From: Jeff Hellige <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
> We have various software, such as teleprompters and similar
>TV-studio related items, that we have to keep W95/98 machines for as
>they absolutely will not work under NT. Another big one I've found
I have very few things that I can say didnt' run under NT4, and they
didnt run under w95 either.
The best example of that is Paradox4.5/dos! The only hicup that
has is print spooling which works poorly under both NT and W9x.
Gcadd6.1/dos, Microcadd and Quickbasic4.5/dos, work fine.
Biggest problem with old dos and W3.1x programs is the installs
dont always work quite right. Other than that I run dos and W9x
programs under NT4/sp4 using NTFS and FAT partitions with little
to no difficulty.
>are database applications based on Foxbase under DOS. Nothing
>special as far as I/O there, but they throw a fit when run under NT
>while custom databases I've coded under PowerBasic run fine and
>PowerBasic hasn't been updated in 10-11 years.
When running dos under NT it's not a bad thing to setup paths
and PIFs as well as the NT dos emulation box. I may add that
programs that are locked to 8.3 (most dos and w3.1 stuff) will
get real upset with long filenames and directories take care.
Also there are a few that dont seem to like NTFS or worse
HPFS{there are three choices, FAT16, NTFS and HPFS}.
Running NT3.51 or NT4 below SP4 is not good either.
Allison
From: Jeff Hellige <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
>>For PCs that leaves a few things like BeOS, Minix, DOS,
>>ConcurrentDOS, CCPM and not much else.
>
> BeOS floppy based? The versions I've seen had larger
>requirements than floppies and 4MB RAM. The mention of ConcurrentDOS
I didn't mean to imply they were floppy based only smaller footprint on
disk
and ram.
I've run ConcurrentDOS-386 in 4mb as a multiuser box save for some
of the programs (not the dos) wanted large tracts of ram.
Minix can be run from floppy, or the full package fit in some 40mb
and on a 386 with 4mb it's pretty interesting. However it's a
research non-GUI OS so things like networking are not as pretty.
Allison
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
>Nevertheless, why unnecessarily slow down routine operations?
It's code bloat, artifact of oject oriented programming.
>> W95 will run on 386sx/16... I've done it.
>I've been meaning to play with that. How much RAM do you need?
The minimum is 4mb but 8 is about the minimum useful. I have
a printserver (w95, 120mb disk and 486dx/33) that is able as minimum
as can be useful.
>Was it as slow as expected?
It was slow but, If anything it was faster than I'd have expected.
>An associate (business tenant) wanted to use "HyperTerminal" for logging
>data from some lab equipment onto a 486 Compaq. When 98 REFUSED to
>install, I installed 95 without any problems. I wasn't strongly
motivated
>to try anything serious to get 98 onto it.
Actually there is 98lite {downloadable} which is a program that does
a scripted install of W98 plus a few things from W95. the result
can be a very small footprint and with some of the msisms (IE
and outlook express crap) omitted fairly fast.
W9x is a useable OS, so long as you acknowledge that it's like dos
in it's lack of protections for the filesystem or the kernel. Works
ok with well behaved programs, stinks otherwise. Also it likes ram
16mb for running stuff like netscape or IE and 32mb isn't bad.
My $.0002 is that NT3.51 sp4 or NT4 SP4 is a better OS than
W9x. I dont think Linux is better only faster evolving. Of all
the PC unix clones FreeBSD seems the most solid and
least bloated at least as a server.
Allison
>
>--
>Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
>
>> ... any SPARCstation users ... looking
>> for O/S information to make it live again.
>>
>> If it is O/T, please p-mail me. <mailto:jrasite@eoni.com>
>>
>> Jim
>
>... You can run up to either Solaris
>2.6 or 7 on it....
>
> Zane
NeXTStep 3.3 or 4.x also had versions which ran on Sparc hardware.
- Mark
From: Jeff Hellige <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
>
> A lot of things broke going between '95/98 and NT and now
No surprize as NT is very different model and kernel from W9x.
