ever used a 68000 based Macintosh, you were limited to 4 MB RAM and 1 MB seems to have been more typical. It's in a different league to be sure, black and white graphics and multitasking was optional prior to System 7 (and I don't think multitasking was shipped with the System Software until System 6). That removes a lot of the pressure on memory. On the other hand, you had early Amigas supporting both colour and multitasking. The 1000 shipped with 256 kB RAM and 256 kB ROM (though I think 512 MB RAM was more typical). For an Apples to Apples comparison, the original Macintosh had 128 kB RAM and 64 kB ROM.
Windows 3.x and OS/2 2.x were later in the game, so they were designed for systems with more RAM. They also supported virtual memory. That meant there was less pressure on developers to write memory efficient code. I'm not really qualified to judge realistic memory requirements for OS/2 since I only used Warp on a system with 16 MB RAM, but I recall many people using Windows 95 on systems with 4 MB RAM. The requirements for both operating systems were similar. It's also worth noting that Windows 3.11 was rather late in the game. The system requirements were climbing rather quickly at that point.
The "MultiFinder" extension allowing cooperative multitasking was actually included with "System Software 5", but I don't think I used it myself until System 6.
> go on to lecture me about things you have barely any grasp or memory of,
No, this is not true or accurate. It is a personal attack.
I am a tech professional and I was back then as well. I ran Windows 2.0 and deployed 3.0 in production; I deployed and supported Windows 3.0, 3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (a different product of little importance except historically), 3.11 (a minor service pack), Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (a totally separate product you don't even mention), as well as NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4, 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, and more.
By casually mentioning something that barely mattered -- Windows 3.11 -- you show me that you know less than me about this stuff, and which I recall vividly and clearly. I still run OS/2 today. I reviewed the current version, because yes it is still alive:
Contrary to your claims, you are attempting to lecture me and I am not putting up with that. I built and supported entire corporate networks of Windows for Workgroups 3.11 computers, and I found bugs in it I personally filed with Microsoft, before Microsoft even had a website.
Windows 3.11 merits a single paragraph on Wikipedia and even that is substantially incorrect.
It did not have any peer-to-peer networking: that is the editors confusing Windows 3.11 with the totally separate Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The distinguishing feature of WfWg is peer-to-peer networking.
You claims are factually incorrect.
Windows 3.11 was not the first mainstream GUI for PCs. Neither was Windows 3.1, a different earlier product. If anything it was DR GEM, which I have written about as well.
You'll find my name in the release notes for FreeGEM, because I was involved in that project in the 1990s.
Windows 3.0 was the first mainstream version of Windows.
I was there and told my boss he should order as many copies as he could get because it would sell out on the day of launch (May 1990). We had a queue outside the door before we opened at 9AM that morning. We had a grand total of 17 copies. They all sold in the first 2 minutes. I was right; he was wrong, and so are you.
Windows 3.11 or any from 3.0 to the final 3.2 did not require 4MB of RAM.
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and Windows for Workgroups ran perfectly well in 2MB of RAM and did not require 4MB, which was a high-end PC in 1992. You can even force Win3.1 to start in 386 Enhanced Mode on a 1MB RAM PC (with the `/3` switch) and I did it at work almost every day.
3.0 ran fine in 1MB and 3.1 was perfectly usable in that little. As I recall, both wanted a minimum of 1MB for Standard Mode, the 286 protect-mode mode, but it could be forced with a command line switch (`/2` or `/s`) and 2MB for 386 Enhanced Mode.
OS/2 2.0 in 4MB was a normal config and it's what I used on all 3 or 4 of my machines which ran OS/2: two Librex ones and my own Sunrace 486DX50 (note, not DX2) laptop. I couldn't afford more memory.
You are dead wrong. I remember this very well indeed, thank you, and that's why I do things like go on stage and tell the world's largest FOSS conference that they're doing it wrong.
Sure, OS/2 2.0 as a protect-mode 32-bit OS would be better in 8MB and I am sure much better in 16MB, but I never even saw a PC with 16MB of RAM until over a year later. I deployed NT 3.1 in production in 1993, before its first service pack, and then I ordered that user (our brokerage's Head of Research, Eric) a 16MB PC and the thing cost over £5000.
My editor at PC Pro Magazine in 1995, Derek, got the first 32MB upgrade for any of our desktops, and that was so he could run the shiny new Windows 95.
I remember this stuff in a great deal more detail than you do, and what you think you remember is wrong. Every single number you cite is wrong, both version numbers and memory numbers.
