<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><transcript><text start="0.12" dur="7.08">I just recently did a video about os2</text><text start="3.6" dur="7.619">1.3 which had a UI that shared</text><text start="7.2" dur="7.08">remarkable resemblance to Windows 3.x</text><text start="11.219" dur="5.701">being both a child of IBM and Microsoft</text><text start="14.28" dur="5.4">the latter was in the best position to</text><text start="16.92" dur="5.58">bring their Windows software over to os2</text><text start="19.68" dur="6.78">and so they did with Microsoft Word</text><text start="22.5" dur="6.599">Excel and even the windows 3.0 applets</text><text start="26.46" dur="5.76">today we&amp;#39;re gonna look at an early</text><text start="29.099" dur="6.541">version of Windows NT but did you know</text><text start="32.22" dur="6.72">that Windows NT actually merged from os2</text><text start="35.64" dur="5.099">and was rumored to become anti os2</text><text start="38.94" dur="4.74">version 3.</text><text start="40.739" dur="6">it&amp;#39;s obsolete technology no one uses</text><text start="43.68" dur="5.219">today but I&amp;#39;ll bring it back to life I&amp;#39;m</text><text start="46.739" dur="3.981">the Vintage collector and these are my</text><text start="48.899" dur="4.221">stories</text><text start="50.72" dur="6.04">[Music]</text><text start="53.12" dur="5.8">when digging around when willpc.com I</text><text start="56.76" dur="5.4">stumbled across this interesting bit</text><text start="58.92" dur="5.04">here the presentation manager add-on for</text><text start="62.16" dur="3.959">Windows NT</text><text start="63.96" dur="4.56">in case you&amp;#39;re not familiar with the</text><text start="66.119" dur="6.301">presentation manager that was the name</text><text start="68.52" dur="6.36">of the graphical UI of os2 release 1.1</text><text start="72.42" dur="6">through 1.3</text><text start="74.88" dur="7.32">now why would Microsoft support the os2</text><text start="78.42" dur="6.059">presentation manager on Windows NT as</text><text start="82.2" dur="7.38">the PM package is only offered from</text><text start="84.479" dur="9.241">Windows and T 3.51 and NT 4.0 I&amp;#39;m giving</text><text start="89.58" dur="7.44">it a shot with NT 3.51 first</text><text start="93.72" dur="5.82">my guinea pig is the expert 286 machine</text><text start="97.02" dur="3.9">that was previously featured on this</text><text start="99.54" dur="4.079">video here</text><text start="100.92" dur="5.519">I don&amp;#39;t want to fiddle around with 22</text><text start="103.619" dur="6.481">floppy disks so I took a CD-ROM version</text><text start="106.439" dur="6.841">and copied the i386 folder onto the hard</text><text start="110.1" dur="4.559">drive to perform a local disk to disk</text><text start="113.28" dur="5.82">install</text><text start="114.659" dur="6">you&amp;#39;ll find given nt.exe in the i386</text><text start="119.1" dur="4.559">directory</text><text start="120.659" dur="6.301">it offers various options even to create</text><text start="123.659" dur="7.501">a floppy disk set but we&amp;#39;re not gonna do</text><text start="126.96" dur="6.96">that instead I&amp;#39;ll run with nt.exe with</text><text start="131.16" dur="4.2">the slash B parameter for a direct</text><text start="133.92" dur="4.679">install</text><text start="135.36" dur="6.84">during this era Windows NT was still</text><text start="138.599" dur="5.761">installable directly from dos so here we</text><text start="142.2" dur="4.86">see the initial preparation routine</text><text start="144.36" dur="5.58">which will eventually perform a reboot</text><text start="147.06" dur="4.98">before it comes up in the actual NT</text><text start="149.94" dur="4.68">driven setup</text><text start="152.04" dur="5.52">this one again will perform some file</text><text start="154.62" dur="5.699">copying actions so we get to see yet</text><text start="157.56" dur="6.179">another progress bar before we finally</text><text start="160.319" dur="7.14">hit the graphical UI not without going</text><text