Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi! On Mar 27 2020 04:57, Rugxulo wrote: > XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No > more security fixes. Those old cpus (and even modern ones) all have > vulnerabilities and various software workarounds, plus microcode > updates, which each have different costs (slowdowns) associated with > them. I know. I'm not using any of this with the internet. If I run software of that time, off-line, I should be safe against modern attacks. I could still get an older computer virus. You know, how they used to spread: from floppy disk to hard drive and back... > How many cores does the 2007 machine have? AMD has a 64-core machine > nowadays. Hey, I'm no engineer, but newer has more cores, faster > single-core (higher IPC), more (faster) RAM, less heat / power > consumed, better graphics, and a billion other features (faster > bootup??). I think the standard back in 2007 was two. I'm not sure, I'll have to check. It might be a single core with Hyper Treading. > I'm not saying you can't run older hardware. Just be aware that a lot > has changed (and improved), even if sometimes there are regressions. The thing is that I keep those machines as a hobby. I wouldn't know what to do with them in a production environment. Nothing probably... most likely get rid of them. But for me they are computer history, so I have a collection of still working machines. Sadly I'm missing real history machines, like a NEXTstation or an 8088/8086 PC. Or an DEC Alpha workstation. A Macintosh running System 6. In this context it makes sense to run original software on those PCs, so it would be PC DOS, MS-DOS, DR DOS. PTS-DOS maybe, too. GEM. GEOS. You name it. FreeDOS would just a more modern addition, allowing e.g. data exchange to FAT32 storage, if I can connect such "big" drives. A. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Mar 27 2020 04:49, Rugxulo wrote: > Niklaus Wirth wrote "A Plea for Lean Software" back in 1995. He > obviously was referring to his [quasi open source] OberonOS with > compiler and tools. I don't think most people took his advice. He has > had a lot of good ideas over the years, but as even he will tell you, > it takes a lot of effort (and a genius) to get things done in such > lowly conditions. FreeDOS probably isn't exactly what he meant > (although we have compilers for most of his languages). His "Project > Oberon" (revised in 2013) is still worth a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtlAOdJmeDI When I saw GeckOS, I thought that anything is possible! Spoiler-Alert: It turns out, not everything is possible after all... A. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 7:56 AM Mateusz Viste wrote: > > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: > > "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. > (...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk > space has been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both > networking and basic X11 server functions operated satisfactorily." Linux dropped 386 [sic] years ago due to complications with having no CMPXCHG, etc. for atomic whatever. So you need at least a 486 nowadays. * http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=12165#p12165 ZipSlack 11 (Slackware from 2006, kernel 2.4) used UMSDOS to run atop FAT. IIRC, it optionally could run in 4 MB with swap enabled, otherwise 8 MB was minimum (and good luck compiling anything with GCC!). ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM wrote: > > The fun fact: Windows XP SP2 on this 2007-machine with 4 GB RAM and HDD > is up and running as fast as Windows 10 or Linux on my 2018 Ryzen with > 32 GB RAM and SSD! XP is dead as a doornail (since 2014), so is even Win7 nowadays. No more security fixes. Those old cpus (and even modern ones) all have vulnerabilities and various software workarounds, plus microcode updates, which each have different costs (slowdowns) associated with them. How many cores does the 2007 machine have? AMD has a 64-core machine nowadays. Hey, I'm no engineer, but newer has more cores, faster single-core (higher IPC), more (faster) RAM, less heat / power consumed, better graphics, and a billion other features (faster bootup??). * https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=2004-CPU-3990X-Plus-FX-9590 Try cross-compiling something on both (preferably "make -j"), and see how long it takes. * https://github.com/andrewwutw/build-djgpp/releases And that's not even talking about speedups like SIMD (you know, AVXes are all the rage nowadays), which older cpus lack. Oh, and VT-X has improved, which makes a big difference, too (e.g. VBox). I'm not saying you can't run older hardware. Just be aware that a lot has changed (and improved), even if sometimes there are regressions. (You could also boot a Linux jump drive on both, and run some tests.) ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:43 AM wrote: > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Linux started in 1991 on a 386 with 2 MB of RAM. Granted, newer releases need a tad more. ;-) While outdated (and I'm no expert), for future reference, here's some lightweight Linux distros (and old Minix): * https://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZipSlack * http://download.minix3.org/previous-versions/Intel-2.0.2/ In fact, they should all run atop FAT16, and yes, they will run in very low amounts of RAM (like 8 MB or even less). Minix 2 used segmentation for code and data separation and reuse. Having swap also helped (e.g. ZipSlack). > Not even Windows NT will work with that amount of RAM, but NT 3.x needs 16 > MB, NT 4 needs 32 MB. > > This is where DOS+Windows 3.x excells! Word. (jk) Debatable. I had low-end 486s, which were quite slow and starved for RAM. I would still be interested in running such machines for nostalgia and benchmarking. I know how to do "some" simple and fun things, so I wouldn't mind too badly, BUT it's much more fun with at least a Pentium (and FPU). Just to reiterate, yes you can do a few things (fun or useful or both!) in such low-spec'd machines, but it's not as easy as it sounds. We've lost the touch, generally speaking, to care for older "classic" hardware with decent (slim) software. Niklaus Wirth wrote "A Plea for Lean Software" back in 1995. He obviously was referring to his [quasi open source] OberonOS with compiler and tools. I don't think most people took his advice. He has had a lot of good ideas over the years, but as even he will tell you, it takes a lot of effort (and a genius) to get things done in such lowly conditions. FreeDOS probably isn't exactly what he meant (although we have compilers for most of his languages). His "Project Oberon" (revised in 2013) is still worth a look. * https://inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/ * http://www.projectoberon.com/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Mar 25 2020 18:21, andrew fabbro wrote: > Of course, you're comparing a 20-year-old distro with a 30-year-old > "distro" of DOS :-) > > You get more functionality in a mid-90s Linux than a late-80s DOS. Actually, DOS had a lot to offer. On such a machine it was quite fast, compared to a Unix system with a blown X11 for graphics. On DOS there were way more small and specialized little programs available, some quite unique. I think you cannot compare the two. Linux has its advantages, but DOS does too. It's all about the software and the use cases. (Think about computer games.) A. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:08 AM ZB wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote: > > > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: > > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > > > > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: > > > > "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. > (...) > > An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space > has > > been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and > basic > > X11 server functions operated satisfactorily." > > That was valid around 20 years ago... :D try this with any present distro > Of course, you're comparing a 20-year-old distro with a 30-year-old "distro" of DOS :-) You get more functionality in a mid-90s Linux than a late-80s DOS. -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On 25/03/2020 14:07, ZB wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote: On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space has been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and basic X11 server functions operated satisfactorily." That was valid around 20 years ago... :D Of course, that is why I am referring to Buzz. Now, why would anyone want to run a recent distribution on a 386? Linux distributions from 25 years ago work just as well as they did back then. Mateusz ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Mateusz Viste wrote: > On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: > > Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. > > Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: > > "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (...) > An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space has > been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and basic > X11 server functions operated satisfactorily." That was valid around 20 years ago... :D try this with any present distro -- regards, Zbigniew ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On 25/03/2020 12:28, userbeit...@abwesend.de wrote: Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Extract from the Debian Buzz FAQ: "Debian Linux can be installed on systems with only 4 MBytes of RAM. (...) An 80386-based system with only 4 MBytes of RAM and 40 MBytes disk space has been used to run Debian Linux in this way; i.e., both networking and basic X11 server functions operated satisfactorily." Mateusz ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Mar 25 2020 01:36, Rugxulo wrote: > I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not > necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it > would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4 > (single core) era. > > Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still > varies due to many factors. Fun fact... I have an old Intel Celeron in my cellar, a gift from a friend. It has a CPU that is 64-bit capable, so it must be Core 2 technology. It is from ~2006/2007 or so? It originally ran Windows XP, so I tested it with Windows 7 and 10, but it wasn't worth the effort. Too slow. After reinstalling Windows XP SP3 with all the updates, it still felt somewhat sluggish, not responsive without a short delay. So I left it. Somewhat later I wanted to test an old game that required Windows 2000 or XP, but somehow wasn't working on my setup. So I performed a clean installation of Windows XP SP2. The fun fact: Windows XP SP2 on this 2007-machine with 4 GB RAM and HDD is up and running as fast as Windows 10 or Linux on my 2018 Ryzen with 32 GB RAM and SSD! A. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi! On Mar 25 2020 at 01:28, andrew fabbro wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM wrote: > >> Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos >> on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is >> going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a >> multi core modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use >> old computers, 386 anyone? >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions, >> don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1 >> gig of ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3 >> and Pi 4, run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC >> including dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-) >> > Maybe you meant "venerable 8086" :-) > > It's true that Linux wants a 386 at a minimum, but it hardly needs 1Gz or > 1GB or RAM. Sure if you want a GUI but then DOS isn't going to meet your > needs either. You can run some Linux distros or various *BSD distros on > tiny amounts of RAM. Debian Wheezy only requires 64MB: > https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/amd64/ch03s04.html.en > > Likewise, OpenBSD will run on x86 with as little as 64MB of RAM. 128-256 > is more reasonable if you want to do anything outside the kernel. Only 64 MB? My 386SX only had 2 MB. If I remember correctly, because it might have been 4 MB. My 486 waiting in the cellar has 8 MB. It is a true ISA machine, first lot of 486s: Intel 80486DX-50, running the bus speed also at 50 MHz, like the CPU. So the CPU/bus ratio was 1:1, like it had always been before. If I remember correctly, this was the problem of getting CPU speeds up, which is why the later introduced DX2, 66 MHz and 50 MHz, is partly slower than the original DX @50 MHz, because the DX2 uses a 2:1 ratio on the bus. Because for I/O throughput data had to be shifted from the CPU to the memory to the ISA IDE adapter card and back, the 50 MHz bus was an advantage. Afaik there is no Linux that will run with only 8 MB of RAM. Not even Windows NT will work with that amount of RAM, but NT 3.x needs 16 MB, NT 4 needs 32 MB. This is where DOS+Windows 3.x excells! A. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 8:21 PM, Robert Riebisch wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted > > project updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy > > for kids use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB > > sd-card with FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blankendaal's > > "Access" most excellent gui environment (He of DosBOXGameLauncher fame, > > here http://members.quicknet.nl/blankendaalr/dbgl/). From there, my kids > > could immediately access any one of dozens of top-rated classic DOS games I > > had squirrelled away from a range of "abandonware" sites. For a 16MB > > edo-dram laptop it would boot in about 11 seconds. *snap!* > > My *intention* was to have imaged a distro-like "FreeDOS4Kids" that could > > be copied to a flash card and via an ATA-adapter replacing the ancient HDD. > > By using such an image route you could circumvent some native installation > > issues (but probably replace them with other 'gotchas'). Life has overrun > > me on that particular escapade however. > > Thanks for the erudite first-hand histories in this thread guys - > > fascinating reading, Cheers :) > > Paul Blair once had a distro called FUZOMA: > http://superkeen.com/peacecorpsweblog/?s=FUZOMA=init > > The website seems a little broken, but downloads are still working. > > Cheers, > Robert > -- > +++ BTTR Software +++ > Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/ > DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ > > > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user Thanks Robert for the heads-up on Fuzoma - for posterity I downloaded a cd iso version of v1.7 - the last version Paul Blair had up. Really interesting project he had going there, with the Peace Corps. Cheers :) ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi Andrew, > Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted project > updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy for kids > use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB sd-card with > FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blankendaal's "Access" most > excellent gui environment (He of DosBOXGameLauncher fame, here > http://members.quicknet.nl/blankendaalr/dbgl/). From there, my kids could > immediately access any one of dozens of top-rated classic DOS games I had > squirrelled away from a range of "abandonware" sites. For a 16MB edo-dram > laptop it would boot in about 11 seconds. *snap!* > My *intention* was to have imaged a distro-like "FreeDOS4Kids" that could be > copied to a flash card and via an ATA-adapter replacing the ancient HDD. By > using such an image route you could circumvent some native installation > issues (but probably replace them with other 'gotchas'). Life has overrun me > on that particular escapade however. > Thanks for the erudite first-hand histories in this thread guys - fascinating > reading, Cheers :) Paul Blair once had a distro called FUZOMA: http://superkeen.com/peacecorpsweblog/?s=FUZOMA=init The website seems a little broken, but downloads are still working. Cheers, Robert -- +++ BTTR Software +++ Home page: https://www.bttr-software.de/ DOS ain't dead: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
