On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Clarence Verge wrote: > > Lots of stuff that was written for DOS in 1980 won't > > run on later DOS's. Part of the reason I abandoned DOS > > when I did was for that very reason. Some stuff just > > wouldn't work on newer hardware with newer DOS's. > > What, please ?
First thing that comes to mind was a little voice that came out of the PC speaker. Said something like, "Help, I've fallen into the computer and I can't get out!" Worked fine on a 286 running MS-DOS 3.3. Worked ok on a 386 running MS-DOS 5.0. Didn't work on an AMD K5-75 running MS-DOS 5.0, or OpenDOS 7.x. Then there was... GeoClock, I think it was called. It showed a map of the earth with where the sun was shining and where it was dark. The shadow moved across the map according to time of day and time of year. Worked fine on 386. Didn't work on K5. Then there was a (racing) game called HiOctane. Worked as late as P-166 under OpenDOS 7.x. Moved the hard drive to a K6-2-500, and poof. Wouldn't work any more. > Let's not argue about what we are free to do. > Sure Linux works fine on your 486. See my DOS 3.3 comment above. > Try using the latest and greatest on your 486.:( > I'm really depressed about our options. Latest and greatest what? I already mentioned that the latest and greatest FreeBSD works fine on the 486. I'm not sure, but I think RH 7.x has a problem with the VLB rather than the fact that it's a 486. > The gist of my message was that we have already seen the way of > the future for everyone not firmly stuck in the past like me and > some others here. I don't like it. > I would like another option, please. ;-) I'm stuck firmly in "two to three years ago." As "two to three years ago" moves forward, so do I. ;-) > Moving to Linux is preferable of course, but for the average user that > IS going mean moving regularly for the rest of his/her life, isn't it ? It depends on whether you can "get by" on just open source software. If you feel you need precompiled binaries... like Arachne... then you'll have to meet the requirements. Most people on this list seem to be of the type that wants to discover what works and then stick with that. In such a case, you can stick with the basic system, and just tweak a little here and there. No, there's no need to move regularly any more than there was a requirement to move regularly with DOS. > To me my computer is just a tool. > I want to use it every day, not upgrade it every day. Then don't. ;-) > The required upgrades would probably be bi-yearly. Required upgrades... hmmm.... If you're talking security patches, they come whenever exploits are discovered. If you mean like Mandrake 8.0 to Mandrake 8.1... only do them when you feel like it... I'm still running RH 6.2 which is from, IIRC, ~Mar 2000. Before that, I'd run RH 5.1 since ~Jul '98. Before that... well, yes, I did play the upgrade game a bit. ;-) > This computer is a P90 running DOS 5.0. That's fine for running a full Linux distribution (except if you have less than 64MB of RAM, you won't want GNOME or KDE, and if you have less than 32 MB of RAM, you won't want to run a lot of apps at the same time, like Netscape 4.x and WP, and if you have less than 12 MB of RAM, you won't really want to run X). > My OFFICE computer is a 1990 33Mhz '486 running DOS 3.3. > Am I late for my upgrade ?-)) (Yeah, about $12000 CAD) Depends on how much memory it has. ;-) Maybe make a good dedicated firewall machine. - Steve