start="163.739" dur="6.841">through yet another reboot of course</text><text start="167.459" dur="5.581">and this is where the madness began as I</text><text start="170.58" dur="5.46">forgot to connect the mouse</text><text start="173.04" dur="5.58">so I did reset reconnected the mouse</text><text start="176.04" dur="3.96">only to find this message on the next</text><text start="178.62" dur="4.04">reboot</text><text start="180" dur="6.599">oh well I should have known better</text><text start="182.66" dur="7.18">Windows NT 3.x did obviously not yet</text><text start="186.599" dur="4.441">feature resuming capabilities for the OS</text><text start="189.84" dur="4.1">setup</text><text start="191.04" dur="6.24">so I went back to Dawson rerun with</text><text start="193.94" dur="7.12">nt.exe which in fact claimed to clean up</text><text start="197.28" dur="6.179">some temporary installation files hence</text><text start="201.06" dur="4.92">I ran through the same procedure once</text><text start="203.459" dur="5.7">again eventually even getting to see</text><text start="205.98" dur="6">some of the GUI setup</text><text start="209.159" dur="5.901">but wait a second it didn&amp;#39;t ask me</text><text start="211.98" dur="6">anything not even to set a new password</text><text start="215.06" dur="6.459">I don&amp;#39;t know what exactly setup is doing</text><text start="217.98" dur="6.24">here but I have a bad feeling about it</text><text start="221.519" dur="6.421">and I stand confirmed once the system</text><text start="224.22" dur="6.06">rebooted I do get a login prompt but as</text><text start="227.94" dur="3.9">I have no credentials I&amp;#39;m essentially</text><text start="230.28" dur="5.16">stuck here</text><text start="231.84" dur="6">so all good things are three I went to</text><text start="235.44" dur="5.519">wipe Drive C completely and start over</text><text start="237.84" dur="6.3">again but eventually I end up on the</text><text start="240.959" dur="6.241">graphical UI as I had expected in the</text><text start="244.14" dur="6.239">first place if only I didn&amp;#39;t bail out</text><text start="247.2" dur="6.239">from it before but at least you get to</text><text start="250.379" dur="5.461">see the third file copying progress bar</text><text start="253.439" dur="5.881">as if the two before weren&amp;#39;t enough</text><text start="255.84" dur="5.82">already and finally we end up on the</text><text start="259.32" dur="5.939">login screen again which this time</text><text start="261.66" dur="7.74">admits me into this system if you knew</text><text start="265.259" dur="7.261">windows 3.x then Windows NT 3.51 will</text><text start="269.4" dur="5.22">look very familiar except that it comes</text><text start="272.52" dur="4.56">with another accessory group for the</text><text start="274.62" dur="4.92">administrative tools</text><text start="277.08" dur="5.28">from here you can manage your system</text><text start="279.54" dur="5.4">uses the hard drives have a look at the</text><text start="282.36" dur="4.5">system performance and even diagnose</text><text start="284.94" dur="5.28">your system</text><text start="286.86" dur="6.54">now if you&amp;#39;re wondering why NT started</text><text start="290.22" dur="7.58">only with release 3.1 and why there was</text><text start="293.4" dur="7.44">no releases 1.0 or 2.0 here&amp;#39;s the answer</text><text start="297.8" dur="6.94">Microsoft intentionally released Windows</text><text start="300.84" dur="6.54">nt7 workstation has released 3.1 to put</text><text start="304.74" dur="5.28">it on par with the then current dos</text><text start="307.38" dur="6.3">based Windows 3.1</text><text start="310.02" dur="5.94">that was not the only reason if anything</text><text start="313.68" dur="5.1">they claimed that there was no previous</text><text start="315.96" dur="6.12">release of Windows NT is not fully</text><text start="318.78" dur="6.06">correct at least in a broader sense</text><text start="322.08" dur="4.679">it is correct that windows and T is for</text><text start="324.84" dur="5.699">the most new operating system</text><text