I spent two years in Papua New Guinea in the mid 1980s using (and developing on and for) an Altos 8000-10 using MP/M II. Mostly CB-80 with bits of assembler. Interesting/fun times. > Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Totally agree with that. Bruce. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 15:53 (UTC-0400): > Felix Miata wrote: >> I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I >> couldn't tell >> any difference from SysV. > With what sort of hardware? Based on the descriptions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altos_Computer_Systems it must have been an Altos 686. It shipped with a 500MB internal HD, to which we later attached an 80MB Micropolis external HD from Altos. We had an IBM PC AT with 20MB CMI HD, 2.5MB RAM (512kb originally), and PC DOS 3.1 (originally), and a 256kb RAM IBM PC XT with 10MB HD running terminal emulation software to talk to the Altos, otherwise used for running Lotus 1-2-3, a pair of terminals (1 Altos, 1 Wyse, IIRC), a very loud Genicom dot matrix serial printer we kept in an insulated enclosure, and an original parallel port HP LaserJet requiring a cartridge to print IRS forms. To that fleet we also early on added an Iomega Bernoulli Box 10MB cartridge drive, and later a Corona portable 8088 PC with 256kb RAM and 10MB HD, later upgraded to 512kb or 640kb RAM to better handle larger spreadsheets, and NEC V20 CPU. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 21:59 (UTC-0400): > SeaMonkey 2.X couldn't be built static. Please reconcile this statement with the Mozilla folk's representation that every binary app downloadable from mozilla.org, including all SeaMonkey versions, is static built. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:37 PM Rugxulo wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney wrote: > > > > The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW". > > No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *8* minutes to simply > > *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up. > > I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not > necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it > would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4 > (single core) era. I don't recall my installations coming up that quickly, but on decent HW it was responsive enough. I ran it dual-booting with Ubuntu on a 32bit desktop with a dual-core Intel CPU. That was fun. The machine had 4GB RAM, but for technical reasons XP could only see/use about 3.2GB of it. I found a freeware RAMdisk that could see/use the RAM Windows couldn't see, and had a 768MB RAMdisk seen as Z:. First step was putting Firefox cache on it, which was easy and could be done in about:config on Firefox. Next step was putting the Firefox *profile* on the RAMdisk. That took more fiddling. The profile was stored in a Zip archive on the HD, and unzipped to the RAMdisk when XP booted via a Startup script. A custom Firefox profile pointed at the RAMdisk as the location of the profile to use. Shutdown was trickier. I needed to intercept the shutdown command and run another script that would zip the copy on the RAMdisk back to the hard drive to catch changes made in that session. Because I used XP Pro, I could use Group Policy Editor to set up something to do that. The shutdown script created five days worth of backups with the date as part of the name. If I had an Oops! moment ans shot myself in the foot I could restore from a previous version and continue. If the PC crashed and burned, I lost only changes I might have made in that session, and I didn't bother preserving cache. I have fast broadband and simply to rebuild cache from scratch. > Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still > varies due to many factors. The limits on the p2110 were IDE4 HD (BIOS limitation, so swapping in a faster drive wouldn't assist) and proof network performance. (Internet access was dead slow, even connected by CAT5 cable to my router.) > > WinXP wants 512MB *minimum* to think about working. > > On the p2110, it did a good job of emulating mainframe "death by thrashing". > > I was using a P4 with only 128 MB for a year or so (about ten years > ago). I used Opera instead of (thrashing) Firefox, which was good > enough for lightweight browsing and email (and NTVDM). That was before > Opera became Chrome (Blink?) based. I looked at an assortment of browsers. Firefox was way too big. Opera was better, as was earlier Chrome, but that's not saying a lot. They invoked faster, but performance once up left a lot to be desired because of poor network performance. The big hobble was really poor disk I/O, so any application of real size was a problem. On the Puppy side, the default browser was SeaMonkey 1.1, but it was increasingly behind the web standards curve, and simply didn't handle a lot of sites. I gave up on it fast. (And the 1.x branch was no longer supported or getting patches. It was being built in his basement by a Mozilla engineer who really wanted to turn off the machine doing it. Puppy really needed static builds of software, and SeaMonkey 2.X couldn't be built static. 