I just wish there were opensource OSs (not AOSP) like this for smartphones with full support for GPS, gyro, maps etc. But I guess that is not going to happen with all of the binary blobs.
Kind of an odd statement I think, but I really like the aesthetic of early OS GUIs where you could tell half the tools were pretty much there as developer tools.
Ok, I built the floppy image now. dd'ed it on a floppy and powered my IBM PS/1 up. Despite some nasty sounds of the HDD bearings that went away after 30 seconds, the floppy does not boot on this machine. Just a black screen. 386SX-25 2MB RAM. Maybe 2MB RAM too less, but I thought at least something will happen. :-)
Even on 2MB, you should be able to at least see GRUB, which would tell you that it can't load the kernel. Does it go blank before that? This could mean an issue with either GRUB or the floppy.
In case you have DOS installed on the hard drive, you can also use GRUB4DOS [1] - just put gentleos.elf on C:\, run grub.exe, then `kernel /gentleos.elf`. You may first need to comment out any upper memory managers from config.sys. A bit of an academic exercise since the kernel still won't fit into memory.
Btw. feel free to reach out to me on my profile email. I'll be busy with work for the rest of the week, but later I may look for some workarounds to get it running on 2 megs.
For PS/1 you'll need the 16-bit version from https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos. A floppy image is provided in releases. Note you only need to copy the first 64KB, the rest is just padding for emulators.
The data bus was only 16 bits wide, but that doesn't really have much impact on OS compatibility; it just means that transferring a 32-bit value to or from memory takes two bus clock cycles instead of one. The address bus is only 24 bits wide, but that only affects physical memory address space; it still uses 32-bit pointers and a 32-bit virtual address space.
Do you plan on releasing any documentation on the internals? I'm curious about the memory management and process scheduling, but I'm too lazy to read the source code. :)
Nice! The project also has a 16-bit variant https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos, not clear if it works on 8086 IBM PC, but I'll give it a go. Been looking for a reason to power up my IBM PC again.
Good catch, the yellow and blue colors are totally inspired by BeOS :D I'm even adjusting the default VGA palette to get the right tints in 16-color mode.
I think it's that yellow bar what it makes it look like BeOS. And maybe the right hand menu bar. But once you check a B/W version, it doesn't look like BeOS that much.
Really awesome work! A simple OS for retro x86 hardware is a really cool project! I wish I still had some era-appropriate hardware I could test-drive it on.
I clicked around in the kernel section and the other commenters highlighting the simplicity weren't lying. It's beautiful in its simplicity.
Seeing the screenshots I was kind of expecting this was a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS (forgetting what I read in the submission).
Things that thus surprised me on a cursory look:
- noticed krn_main() ends with `while (1);` [1]. I would've expected a "schedule" call or something. I assume there's no real busy loop burning CPU, maybe it's never meant to reach this code?
- I'm reminded of the "bare metal OS" when I see one of the apps call `krn_\*` functions directly [2].
Thanks, so glad people like the code! I keep looking for ways to make it simpler and more obvious.
> - noticed krn_main() ends with `while (1);` [1]. I would've expected a "schedule" call or something. I assume there's no real busy loop burning CPU, maybe it's never meant to reach this code?
Yeah, `gui_main()` takes over and is not supposed to return, so the code is unreachable. The loop is just an old idiom used in such places (e.g. [1]), though I've now replaced it with a comment and a call to `halt()` to better convey the intention.
> - I'm reminded of the "bare metal OS" when I see one of the apps call `krn_*` functions directly [2].
Yeah... but at least the kernel doesn't call the apps... which it could ;^)
Ahh the Librettos... I had a couple of 50s at one point, one of those looks cool unusable thing and the brittle plastic damn, I opened it and the hinge snapped lmao my heart my soul
Am I crazy or are the "photos" generated? I did have T1800 and it never looked like this. It had a very early very bad grayscale LCD wiht fiddly contrast control, not a perfect crisp vibrant OLED like this page shows.
All the photos are real, though it took me *lots* of time to get them somewhat right. The display on T1800 is indeed "challenging". What helped was:
- Letting it warm for a while
- Putting windows in the right places, because each one generates its own artifacts
- Setting background to dark with the white pattern
- Fiddling with the contrast knob and matching it with the right viewing angle
- Using 2x zoom
To be fair, the default photo app of iPhone 16 automatically reduced some of the artifacts. The only post-processing done myself in GIMP was very basic stuff like adjusting white balance, exposure and contrast.
This reminds me of the era when operating systems felt more approachable and visually distinct. Modern UIs are often cleaner, but many of them have lost some of the personality that older systems had.