start="326.759" dur="7.321">development mostly driven by David N</text><text start="330.539" dur="7.44">Cutler of deck Fame whom developed the</text><text start="334.08" dur="6.899">VMS operating system as a consequence</text><text start="337.979" dur="6.301">Windows NT Builds on many fundamental</text><text start="340.979" dur="6.78">Design Concepts found in VMS</text><text start="344.28" dur="6.419">but that&amp;#39;s only half the story Windows</text><text start="347.759" dur="6.361">NT included various subsystems or</text><text start="350.699" dur="6.661">operating system personalities four at</text><text start="354.12" dur="5.579">the very beginning to run classic 16-bit</text><text start="357.36" dur="4.559">Windows applications Through the Windows</text><text start="359.699" dur="6.241">on Windows subsystem</text><text start="361.919" dur="7.141">dos applications yrd dos vdm</text><text start="365.94" dur="6.86">posix text mode applications so</text><text start="369.06" dur="8.699">basically a unique subset and finally</text><text start="372.8" dur="7.959">16-bit os2 text mode applications</text><text start="377.759" dur="5.88">it would be wrong to say that Windows NT</text><text start="380.759" dur="5.401">is built on those two technology but in</text><text start="383.639" dur="5.521">the broader of all senses one may think</text><text start="386.16" dur="6.479">of os2 releases one point x still as</text><text start="389.16" dur="6.3">being a precursor to NT to add to this</text><text start="392.639" dur="6.06">claim many resources State and when</text><text start="395.46" dur="6.48">Microsoft and IBM parted ways from their</text><text start="398.699" dur="6.301">previous joint development on os2 rbn</text><text start="401.94" dur="6.3">went on to developers to release 2.x</text><text start="405" dur="6.3">whereas Microsoft took what once was</text><text start="408.24" dur="5.579">called ntos2</text><text start="411.3" dur="5.1">that&amp;#39;s also the reason why do is to</text><text start="413.819" dur="6">subsystem in Windows NT is limited to</text><text start="416.4" dur="6.359">the release 1.x as Microsoft had the</text><text start="419.819" dur="5.94">source code only for that and not the</text><text start="422.759" dur="6">later os2 release 2 branch</text><text start="425.759" dur="6.241">and to come back to the reason why NT</text><text start="428.759" dur="6.72">launched as release 3.1</text><text start="432" dur="6.72">os2 released 2.x was already out at the</text><text start="435.479" dur="5.521">time when NT 3.1 came along</text><text start="438.72" dur="5.52">so it was only natural to put the</text><text start="441" dur="4.5">version 3 in here to say hey we&amp;#39;re one</text><text start="444.24" dur="4.14">ahead</text><text start="445.5" dur="5.28">and while NT eventually ended up being</text><text start="448.38" dur="5.52">something entirely different he took</text><text start="450.78" dur="6.419">some Heritage alone not only the os2</text><text start="453.9" dur="6.48">sub-system but also support for os2&amp;#39;s</text><text start="457.199" dur="6.181">hbfs the high performance file system</text><text start="460.38" dur="6.319">but on a timeline perspective this all</text><text start="463.38" dur="7.259">happened in the period of around 1988 to</text><text start="466.699" dur="6.521">1993. now it&amp;#39;s interesting the Microsoft</text><text start="470.639" dur="6.661">released the presentation manager add-on</text><text start="473.22" dur="7.62">for Windows NT only for NT 3.51 which</text><text start="477.3" dur="6.899">came in May 1995 so roughly four months</text><text start="480.84" dur="6.9">before the release of windows 95.