32bit Firefox ran okay on the Ubuntu side, but still suffered from poor I/O. Chrome pre-Blink was the better option. But poor network performance meant *no* browser would provide a happy experience. (IE5 sucked wind on the Win2K side.) > > Repartition, reformat, set it up to quad-boot Win2K (which runs in > > 256MB RAM,) Puppy Linux, Ubuntu Linux and FreeDOS. > > Win 2000 was notable for not "phoning home", but overall it wasn't > much slimmer than XP (and only the latter was targeted at home users). I didn't care about phoning home, and it *would* run in 240MB RAM. I just stripped out everything that *could* be stripped out of Startup. A big save was turning off Windows Update. Win2K no longer got patches, and disabling Windows Update save a SVCHOST.EXE process and 10MB RAM. I did have a few applications that needed at least XP to run, but I could live without them. > Although XP 64-bit (NT 5.2) in 2005 was a (relatively) rare release, > too. Both died in 2010 and 2014, respectively. (Obviously, 7 just died > earlier this year. I still barely use it, but ) I know people still trying to run Win7. I don't recommend it. I'm actually pleased with Win10 Pro, but then, I have the HW to support it. > > Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster > > on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based > > on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM. > > Yes, but Puppy was much leaner in the old days (2.x??). It's
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On 3/24/2020 12:53 PM, dmccunney wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata wrote: I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't tell any difference from SysV. With what sort of hardware? Xenix, if memory serves, began based on Unix System III and was gradually enhanced to make it SysV compatible. Depending upon what you were doing, you might not have run into the differences between System III and System V. And Xenix, if memory serves again, was originally a Microsoft product, back when they were peripherally in the Unix business. I was working in '83-'85 at a company where we also ran Altos 286 machines with Xenix. As well as running Unix SysV on Sage and Cromemco machines with both Motorola 68000 and 68010. The later had NOT a have buildin MMU, but allowed for cooperation with the OPTIONAL 68451MMU controller chip. The 80286 however had a basic MMU onchip. And Microsoft was not just "peripherally" involved in the Unix business, well, at least as much as they were at that time in the OS business with MS-DOS. Xenix btw was licensed directly from AT At the time "second sourcing" was the rule, so they licensed the Santa Cruz Operation to also sell Xenix. When MS decided to get out of the Unix market and concentrate on Windows, SCO became the Xenix vendor, and enhanced Xenix to SysV compatibility and offered it as SCO Unix. SCO was not a second source, they bought the Xenix business from Microsoft, when those guys rather quickly realized that all the supposedly cheaper micro processor based systems were tried to be sold at a price point close to the existing mini computers at the time, and hence didn't sell anywhere near the numbers they had hoped for. It was not OS that brought the bacon home for Microsoft in those years, it was their variety of programming languages/compilers as well as the fledgling user applications like Word and Multiplan... OS/2, a collaboration between IBM and MS, was supposed to be the New!, Improved! OS. It foundered due to disagreements between IBM and MS. MS *wanted* to skip the 286 and develop for the 386. That was a sensible notion, and had IBM agreed we might all be running it now. But IBM had promised support for the 286, so... ts/listinfo/freedos OS/2 came about, as far as Microsoft was concerned, because their attempt to get into the slowly growing Unix market didn't go as planned. It allowed them to bring their core business into a new market (OS) that could take advantage of the rapidly increasing capabilities of the newer microprocessors, something that wasn't really possible with DOS. And they saw the OS business now more of a bread winner, as they quickly lost ground in the programming language business (mainly the competition from newcomer Borland, as well as others) leaving only the application market, once they got a usable GUI system for desktops on the market with Windows 3.x. Ralf -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:52 PM wrote: > Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos > on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is > going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a > multi core modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use > old computers, 386 anyone? > Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions, > don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1 > gig of ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3 > and Pi 4, run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC > including dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-) > Maybe you meant "venerable 8086" :-) It's true that Linux wants a 386 at a minimum, but it hardly needs 1Gz or 1GB or RAM. Sure if you want a GUI but then DOS isn't going to meet your needs either. You can run some Linux distros or various *BSD distros on tiny amounts of RAM. Debian Wheezy only requires 64MB: https://www.debian.org/releases/wheezy/amd64/ch03s04.html.en Likewise, OpenBSD will run on x86 with as little as 64MB of RAM. 128-256 is more reasonable if you want to do anything outside the kernel. Be advised that if you try to run either on a 386 or 486 you may spend the first day waiting for the system to generate its host SSH key :-) TinyCore is another tiny-mem option...runs in 28-48MB of RAM, better in 128MB: http://www.tinycorelinux.net/faq.html#req "Some of us want to use old computers" If you're using a sub-Pentium machine in 2020 it's either because (a) you have a very specialized piece of legacy code, (b) you have a program that cannot be emulated/virtualized for some reason, or (c) you are a bit eccentric. -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi, On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM dmccunney wrote: > > The person who passed it on said [Transmeta Crusoe] was "Slow, slow, SLOW". > No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *** minutes to simply > *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up. I heard that XP was designed to get to the desktop in 30 secs. Not necessarily responsive nor able to be used just yet, but at least it would show up (in optimal conditions). Of course, that was P3/P4 (single core) era. Of course, nowadays we have SSDs and other speedups, but it still varies due to many factors. > WinXP wants 512MB *minimum* to think about working. > On the p2110, it did a good job of emulating mainframe "death by thrashing". I was using a P4 with only 128 MB for a year or so (about ten years ago). I used Opera instead of (thrashing) Firefox, which was good enough for lightweight browsing and email (and NTVDM). That was before Opera became Chrome (Blink?) based. > Repartition, reformat, set it up to quad-boot Win2K (which runs in > 256MB RAM,) Puppy Linux, Ubuntu Linux and FreeDOS. Win 2000 was notable for not "phoning home", but overall it wasn't much slimmer than XP (and only the latter was targeted at home users). Although XP 64-bit (NT 5.2) in 2005 was a (relatively) rare release, too. Both died in 2010 and 2014, respectively. (Obviously, 7 just died earlier this year. I still barely use it, but ) > Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster > on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based > on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM. Yes, but Puppy was much leaner in the old days (2.x??). It's changed a lot, and there were/are many (incompatible) derivatives. Still, I like it for what it does. > He had to create the system image on a more powerful machine, write it to > a hard drive, and swap the HD into the Toshiba to boot and run it, but > it worked once he did.) Older machines didn't boot from USB jump drives. (Try PLoP boot manager.) > Ubuntu isn't, but by installing from the Minimal CD which booted to a > command line, and picking and choosing what got installed through > apt-get, it was possible to get a working installation. (Using ext4 > as the file system on both Linux instances helped.) For a simple cmdline *nix install (with most common POSIX tools), something like FreeBSD or Minix would probably suffice. IIRC, the requirements were still pretty low for FreeBSD (64 MB RAM, 486 DX). Or you could try ancient Slackware 11 (ZipSlack from 2006). > The problem on all of them was less CPU speed and RAM, and more > constricted I/O due to IDE4 HD and poor network performance. The > *OSes* ran okay. Large apps did not. RAM is usually the biggest bottleneck. I'm (almost) surprised they still sell machines with "only" 4 GB of RAM, especially now that everything is always 64-bit. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 3:30 AM, dmccunney wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM wrote: > > > >... Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster > on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based > on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM. He > had to create the system image on a more powerful machine, write it to > a hard drive, and swap the HD into the Toshiba to boot and run it, but > it worked once he did.) > That was me :) in one of my alter-egos http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=48214 Mind - although I still have both 430CDS' in storage for uncompleted project updates, I had to wave the white flag on productively using Puppy for kids use, on those particular specs. What worked best in it was a 2GB sd-card with FreeDOS 1.1 configured to boot up Ronald Blankendaal's "Access" most excellent gui environment (He of DosBOXGameLauncher fame, here http://members.quicknet.nl/blankendaalr/dbgl/). From there, my kids could immediately access any one of dozens of top-rated classic DOS games I had squirrelled away from a range of "abandonware" sites. For a 16MB edo-dram laptop it would boot in about 11 seconds. *snap!