The GUI is absolutely gorgeous. Reminds me of the early BeOS days but somehow cleaner. Does this run reliably on bare metal, or is it mostly optimized for QEMU right now?
> A hobby operating system for vintage 32-bit PCs.
I am all in favour of great projects, but why a differentiation between 32-bits or 64-bits? I don't understand that. Is a computer that is 32 bit or 64 bit, either way which, not worthy?
Edit: I understand a motivation if it is on simplicity choosing one or the other, but other than that I don't see why that should ever be a goal worthy to be pursued. Software should really "just work" no matter the number of bits and bytes.
In this context, 32-bit means the minimal requirement. You can absolutely run even the 16-bit version on a 64-bit PC, provided it has BIOS/legacy-boot mode.
It only won't work on modern pure-UEFI systems because that would require writing full stack of USB drivers for keyboard and mouse, and that would be a huge task.
> Edit: I understand a motivation if it is on simplicity choosing one or the other, but other than that I don't see why that should ever be a goal worthy to be pursued. Software should really "just work" no matter the number of bits and bytes.
Yeah, DEC Alpha was the first thing to come to my mind. I guess some might argue it wasn't a "PC" - if you don't include what used to be called "workstations". This is largely because PC meant "personal computer", and very few people could afford their own DEC Alpha - they were very pricey ($20k at some point in the 90's, I believe).
"Vintage" usually refers to actually old stuff, while "retro" refers to new stuff that looks/sounds/feels like old stuff. So GentleOS is a retro OS designed to run on vintage hardware.
(That distinction wasn't clear to me either, so I had to look it up - TIL).
That’s not true in computer terminology. “Retro” has a long history (“vintage” you might say haha) of referring to old hardware and software.
Just type the word “retro” into YouTube (for example) and you’ll see thousands of videos from hundreds of channels spanning decades talking about old games and computers.
x86 boots in 16-bit real mode. Then you need to specifically transition into 32-Bit, and from 32-Bit it can be transitioned to 64-Bit Architecture...
The last step (32-bit to 64-bit) can a bit of a can of worms especially on older platforms where 64-bit implementations can differ greatly and 32-bit "just works tm". 32-bit is quite well supported and has enough resources to make some interesting programs work without much hassle.
I think the author has made the decision not to support 64-bit mode due to needing to balance the complexity and usability of the project. It is a hobby project after all.
Since the author maintains a 16-bit and 32-bit for this project I suppose if you wanted you can always fork and maintain a 64-bit version if you wanted to.
> The only future plans are bugfixes, optimizations, and adding more apps.
Perfect. Nice to see a platform target stability instead of constantly reinventing itself and its APIs. Definitely want to give it a go!
This is great, thanks for releasing your work. Very impressive.
You may get some interest from others in the retrocomputing/permacomputing sphere if you implement an Uxn emulator; it is extremely simple and can run on very limited hardware. https://100r.co/site/uxn.html
Vintage hardware would be a great host for Uxn programs, so I suspect this would generate some excitement.
Thank you so much! Somehow I haven't heard about Uxn before, but it seems very cool and I'll definitely look into it.
You’re welcome. You’d probably appreciate its focus on long-term stability; the authors wanted an environment for their software that would ensure code could stay frozen in a working state forever. The only thing that may need updates is the VM, as the host OS and userland will shift over time, but the VM is designed to be exceptionally easy to implement and maintain. That comes at the cost of some capabilities, but they were specifically aiming for simpler software, so it works out.
Heh, the "small virtual machine" was NOT a lie! Is that less than 200 lines? Very nice!
Now I feel like integrating that into various things....
I think this is fantastic! I love that the code is so clean my dumb ass can understand it despite not using C much.
The code is cleaner that what I was expecting from a C repo. Also, it's quite a feat to fit this into 4 MB on a 386.
> it's quite a feat to fit this into 4 MB on a 386.
I had 2 different Librex 386SX laptops, with 4MB of RAM, on long-term loan from work around 1992. One was quite chunky, the 2nd was a slimline thing with an off-centre hinge.
I ran OS/2 2.0 on them both.
So I could run multiple DOS apps, and a WinOS2 VM containing Windows 3.0, meaning I could run Win16 apps as well. And native OS/2 apps, although I didn't have many.
Here's a pic of the original Librex:
https://books.google.im/books?id=tDwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA27&redir_...
And the 2nd model:
https://www.reddit.com/r/vintagecomputing/comments/10gepdd/l...