</text><text start="484.199" dur="7.56">and again for Windows NT 4.0 coming in</text><text start="487.74" dur="6.299">1996 the presentation manager addon was</text><text start="491.759" dur="4.56">also made available</text><text start="494.039" dur="4.141">to my best knowledge though there was</text><text start="496.319" dur="6">never a version of the presentation</text><text start="498.18" dur="7.139">manager for NT 3.1 or at least none that</text><text start="502.319" dur="5.16">is available and documented</text><text start="505.319" dur="5.1">who makes it interesting though is that</text><text start="507.479" dur="7.321">os2 was surely not strategic anymore for</text><text start="510.419" dur="7.56">Microsoft in 1995 except maybe for one</text><text start="514.8" dur="6.239">reason to win over a deal for certain</text><text start="517.979" dur="6.601">customers whom have previously invested</text><text start="521.039" dur="5.341">into os2 1.x and should be given a</text><text start="524.58" dur="5.04">transitional option</text><text start="526.38" dur="6.6">that&amp;#39;s the only reason I can imagine why</text><text start="529.62" dur="5.82">this add-on exists it comes on five</text><text start="532.98" dur="4.979">floppies and as opposed to other markers</text><text start="535.44" dur="5.16">of products it doesn&amp;#39;t really look very</text><text start="537.959" dur="5.82">polished as it features only this very</text><text start="540.6" dur="5.4">basic text mode batch installer and</text><text start="543.779" dur="4.74">while it seems a bit weird seeing how is</text><text start="546" dur="5.1">too fast being installed into Windows</text><text start="548.519" dur="6.601">you&amp;#39;ll end up with a new program group</text><text start="551.1" dur="7.08">for the PM subsystem in program manager</text><text start="555.12" dur="4.26">as usual reboot is required to get it up</text><text start="558.18" dur="4.62">and running</text><text start="559.38" dur="5.76">as opposed to the real os2 which had its</text><text start="562.8" dur="4.32">own application launcher this is fully</text><text start="565.14" dur="4.86">replaced with the Windows NT program</text><text start="567.12" dur="4.02">manager and the icons appear here as</text><text start="570" dur="3.36">shown</text><text start="571.14" dur="5.639">but you have to be aware that the PM</text><text start="573.36" dur="5.7">shell has to be running as otherwise if</text><text start="576.779" dur="5.821">you try running just any random applet</text><text start="579.06" dur="5.76">you&amp;#39;ll get this error so just be sure to</text><text start="582.6" dur="3.54">run the PM Shell First and you&amp;#39;ll be</text><text start="584.82" dur="3.959">fine</text><text start="586.14" dur="5.16">running the PM shell just like this will</text><text start="588.779" dur="4.201">switch over to another desktop where you</text><text start="591.3" dur="4.62">won&amp;#39;t find much</text><text start="592.98" dur="5.52">as opposed to the real os2 where you&amp;#39;d</text><text start="595.92" dur="4.38">have the desktop manager kind of the</text><text start="598.5" dur="4.98">similar thing to the windows program</text><text start="600.3" dur="6.599">manager to launch your applications this</text><text start="603.48" dur="5.46">is totally absent when running an NT</text><text start="606.899" dur="3.961">it&amp;#39;s no big deal to run your</text><text start="608.94" dur="5.28">applications from Windows program</text><text start="610.86" dur="5.88">manager however if you intend to start</text><text start="614.22" dur="4.86">multiple applications you&amp;#39;d be always</text><text start="616.74" dur="5.219">jumping forward and back between the two</text><text start="619.08" dur="5.28">desktop environments which you can do by</text><text start="621.959" dur="5.161">simply clicking the small Windows NT</text><text start="624.36" dur="6.9">icon on the lower right</text><text start="627.12" dur="6.36">not exactly the way I&amp;#39;d Define usability</text><text start="631.26" dur="5.04">it&amp;#39;s a pity they didn&amp;#39;t invest into</text><text start="633.48" dur="5.7">seamless windowing mode kind of similar</text><text start="636.3" dur="6">as to what os2 did with Windows 3.x</text><text start="639.18" dur="6.24">applications in later releases to have</text><text start="642.3" dur="5.279">them appear on the native desktop</text><text start="645.42" dur="4.62">now the install disk for the</text><text