* My *intention* was to have imaged a distro-like "FreeDOS4Kids" that could be copied to a flash card and via an ATA-adapter replacing the ancient HDD. By using such an image route you could circumvent some native installation issues (but probably replace them with other 'gotchas'). Life has overrun me on that particular escapade however. Thanks for the erudite first-hand histories in this thread guys - fascinating reading, Cheers :) ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Felix Miata wrote: > dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400): > > mich...@robinson-west.com wrote: > > >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. > > > *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts > > (including one from AT) that died horribly due to lack of HW memory > > management. It only became practical when the 386 was in common use. > > I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't > tell > any difference from SysV. With what sort of hardware? Xenix, if memory serves, began based on Unix System III and was gradually enhanced to make it SysV compatible. Depending upon what you were doing, you might not have run into the differences between System III and System V. And Xenix, if memory serves again, was originally a Microsoft product, back when they were peripherally in the Unix business. At the time "second sourcing" was the rule, so they licensed the Santa Cruz Operation to also sell Xenix. When MS decided to get out of the Unix market and concentrate on Windows, SCO became the Xenix vendor, and enhanced Xenix to SysV compatibility and offered it as SCO Unix. (I was a sysadmin on SCO Unix machines. I was *very* happy to be shut of it when my employer switched to Sun hardware running Solaris and Intel hardware running Linux.) Because the 286 didn't have proper hardware memory management and true virtualization, trying to run Unix on it tended to be an exercise in frustration. I recall when the 286 came out, and everyone was waiting for a new version of DOS that could take advantage of what it offered. In practice, AT class machines with 286s were just fast DOS workstations. OS/2, a collaboration between IBM and MS, was supposed to be the New!, Improved! OS. It foundered due to disagreements between IBM and MS. MS *wanted* to skip the 286 and develop for the 386. That was a sensible notion, and had IBM agreed we might all be running it now. But IBM had promised support for the 286, so... > Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ Dennis ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Tue, 24 Mar 2020, Felix Miata wrote: dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400): mich...@robinson-west.com wrote: Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts (including one from AT) that died horribly due to lack of HW memory management. It only became practical when the 386 was in common use. I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't tell any difference from SysV. Don't forget SCO Xenix 286. ;) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_! ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
dmccunney composed on 2020-03-24 13:30 (UTC-0400): > mich...@robinson-west.com wrote: >> Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. > *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts > (including one from AT) that died horribly due to lack of HW memory > management. It only became practical when the 386 was in common use. I ran a 286 Altos Xenix multiuser in 1988 just fine, Unix-y enough I couldn't tell any difference from SysV. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:52 PM wrote: > > Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. > Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going > to be pretty have for that machine. I run an Android port of DOSbox on an older and less powerful tablet. It works fine, and supports a few old character mode DOS apps.(like the VDE WordStar clone editor) and games (like DOS ports on Unix Larn and VMS Empire). It's a tickle to get a working DOS command line on an Android tablet, though you really need an external KB, and you really need to run either FreeDOS's COMMAND.COM implementation or 4DOS. The version of command bundled with DOSbox implements just enough to let you type th4e name of the game you want to play and launch it. > Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. *Unix* didn't run on a 286. There were a couple of attempts (including one from AT) that died horribly due to lack of HW memory management. It only became practical when the 386 was in common use. I still own an AT 3B1, a single user Unix workstation designed by Convergent Technologies and sold by AT It has a *10mhz* Motorola 68010 CPU - the first 680X0 CPU with HW memory management- and can boot and run AT Unix System V R2 in "1MB* RAM. Give it more and it flies. A client of the systems house I used to work for had one running a custom distribution management application, and supporting four terminals and a printer. Worked fine. > Modern Linux distributions, don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz > processor with at least 1 gig of ram. That depends on your expectations. I have an ancient Fujitsu p2110 notebook that was a pass along from a friend who upgraded but didn't want to throw it out. It had a <1ghz Transmeta Crusoe CPU, which was an early attempt at power saving, and Transmeta is now mostly remembered