TL;DR
A 386 with 4MB is small now but at the time this was a fairly serious workstation-level PC. At the time my work desktop was a 386DX but it had only 1MB of RAM.
In its time a 4MB 386 could run any one of multiple multitasking 32-bit protected-mode OSes, including OS/2 2.x, SCO Xenix, Coherent 3 or 4, DR Concurrent DOS/386, and so on.
This was a high-end bit of kit and with one of these OSes, or even with Quarterdeck DESQview, it could multitask half a dozen large and demanding DOS apps, or maybe a couple of the still fairly new Windows apps such as WinWord 1, or Excel 2.
That's a wonderful machine. I'd love to see that style of keyboard on new stuff.
Its wild to me to think of how much old computers could do relative to new. WordPerfect for DOS was always responsive and quick wheb I used it. I've seen ms word cludge up machines that should have plenty of power to run a word processor.
> I'd love to see that style of keyboard on new stuff.
OMG yes please. :-)
Yep, WP for DOS was quick. Rather clunky UI compared to MS Word for DOS, IMHO, but fast. A friend of mine used a simple method to demo its speed: on his cheap monochrome 286 home computer, he loaded the book he was working on -- one big file, a few hundred pages -- and just held down the cursor key to scroll through the whole thing. It kept the entire doc in RAM and the text just blurred as it zoomed through the entire book in under a minute.
Compared then (early 1990s) to Windows where a similar text took tens of minutes, as my faster computer struggled to load in pages of text from disk, render the fonts, etc.
In the late 1980s, Amstrad introduced new CP/M machines, the PCW range:
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/PCW
They sold for over a decade and shifted about 8 million units. A CP/M computer, in the early Windows era.
Maybe it's time to do that again: a very low-spec machine, but with a crisp e-ink screen and a great premium-grade mechanical keyboard, shipping with a modern FOSS DOS, a compilation of free DOS apps, and some nice friendly graphical launcher. Wrapped up as an easy appliance that doesn't do Internet stuff at all, but makes it trivially easy to save your work on USB media or zap it to modern devices wirelessly.
Form factor of a big late-20th-century laptop, with a massive battery so it can double as a power bank for your phone or something.
My first Linux box was a 386SX with 3 megs of RAM (1 meg on the motherboard plus a 2 meg expansion.) It was a tight fit (SLS Linux, I think?) This would've been around 1992 or 93.
I had a 386SX-16 running OS/2 from 2.1 to 3.0. It was usually fine, you could multitask several OS/2 and DOS applications or a WinOS2 session. It was very easy to get it swapping, though, and when it was swapping, it ground to a halt. It helped a lot putting 8MB on it, though 4 of those were on an ISA card and very slow.
Reminds me of my early-1990s home network server: a late-1980s IBM PS/2 Model 80, a 386 tower built with a moulded iron case. Super tough, fancy 32-bit IBM expansion bus. 4MB of RAM on the motherboard, another 4MB in an expansion slot.
I attached a couple of big SCSI drives and ran Windows NT 3.51 Server on it. When not logged in, it only used a couple of megs of RAM for the OS so file serving performance was tolerable -- and the hardware was literally bulletproof. I dropped one down a flight of stairs in my first job. The computer survived but it knocked lumps out of the concrete stairs on the way down.
I have one those Librex as well. It was fun to play with when it came into my hands back in 1997.
For you to downvote my small comment, and then go on to lecture me about things you have barely any grasp or memory of, is just astounding to me. I currently own at least 5 computers with 4 MB of RAM, part of a collection of computers that is too large to count (hence the project on github).
A 386 with 4MB was the bare minimum to run Windows 3.11, which is considered the first mainstream GUI for PCs. Technically they required 3 MB, but recommended 4 MB.
Topping it all off, you're being disingenuous by suggesting running OS/2 desktop applications with just 4 MB of RAM. OS/2 was _notoriously_ memory hungry. At the very least it required more RAM than Win 3.11 (which recommended 4 MB). While OS/2 required 4 MB, suggested 8 MB as a minimum, but really needed 16 MB to do anything remotely useful.
And for you to not remember that is pretty telling.
Windows 3.1 was probably the first mainstream version of Windows, with significantly less memory requirements (and it ran no problem on a 286 IIRC). Windows 3.11 came almost 1.5 years later (despite the minor version bump), and mostly added networking, which _was_ memory hungry, but back then, people were happily running their computers isolated, especially at home.
I guess my point is, 4MB was really a lot of memory around 1992, and fitting a windowing environment in 640K was more the norm, and not an especially outstanding feat. Just think about GEOS and how it ran on the C64... or the Amiga (with a preemptive OS running on 256KB), or the Atari ST...
