New to the list
segin2005 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 4 21:54:49 CDT 2006
Tony Duell wrote:
> A point I forgot to mention...
>>I am a 16 year old high school student who works with computer daily. I
>>perfer to work with older systems (386s are fun!) because they are just
> I am curious as to what is 'fun' about 386s (I assume you mean PC
> compatibles, and not, for example, Sequent multi-processor machines).
> They're not old enough in general not to use ASICs (or at least the clone
> chipsents) on the motherboard. You're not going to get schematics or BIOS
> source listings in most cases. So the real low-level hardware/software
> hackability of these machines would seem to be little different from a
> more modern PC.
> To me, therefore they appear to be just a slower version of said modern
> PC. They've got no real advantages that I can spot (unlike, say, one of
> my PDP11s, or PERQs, or HPs, where (a) there is low-level documentation,
> (b) they are repairable easilty to component level and (c) they run
> rather diffeernt software to PCs). Can you enlighten me?
My bedroom is about 9' by 12'. I honestly have nowhere to put a PDP-11,
which would probably fall through the floor anyways (I live in a trailer).
And to note, my entire hardware collection is 32-bit x86, save a busted
up Macintosh. My 386 is my oldest machine.
And note: If I want to play a video game, I'll do it on my main system.
I mean, Doomsday/jDoom is rather nice for DOOM.
On a final note: My main desktop run Linux, my other box run Windows
2000 with Microsoft's Interix subsystem installed, and my Dell runs FreeBSD.
Don't ask about the 486 or 386, I can't remember. Probably DOS.
The real problem with C++ for kernel modules is: the language just sucks.
-- Linus Torvalds
More information about the cctalk