start="647.579" dur="5.401">presentation manager includes a readme</text><text start="650.04" dur="5.88">file which gives also some hints on</text><text start="652.98" dur="6.479">installing the real os2 file manager</text><text start="655.92" dur="5.52">which unfortunately is not included with</text><text start="659.459" dur="4.38">the package</text><text start="661.44" dur="5.399">of course Windows NT has its own file</text><text start="663.839" dur="5.701">manager but as a comparison I took the</text><text start="666.839" dur="4.321">os2 file manager and copied the files</text><text start="669.54" dur="4.16">over manually</text><text start="671.16" dur="5.94">I&amp;#39;ll also create the program icon</text><text start="673.7" dur="6.04">Windows own program exe already provides</text><text start="677.1" dur="5.16">some icons though I believe none is</text><text start="679.74" dur="5.099">suitable let&amp;#39;s see eventy&amp;#39;s own</text><text start="682.26" dur="4.68">winfolder DXE has something more</text><text start="684.839" dur="5.701">appealing</text><text start="686.94" dur="6.42">okay this one looks decent let&amp;#39;s fire</text><text start="690.54" dur="7.28">them up both and have them side by side</text><text start="693.36" dur="4.46">this is really awesome don&amp;#39;t you think</text><text start="698.16" dur="5.76">last time when I played around with os2</text><text start="700.8" dur="5.099">1.3 I went into installing the os2</text><text start="703.92" dur="5.28">presentation manager versions of</text><text start="705.899" dur="5.701">Microsoft&amp;#39;s word in Excel let&amp;#39;s see how</text><text start="709.2" dur="6.12">good the compatibility of the os2</text><text start="711.6" dur="7.08">subsystem on NT really is as if you can</text><text start="715.32" dur="6.12">actually run these two applications</text><text start="718.68" dur="6">this setup process looks just about fine</text><text start="721.44" dur="6.18">the installers run through like a charm</text><text start="724.68" dur="5.7">as noted earlier on the PM desktop</text><text start="727.62" dur="5.159">manager is absent so I&amp;#39;m curious to see</text><text start="730.38" dur="4.98">what happens now as it&amp;#39;s asking to</text><text start="732.779" dur="5.461">create the program icons</text><text start="735.36" dur="6.36">now that&amp;#39;s really nice Microsoft</text><text start="738.24" dur="5.9">obviously extended DPM subsystem in a</text><text start="741.72" dur="5.1">way that the program group creation is</text><text start="744.14" dur="4.36">intercepted and redirected to windows</text><text start="746.82" dur="4.5">program manager</text><text start="748.5" dur="5.04">so the icons are created here although</text><text start="751.32" dur="4.259">with some very generic icons even</text><text start="753.54" dur="3.9">referring to them being MS-DOS</text><text start="755.579" dur="5.101">applications</text><text start="757.44" dur="5.16">that&amp;#39;s sort of a missed opportunity as</text><text start="760.68" dur="5.219">at least they should have been including</text><text start="762.6" dur="5.88">a genericos to icon in my opinion</text><text start="765.899" dur="4.981">and still I think it would have been</text><text start="768.48" dur="4.34">really nice to have the desktop manager</text><text start="770.88" dur="4.32">on the presentation manager as well</text><text start="772.82" dur="4.18">don&amp;#39;t tell me this couldn&amp;#39;t have been</text><text start="775.2" dur="4.379">co-existing</text><text start="777" dur="4.86">to put it even further on trial let&amp;#39;s</text><text start="779.579" dur="6.06">also install the windows native version</text><text start="781.86" dur="6.3">of excel 3.0 as implied by the technical</text><text start="785.639" dur="5.281">limitations how presentation manager</text><text start="788.16" dur="5.7">applications are run on Windows and T I</text><text start="790.92" dur="6.24">cannot put them side by side directly so</text><text start="793.86" dur="6.539">I need to use again some video trickery</text><text start="797.16" dur="5.78">nevertheless