> and mostly added networking
Careful. You are confusing Windows 3.11 with Windows for Workgroups 3.11. They were different products, at different times.
This is why version 3.11 of the Linux kernel was called Linux For Workgroups:
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/linux-kernel-3-11-...
That "for Workgroups" meant a whole different OS with a networking layer, protocol stacks, additional dialog boxes in File Manager to map and disconnect network drives and more.
WfWg was both a client and a server.
The first version was WfWg 3.1 which could run on a 286.
The one everyone deployed was WfWg 3.11 which despite its minor version bump was a 32-bit only OS needing 4MB of RAM because it only supported 386 Enhanced Mode. This was the version to contain some of the new tech from the forthcoming Windows 4.0, codenamed "Chicago" and later named "Windows 95".
WfWg 3.11 had 32-bit File Access as well as 3.1's 32-bit Disk Access. 32bFA was internally VFAT.VXD and that's why the Linux FAT16/FAT32 driver is called `VFAT.`
It had a 32-bit network stack in a VXD as well, which optionally supported a LAN-only 32-bit TCP/IP stack.
http://www.thenetworkencyclopedia.com/entry/tcp-ip-32-for-wi...
Here's the README. :-)
If you want it for some unimaginable reason, here is a download:
https://winworldpc.com/product/microsoft-tcp-ip-32/tcpip-32-...
I used a 386sx with 4MB of RAM with OS/2 2.1. It was usable for a lot of things. I certainly used word processors, terminal emulators, and casual games in that config. It did swap something terrible if you pushed it beyond its pretty narrow limits, and unlike Windows 3.1, it had enough promise to encourage you to do so. I found it more useful than Windows 3.1 on the same hardware, because it could reliably run a serial modem download in the background while I did word processing.
With 8MB, it was still pretty easy to send it into swap storms, but the range of what I could multitask was greater. Eventually (very late) I replaced it with a 486 with 16MB, and OS/2 absolutely flew on it. Had lots of headroom beyond what I actually used at the time.
Different people are going to have different experiences, based on what they had and what they used it for.
If you've ever used a 68000 based Macintosh, you were limited to 4 MB RAM and 1 MB seems to have been more typical. It's in a different league to be sure, black and white graphics and multitasking was optional prior to System 7 (and I don't think multitasking was shipped with the System Software until System 6). That removes a lot of the pressure on memory. On the other hand, you had early Amigas supporting both colour and multitasking. The 1000 shipped with 256 kB RAM and 256 kB ROM (though I think 512 MB RAM was more typical). For an Apples to Apples comparison, the original Macintosh had 128 kB RAM and 64 kB ROM.
Windows 3.x and OS/2 2.x were later in the game, so they were designed for systems with more RAM. They also supported virtual memory. That meant there was less pressure on developers to write memory efficient code. I'm not really qualified to judge realistic memory requirements for OS/2 since I only used Warp on a system with 16 MB RAM, but I recall many people using Windows 95 on systems with 4 MB RAM. The requirements for both operating systems were similar. It's also worth noting that Windows 3.11 was rather late in the game. The system requirements were climbing rather quickly at that point.
The "MultiFinder" extension allowing cooperative multitasking was actually included with "System Software 5", but I don't think I used it myself until System 6.
Same here. It was at least marginally more stable on "System Six."
> For you to downvote my small comment
I didn't. I checked. I have not.
> go on to lecture me about things you have barely any grasp or memory of,
No, this is not true or accurate. It is a personal attack.
I am a tech professional and I was back then as well. I ran Windows 2.0 and deployed 3.0 in production; I deployed and supported Windows 3.0, 3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (a different product of little importance except historically), 3.11 (a minor service pack), Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (a totally separate product you don't even mention), as well as NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4, 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, and more.
By casually mentioning something that barely mattered -- Windows 3.11 -- you show me that you know less than me about this stuff, and which I recall vividly and clearly. I still run OS/2 today. I reviewed the current version, because yes it is still alive:
https://www.theregister.com/software/2023/09/04/arcaos-51-gi...
I interviewed the company founder:
https://www.theregister.com/software/2023/01/19/os/2-warp-on...
Contrary to your claims, you are attempting to lecture me and I am not putting up with that. I built and supported entire corporate networks of Windows for Workgroups 3.11 computers, and I found bugs in it I personally filed with Microsoft, before Microsoft even had a website.