Then again the only stuff that I've found that broke is apps
that wanted to twiddle IO directly. Thats a NoNo for a protected
mode kernel.
>we're finding problems testing stuff under 2000 as well. Thankfully
>we only have a handful of 2000 machines. Oh yes, and now MS has
I havent played with W2000 but I"ve heard its ok save for
games run lousy.
>'fixed' the Mac version of Outlook so that it is 'compatible' with
>the viruses for the Windows version! Needless to say, I'm the only
>one in the building running the Outlook 2001 Beta and that's just for
>testing purposes.
Outlook in all it's forms along with IE4.+ are breeding media for virus.
Someone once asked me what Outlook was and I said, development
shell for ill behaved apps.
Allison
From: Iggy Drougge <optimus(a)canit.se>
>Windows ME runs on a whole slew of processors, such as the ARM or
Hitachi SH-
>4, whereas Windows 9x only runs on Intels. I think binary compatibility
is
>expecting too much.
Your confusing ME with CE. ME is the same kernal as
win95/win98/win98sr2.
Allison
> From: Tom Uban <uban(a)ubanproductions.com>
>
> The older SunOS system runs very well on this, but condider that if you
> need to use a "modern" hard drive, you will be limited to about 2GB (I think)
> if you use one of the older OS's. That is why I went to NetBSD, it has kept
> up with the latest hardware...
There may be firmware limitations on the location of the root
filesystem, depending on the SCSI commands used by the boot PROM.
I think you're correct that (in stock SunOS4) PARTITIONS cannot exceed
2GB, but I'm happily runing a 4GB disk (largest partition is 1.6G),
and I've seen 9GB disks on SunOS4 systems. You may not be able to do
absolute seeks to the 'c' partition with disk larger than 2G, but
that's never caused me any problems. I think there was also a
"disksuite" add-on, to handle large disks more gracefully, but it's
not needed.
-phil
>Date: 13 Feb 01 04:21:06 +0100
>From: "Iggy Drougge" <optimus(a)canit.se>
>Subject: Re: Dejanews
>
>Julian Richardson skrev:
>
>>OK, what on earth happened to the Dejanews archive? Seems like they've been
>>taken over by Google (leading us one step closer to a single corporation
>>controlling the entire world, no doubt! :-)
>
>At least that's a step in the right direction. Google are actually providing a
>good, clean service, whereas the big players such as Altavista and Deja(News)
>have turned into Yahoo-esque media conglomerates offering everything but a
>search engine. Perhaps will this mean that one won't have to wade through
>tonnes of ads and unasked for services on Deja in the future?
Even better, they are going to be reinstating the dejaNews archives
back to 1995.
Now if someone would just find a way to incorporate the old Usenet on
CD archives and, perhaps, take donations of single articles that
people may have archived personally.
<<<john>>>
> Even better, they are going to be reinstating the dejaNews
archives
> back to 1995.
yep, that is good. I've got a bunch of news postings from 93/94/95 that I
lost local copies of, so hopefully I'll be able to get a few of the
follow-ups to those back at least.
> Now if someone would just find a way to incorporate the old Usenet
on
> CD archives and, perhaps, take donations of single articles that
> people may have archived personally.
well, they reckon their archive is about 1TB - I wonder how much space all
the useful stuff would take up? Less than 100GB surely (I could probably
manage to free up enough for that - not sure how I'd make it available to
everyone else though)
hopefully there'll be a way to hook up to site automatically and write a
client-side app to pull stuff off the site...
Jules
--
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
>A friend told me off-list that when copying a file, there is a graphic
>icon of each bit being moved. He suggested that the floating point was
That explains whay it's so slow.
>BTW, 95 will install on the same machine without the FPU (486SX).
W95 will run on 386sx/16... I've done it. W98 can be faked on to a non
FPU
cpu but it's not pretty.
>Which apps, etc. are different? Or did MICROS~1 simply do the FPU
>requirement to reduce the number of performance complaints about their
>apps?
Beats me, I'm running it(both 98 and ME) at work as an upgrade from w95,
all the stuff we used to run still does and Autocad2000 was happy.
Allison