as Linus Torvalds' first employer when he emigrated to the states. It had a whopping *256MB* of RAM, and the Crusoe CPU grabbed 16MB off the top for code morphing. The person who passed it on said it was "Slow, slow, SLOW". No surprise - it came with WindowsXP SP2, and took *** minutes to simply *boot*, and a lot more to do anything once up. WinXP wants 512MB *minimum* to think about working. On the p2110, it did a good job of emulating mainframe "death by thrashing". Repartition, reformat, set it up to quad-boot Win2K (which runs in 256MB RAM,) Puppy Linux, Ubuntu Linux and FreeDOS. Puppy Linux is designed for older, less powerful hardware. (A poster on the Puppy forums described creating a dedicated media server based on Puppy that ran on an ancient Toshiba laptop with *16MB* RAM. He had to create the system image on a more powerful machine, write it to a hard drive, and swap the HD into the Toshiba to boot and run it, but it worked once he did.) Ubuntu isn't, but by installing from the Minimal CD which booted to a command line, and picking and choosing what got installed through apt-get, it was possible to get a working installation. (Using ext4 as the file system on both Linux instances helped.) The problem on all of them was less CPU speed and RAM, and more constricted I/O due to IDE4 HD and poor network performance. The *OSes* ran okay. Large apps did not. But it *was* possible to get a working Linux installation, for suitable values of "working". (I did it as an experiment to see what performance I could get from ancient HW *without* throwing money at it. Actual work was done elsewhere. I haven't tried to boot it in a long time.) > -- Michael C. Robinson __ Dennis ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Hi, On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:52 PM wrote: > > Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. > Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going > to be pretty have for that machine. Obviously, but my own Pentium 4 from 2002 (mostly) died many years ago. I was still minimally testing it via floppy and USB (via PLoP boot manager) with some simple networking (via packet driver) a few years ago. But, no offense, hardware is very cheap nowadays, and a P4 is very outdated. I'm totally sympathetic, but we've jumped the shark. No one cares about old machines like that anymore (except luddites like us). Modern computers are way different (ahem, AVX-512). > Some people aren't grabbing a multi core modern computer when they use > freedos. BIOS/CSM will die forever in 2020, allegedly, according to Intel. Luckily, most new machines all have hardware VT-X (EPT) extensions, so we can at least run FreeDOS speedily under VBox or KVM (QEMU) with their fake BIOSes. (I've not tested any CoreBoot / LibreBoot machines nor SeaBIOS payloads, but it presumably works for some limited hardware, according to what I've heard.) > Some of us want to use old computers, 386 anyone? You mean like this? (Don't get your hopes up.) * https://github.com/MiSTer-devel/ao486_MiSTer > Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. ELKS will (or even old Minix 2.0.2), but that's not quite the same. > Modern Linux distributions, don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz > processor > with at least 1 gig of ram. Even worse, actually! Yeah, DOSBox itself needs 1 Ghz just to emulate a "fast" 486 DX2 with (max) 64 MB of RAM. It doesn't go higher than Pentium, which leaves out a lot of "newer" stuff. VirtualBox is better overall, but DOSBox is better for games (that's literally all it's meant for). N.B. I'm not too familiar with VDosPlus or various other forks, but they aim to focus away from gaming towards productivity. > Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3 and Pi 4, > run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC including > dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-) Different niches, yes. Both are good in their own ways. Just some have an easier time attracting volunteers. "A poor carpenter blames his tools!" You know there are several Windows 10 laptops running natively atop ARM64 nowadays? And they emulate Win32 [sic] w/ SSE2 (aka, P4) userland software and DirectX (9-12). These are "always on" mobile laptops using phone/mobile data with extremely good battery life (20+ hours). They're using Qualcomm Snapdragon, IIRC. Highly intriguing (as even MSVC has native ARM target support nowadays). Granted, that probably?? doesn't include NTVDM, alas ...! ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] DOSBOX isn't for everyone...
Just a thought, some of us have old computers that we want to run freedos on. Running Linux on a Pentium 4 and trying to run Dosbox on top of that is going to be pretty have for that machine. Some people aren't grabbing a multi core modern computer when they use freedos. Some of us want to use old computers, 386 anyone? Linux won't run on a 286 or XT by the way. Modern Linux distributions, don't expect them to work with less than a 1 Ghz processor with at least 1 gig of ram. Even the popular arm processors that run Linux, Raspberry Pi 3 and Pi 4, run at over 1 ghz. Freedos is an OS that works on any ancient PC including dinosaurs like the veritable 8086. Just saying ;-) -- Michael C. Robinson ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