Windows 3.11 merits a single paragraph on Wikipedia and even that is substantially incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1#Windows_3.11
It did not have any peer-to-peer networking: that is the editors confusing Windows 3.11 with the totally separate Windows for Workgroups 3.11. The distinguishing feature of WfWg is peer-to-peer networking.
You claims are factually incorrect.
Windows 3.11 was not the first mainstream GUI for PCs. Neither was Windows 3.1, a different earlier product. If anything it was DR GEM, which I have written about as well.
https://www.theregister.com/software/2022/08/04/the-many-der...
You'll find my name in the release notes for FreeGEM, because I was involved in that project in the 1990s.
Windows 3.0 was the first mainstream version of Windows.
I was there and told my boss he should order as many copies as he could get because it would sell out on the day of launch (May 1990). We had a queue outside the door before we opened at 9AM that morning. We had a grand total of 17 copies. They all sold in the first 2 minutes. I was right; he was wrong, and so are you.
Windows 3.11 or any from 3.0 to the final 3.2 did not require 4MB of RAM.
Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and Windows for Workgroups ran perfectly well in 2MB of RAM and did not require 4MB, which was a high-end PC in 1992. You can even force Win3.1 to start in 386 Enhanced Mode on a 1MB RAM PC (with the `/3` switch) and I did it at work almost every day.
3.0 ran fine in 1MB and 3.1 was perfectly usable in that little. As I recall, both wanted a minimum of 1MB for Standard Mode, the 286 protect-mode mode, but it could be forced with a command line switch (`/2` or `/s`) and 2MB for 386 Enhanced Mode.
https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/9906/windows-3-0-3-1...
OS/2 2.0 in 4MB was a normal config and it's what I used on all 3 or 4 of my machines which ran OS/2: two Librex ones and my own Sunrace 486DX50 (note, not DX2) laptop. I couldn't afford more memory.
You are dead wrong. I remember this very well indeed, thank you, and that's why I do things like go on stage and tell the world's largest FOSS conference that they're doing it wrong.
https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/interviews/liam-proven/
Sure, OS/2 2.0 as a protect-mode 32-bit OS would be better in 8MB and I am sure much better in 16MB, but I never even saw a PC with 16MB of RAM until over a year later. I deployed NT 3.1 in production in 1993, before its first service pack, and then I ordered that user (our brokerage's Head of Research, Eric) a 16MB PC and the thing cost over £5000.
My editor at PC Pro Magazine in 1995, Derek, got the first 32MB upgrade for any of our desktops, and that was so he could run the shiny new Windows 95.
I remember this stuff in a great deal more detail than you do, and what you think you remember is wrong. Every single number you cite is wrong, both version numbers and memory numbers.
I just wish there were opensource OSs (not AOSP) like this for smartphones with full support for GPS, gyro, maps etc. But I guess that is not going to happen with all of the binary blobs.
Kind of an odd statement I think, but I really like the aesthetic of early OS GUIs where you could tell half the tools were pretty much there as developer tools.
A pre-build floppy disk image would be great, so I could run it on my IBM PS/1 from a floppy.
Ok, I built the floppy image now. dd'ed it on a floppy and powered my IBM PS/1 up. Despite some nasty sounds of the HDD bearings that went away after 30 seconds, the floppy does not boot on this machine. Just a black screen. 386SX-25 2MB RAM. Maybe 2MB RAM too less, but I thought at least something will happen. :-)
Even on 2MB, you should be able to at least see GRUB, which would tell you that it can't load the kernel. Does it go blank before that? This could mean an issue with either GRUB or the floppy.
Yes, it goes blank before GRUB and after 2MB count-up. I ruled out a defective floppy too. I suspect GRUB?
Yep, possibly.
In case you have DOS installed on the hard drive, you can also use GRUB4DOS [1] - just put gentleos.elf on C:\, run grub.exe, then `kernel /gentleos.elf`. You may first need to comment out any upper memory managers from config.sys. A bit of an academic exercise since the kernel still won't fit into memory.
Btw. feel free to reach out to me on my profile email. I'll be busy with work for the rest of the week, but later I may look for some workarounds to get it running on 2 megs.
[1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/grub4dos/
There seems to be an 8 meg image here: https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos32/releases/download/202...
Someone prepare a set of floppy disk images so you can get the proper installation experience.
Including the mandatory corruption on the last one.
This is a hdd image, I guess.
I'm curious what model of PS/1? My first PC was a PS/1 model 2011, with a 286@10Mhz.
Also, there's an emulator for PS/1 machines at https://www.ibmulator.org/
For PS/1 you'll need the 16-bit version from https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos. A floppy image is provided in releases. Note you only need to copy the first 64KB, the rest is just padding for emulators.