it&amp;#39;s totally fascinating to</text><text start="800.399" dur="5.401">see literally one empty same application</text><text start="802.94" dur="6.04">compiled for different operating systems</text><text start="805.8" dur="7.26">running side by side on the same host OS</text><text start="808.98" dur="6.78">and this for 1995 technology</text><text start="813.06" dur="5.219">one may say many things about Microsoft</text><text start="815.76" dur="5.16">but these guys have really done a nice</text><text start="818.279" dur="4.981">job here to make that work</text><text start="820.92" dur="4.02">also wanted to give it a shot with the</text><text start="823.26" dur="4.68">presentation manager version of</text><text start="824.94" dur="5.699">Microsoft Word and while it did actually</text><text start="827.94" dur="4.8">install whenever I try running it it</text><text start="830.639" dur="4.981">would quickly switch over to the PM</text><text start="832.74" dur="4.44">shell and immediately drop back to the</text><text start="835.62" dur="4.26">Windows desktop</text><text start="837.18" dur="4.74">something is definitely wrong here but</text><text start="839.88" dur="4.92">let&amp;#39;s leave it at that</text><text start="841.92" dur="5.46">at least that&amp;#39;s what I thought though on</text><text start="844.8" dur="4.74">the next reboot I get this error which</text><text start="847.38" dur="4.92">is directly related to Windows NT</text><text start="849.54" dur="4.919">failing to load some dependency that was</text><text start="852.3" dur="4.14">introduced by the os2 version of</text><text start="854.459" dur="4.68">Microsoft Word</text><text start="856.44" dur="5.04">I recovered from this situation using</text><text start="859.139" dur="4.38">the last known good recovery option on</text><text start="861.48" dur="5.58">nt&amp;#39;s boot manager</text><text start="863.519" dur="6.601">my last video now is 2 1.3 also featured</text><text start="867.06" dur="5.1">the windows 3.0 applets for os2 which</text><text start="870.12" dur="4.38">were made to run using the willow</text><text start="872.16" dur="5.4">compatibility layer not too different</text><text start="874.5" dur="4.92">from the wine API implementation in</text><text start="877.56" dur="4.8">later years</text><text start="879.42" dur="6.3">it totally fascinated me how this made</text><text start="882.36" dur="6.24">the windows native apples run in os2 and</text><text start="885.72" dur="5.34">I wanted to really push it now and see</text><text start="888.6" dur="5.82">if I can actually install in Romney&amp;#39;s</text><text start="891.06" dur="5.459">applets on Windows NT as well I know</text><text start="894.42" dur="5.46">that this is kind of pointless as</text><text start="896.519" dur="6.06">Windows and T 3.x includes the very same</text><text start="899.88" dur="5.22">applets already but it&amp;#39;s all about the</text><text start="902.579" dur="4.921">demonstration purposes</text><text start="905.1" dur="5.099">the installation again is CLI driven</text><text start="907.5" dur="4.8">under arms through but guess my surprise</text><text start="910.199" dur="4.14">when I saw the applets running on the</text><text start="912.3" dur="4.26">Windows native desktop</text><text start="914.339" dur="4.56">I would have expected them to switch</text><text start="916.56" dur="4.38">over to Ronaldo is 2 presentation</text><text start="918.899" dur="5.341">manager instead</text><text start="920.94" dur="5.519">but just by seeing this it implies that</text><text start="924.24" dur="5.94">the compatibility layer introduced by</text><text start="926.459" dur="6.24">Willow on os2 just intercepts of in 16</text><text start="930.18" dur="6.54">API calls with the applications</text><text start="932.699" dur="6.421">remaining widely unaltered otherwise I</text><text start="936.72" dur="4.559">cannot reasonably explain why the</text><text start="939.12" dur="4.519">applications would remain on the Windows</text><text start="941.279" dur="5.581">environment to which they are native</text><text start="943.639" dur="5.021">maybe