Ah, even though the 386SX-25 is 32bit in my PS/1? Will try it eventually.
Oh sorry, a quick google check told me PS/1 had 286. 386SX itself should be supported, the monochrome Toshiba on the photo has 386SX/20 with 10MB RAM.
Anyway, I tried the 16bit version, and it works like a charm!! Thank you. Here's a video of the boot, I've just made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fSsTa8Oc48
Although, the floppy light does not turn off. Not sure, if this a problem with the OS or my hardware.
Yes, the CPU is full 32-bits, but the bus in a 386 SX is only 16 bit. Those PS/1's are such a cool piece of computing history!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386#80386SX
The data bus was only 16 bits wide, but that doesn't really have much impact on OS compatibility; it just means that transferring a 32-bit value to or from memory takes two bus clock cycles instead of one. The address bus is only 24 bits wide, but that only affects physical memory address space; it still uses 32-bit pointers and a 32-bit virtual address space.
Do you plan on releasing any documentation on the internals? I'm curious about the memory management and process scheduling, but I'm too lazy to read the source code. :)
Nice! The project also has a 16-bit variant https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos, not clear if it works on 8086 IBM PC, but I'll give it a go. Been looking for a reason to power up my IBM PC again.
GUI looks a but BeOS inspired, but somehow even cleaner.
Good catch, the yellow and blue colors are totally inspired by BeOS :D I'm even adjusting the default VGA palette to get the right tints in 16-color mode.
I think it's that yellow bar what it makes it look like BeOS. And maybe the right hand menu bar. But once you check a B/W version, it doesn't look like BeOS that much.
More like a Win 3.1 theme with BeOS colors and a NeXT desktop.
Made me think of Breadbox Ensemble, which is GEOS, and was really lovely.
Oh, we had an "enthusiast" customer back around the turn of the century who swore by this and NetZero.
Microsoft is still doing fine, sir.
FWIW, still around and now FOSS.
https://github.com/bluewaysw/pcgeos
Really awesome work! A simple OS for retro x86 hardware is a really cool project! I wish I still had some era-appropriate hardware I could test-drive it on.
Part of why these images look so nice is because these systems were not so locked down.
This might be nice on one of those pocket x86 machines, but I'm not nostalgic enough to try it out.
There weren't too many GUIs that used the PC-BIOS font. Most of them wanted to get away from that.
I clicked around in the kernel section and the other commenters highlighting the simplicity weren't lying. It's beautiful in its simplicity.
Seeing the screenshots I was kind of expecting this was a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS (forgetting what I read in the submission).
Things that thus surprised me on a cursory look:
[1]: https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos32/blob/main/kernel/main...[2]: https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos32/blob/ea691f14635c023d...
Thanks, so glad people like the code! I keep looking for ways to make it simpler and more obvious.
> - noticed krn_main() ends with `while (1);` [1]. I would've expected a "schedule" call or something. I assume there's no real busy loop burning CPU, maybe it's never meant to reach this code?
Yeah, `gui_main()` takes over and is not supposed to return, so the code is unreachable. The loop is just an old idiom used in such places (e.g. [1]), though I've now replaced it with a comment and a call to `halt()` to better convey the intention.
> - I'm reminded of the "bare metal OS" when I see one of the apps call `krn_*` functions directly [2].
Yeah... but at least the kernel doesn't call the apps... which it could ;^)
[1] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/sys/x86/x86...
Love the photos of it running on 386/486 laptops. So cute!
Does this OS (either the 16 bit or 32 bit version) require apps built for it, or is it compatible with DOS or Windows 3.x or any other OS.
Ahh the Librettos... I had a couple of 50s at one point, one of those looks cool unusable thing and the brittle plastic damn, I opened it and the hinge snapped lmao my heart my soul
Unusuable because of how small the keys are
Am I crazy or are the "photos" generated? I did have T1800 and it never looked like this. It had a very early very bad grayscale LCD wiht fiddly contrast control, not a perfect crisp vibrant OLED like this page shows.
example how one looks like irl https://allegrolokalnie.pl/oferta/laptop-toshiba-t1800 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxIc_UVKxvc
All the photos are real, though it took me *lots* of time to get them somewhat right. The display on T1800 is indeed "challenging". What helped was:
- Letting it warm for a while
- Putting windows in the right places, because each one generates its own artifacts
- Setting background to dark with the white pattern
- Fiddling with the contrast knob and matching it with the right viewing angle
- Using 2x zoom
To be fair, the default photo app of iPhone 16 automatically reduced some of the artifacts. The only post-processing done myself in GIMP was very basic stuff like adjusting white balance, exposure and contrast.
Here you can see a few very quick-n-dirty photos I just took for comparison - https://imgur.com/a/6Xz6vc8
First photo is what I expected and remember. I still dont know how you managed to arrive at the third one, I call witchcraft! :)
Perhaps a new panel was retrofitted into it?
OLED panel? that would be a bigger hack than this OS :) Either all pictures are AI generated using QEMU templates that were there previously https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos32/commit/d40576226b7020... or those are real pictured beautified by AI. YT loves doing that to thumbnails, example https://hackaday.com/2026/06/03/hydraulic-drive-for-your-law...
The only AI-generated artifact is the cyberpunk wallpaper from the last photo, I'll admit that :)
Btw. the QEMU screenshots are still in the repo in https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos32/tree/main/doc/appimg
What a lovely-looking OS! Also great to hear that the project isn't aiming for infinite changes!
Will be digging out some old hardware to test it out very soon, this is exciting!
<3<3<3
This reminds me of the era when operating systems felt more approachable and visually distinct. Modern UIs are often cleaner, but many of them have lost some of the personality that older systems had.
The GUI is absolutely gorgeous. Reminds me of the early BeOS days but somehow cleaner. Does this run reliably on bare metal, or is it mostly optimized for QEMU right now?
> A hobby operating system for vintage 32-bit PCs.
I am all in favour of great projects, but why a differentiation between 32-bits or 64-bits? I don't understand that. Is a computer that is 32 bit or 64 bit, either way which, not worthy?
Edit: I understand a motivation if it is on simplicity choosing one or the other, but other than that I don't see why that should ever be a goal worthy to be pursued. Software should really "just work" no matter the number of bits and bytes.
In this context, 32-bit means the minimal requirement. You can absolutely run even the 16-bit version on a 64-bit PC, provided it has BIOS/legacy-boot mode.
It only won't work on modern pure-UEFI systems because that would require writing full stack of USB drivers for keyboard and mouse, and that would be a huge task.
“Vintage” 64 bit PC’s aren’t a thing.
> Edit: I understand a motivation if it is on simplicity choosing one or the other, but other than that I don't see why that should ever be a goal worthy to be pursued. Software should really "just work" no matter the number of bits and bytes.
Not really how software works.
> “Vintage” 64 bit PC’s aren’t a thing.
Just sold my SGI Indigo 2 for 900 $ ! Vintage 64 bit is absolutely a thing. :-)
they said PCs
The DEC 3000 would like to have a word with you.
It even has 64 bit "word" size!
Yeah, DEC Alpha was the first thing to come to my mind. I guess some might argue it wasn't a "PC" - if you don't include what used to be called "workstations". This is largely because PC meant "personal computer", and very few people could afford their own DEC Alpha - they were very pricey ($20k at some point in the 90's, I believe).
Itanium was released 25 years ago now...
Whilst that’s definitely old in computer terms, even “retro”, is it old enough to be “vintage”?
Personally I’d have said it isn’t. But these terms are subjective.
"Vintage" usually refers to actually old stuff, while "retro" refers to new stuff that looks/sounds/feels like old stuff. So GentleOS is a retro OS designed to run on vintage hardware.
(That distinction wasn't clear to me either, so I had to look it up - TIL).
That’s not true in computer terminology. “Retro” has a long history (“vintage” you might say haha) of referring to old hardware and software.
Just type the word “retro” into YouTube (for example) and you’ll see thousands of videos from hundreds of channels spanning decades talking about old games and computers.
Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_gaming
Don't worry, this is portable to both vintage word sizes: 32 and 16.
x86 boots in 16-bit real mode. Then you need to specifically transition into 32-Bit, and from 32-Bit it can be transitioned to 64-Bit Architecture...
The last step (32-bit to 64-bit) can a bit of a can of worms especially on older platforms where 64-bit implementations can differ greatly and 32-bit "just works tm". 32-bit is quite well supported and has enough resources to make some interesting programs work without much hassle.
I think the author has made the decision not to support 64-bit mode due to needing to balance the complexity and usability of the project. It is a hobby project after all.
Since the author maintains a 16-bit and 32-bit for this project I suppose if you wanted you can always fork and maintain a 64-bit version if you wanted to.
32 is vintager vintage
32 bit vinteger ;-)
You can do 32 bit voolean too, great for that vintage bitmasks to store application flags. =]