it&amp;#39;s worthwhile to drill down if</text><text start="946.86" dur="4.4">the actual binaries are the original</text><text start="948.66" dur="6.06">ones that came with Windows 3.0</text><text start="951.26" dur="6.22">unaltered or if they were in fact linked</text><text start="954.72" dur="5.52">against both the windows dlls and The</text><text start="957.48" dur="6.359">Willow dlls making them real hybrid</text><text start="960.24" dur="6">binaries actually the installer claims</text><text start="963.839" dur="5.281">exactly this that the binaries were</text><text start="966.24" dur="5.52">specifically linked correct but even</text><text start="969.12" dur="4.56">without exploring this at this point I</text><text start="971.76" dur="4.319">believe that this statement is only true</text><text start="973.68" dur="6.12">for things like the included main dll</text><text start="976.079" dur="6.781">files like kernel GDI user but not</text><text start="979.8" dur="5.039">necessarily the included applets I&amp;#39;m</text><text start="982.86" dur="4.08">pretty certain that only the main</text><text start="984.839" dur="5.161">libraries were linked against os2</text><text start="986.94" dur="4.86">specific dlls whereas the amplits</text><text start="990" dur="5.22">themselves just linked to the standard</text><text start="991.8" dur="7.5">Windows dlls thus making them an old</text><text start="995.22" dur="5.94">third I may be wrong and probably am and</text><text start="999.3" dur="4.44">it definitely goes too far for this</text><text start="1001.16" dur="4.2">video as there&amp;#39;s one more thing I&amp;#39;d like</text><text start="1003.74" dur="4.92">to explore</text><text start="1005.36" dur="5.399">so far you saw the PM subsystem must be</text><text start="1008.66" dur="3.84">started manual before you can run any</text><text start="1010.759" dur="4.26">applications</text><text start="1012.5" dur="5.279">the already mentioned Remy file on the</text><text start="1015.019" dur="5.341">PM setup disk also covers some means of</text><text start="1017.779" dur="3.781">starting the presentation manager as a</text><text start="1020.36" dur="3.479">service</text><text start="1021.56" dur="4.44">while the mentions were the required</text><text start="1023.839" dur="5.281">files are found on floppy disk number</text><text start="1026" dur="5.16">four it&amp;#39;s odd that one of the two phones</text><text start="1029.12" dur="5.04">is actually installed and the other one</text><text start="1031.16" dur="3">not</text><text start="1037.939" dur="6.721">I do as told and create a new service</text><text start="1040.52" dur="6">named os2pm subsystem like so</text><text start="1044.66" dur="4.139">the readme provides additional</text><text start="1046.52" dur="5.22">instructions on what must now be</text><text start="1048.799" dur="5.161">configured in the system registry I&amp;#39;ll</text><text start="1051.74" dur="5.1">add the parameters key and the two</text><text start="1053.96" dur="5.76">values for app directory and start PM</text><text start="1056.84" dur="5.94">shell as all I want is to pre-start the</text><text start="1059.72" dur="5.28">presentation manager subsystem</text><text start="1062.78" dur="4.86">starting this service while the services</text><text start="1065" dur="5.28">control panel seems to have the desired</text><text start="1067.64" dur="3.899">effect running it now as a persistent</text><text start="1070.28" dur="4.74">service</text><text start="1071.539" dur="5.701">and now I can simply run any applet like</text><text start="1075.02" dur="4.92">the PM control panel which will then</text><text start="1077.24" dur="4.74">launch into the PM shell as usual</text><text start="1079.94" dur="3.96">with the presentation manager now</text><text start="1081.98" dur="3.72">running as a service let&amp;#39;s see what</text><text start="1083.9" dur="3.24">happens when I log in with a different</text><text start="1085.7" dur="4.44">user</text><text start="1087.14" dur="4.68">see how the pmshell icon appears in the</text><text start="1090.14" dur="4.68">lower left corner</text><text start="1091.82" dur="5.7">and I can jump directly into the PM file</text><text start="1094.82" dur="4.92">manager right away without needing to</text><text start="1097.52" dur="3.48">care if the PM shell is already running</text><text start="1099.74" dur="3.78">or not</text><text start="1101" dur="5.22">same goes if I look back into the</text><text start="1103.52" dur="5.039">administrator account with that being</text><text start="1106.22" dur="5.28">done I do hope that it will now start</text><text start="1108.559" dur="4.62">the PM shell automatically so I can use</text><text start="1111.5" dur="4.82">it right away</text><text start="1113.179" dur="5.821">and here it is on the next startup</text><text start="1116.32" dur="4.599">os2.exe is being launched automatically</text><text start="1119" dur="4.62">when I log in</text><text start="1120.919" dur="4.441">but what&amp;#39;s that this screen suddenly</text><text start="1123.62" dur="4.86">went dark</text><text start="1125.36" dur="6.72">okay it&amp;#39;s not an issue with the monitor</text><text start="1128.48" dur="6.54">but I think I crashed my NT can it be</text><text start="1132.08" dur="4.979">but even the second attempt ends up in</text><text start="1135.02" dur="5.399">the very same situation</text><text start="1137.059" dur="5.821">So eventually I was going again for the</text><text start="1140.419" dur="4.801">last known good configuration to bring</text><text start="1142.88" dur="4.799">the system up again and revert those</text><text start="1145.22" dur="5.76">last service related changes</text><text start="1147.679" dur="4.981">I guess I need to dig in further on what</text><text start="1150.98" dur="5.04">was going wrong here</text><text start="1152.66" dur="6.36">okay okay I was pushing it to the limits</text><text start="1156.02" dur="5.159">so it&amp;#39;s no surprise it broke but I broke</text><text start="1159.02" dur="5.519">it like four times through the entire</text><text start="1161.179" dur="5.941">process can you believe it still I think</text><text start="1164.539" dur="5.401">you got the idea but the multio&amp;#39;s</text><text start="1167.12" dur="6.12">personalities that David Cutler and his</text><text start="1169.94" dur="5.58">team envisioned for Windows NT it&amp;#39;s</text><text start="1173.24" dur="5.16">quite Progressive for the time to have</text><text start="1175.52" dur="6.539">an operating system with no less than</text><text start="1178.4" dur="8.7">four personalities windows on Windows 16</text><text start="1182.059" dur="8.281">and tvdm os2 1.x and posix and Windows</text><text start="1187.1" dur="6.38">NT 3.51 did not only feature these</text><text start="1190.34" dur="5.94">16-bit windows API but also the rewind</text><text start="1193.48" dur="7.18">32-bit API which was about to be</text><text start="1196.28" dur="6.96">introduced with Windows 95 and yes this</text><text start="1200.66" dur="5.16">is an original Factory sealed item</text><text start="1203.24" dur="5.58">nowadays we can do literally everything</text><text start="1205.82" dur="6.3">using virtualization but for the mid 90s</text><text start="1208.82" dur="6.18">this was really ahead of the time so</text><text start="1212.12" dur="6.72">long I&amp;#39;m the Vintage collector and this</text><text start="1215" dur="6.059">was my story on Windows NT 3.51</text><text start="1218.84" dur="3.69">thanks for watching and see you again</text><text start="1221.059" dur="4.381">next time</text><text start="1222.53" dur="5.009">[Music]</text><text start="1225.44" dur="5.28">future count this Channel&amp;#39;s Community</text><text start="1227.539" dur="5.821">tab you&amp;#39;ll find some polls on potential</text><text start="1230.72" dur="5.579">upcoming videos you&amp;#39;re very welcome to</text><text start="1233.36" dur="6.6">upload on upcoming topics or drop in new</text><text start="1236.299" dur="6.541">ones you&amp;#39;d like me to chase down</text><text start="1239.96" dur="5.12">[Music]</text><text start="1242.84" dur="2.24">foreign</text></transcript>