2011/4/11, Michael B. Brutman mbbrut...@brutman.com:
Do you like cheap storage or 512 byte sectors?
Depends. You know: the storage itself may be somewhat cheaper - but
because of its incompatibility, it can force me to replace part of my
hardware, or to spend a lot of time for additional work
2011/4/11, Michael B. Brutman mbbrut...@brutman.com:
Oh, I forgot to address this one:
Most of us like this progress. While I do enjoy tinkering with my old
hardware, it's not usable for things that most people need to do today.
No, you're wrong; it's not usable for bloated software of
2011/4/11, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net:
The second point that you fail to grasp is that it costs too much
money to maintain backwards compatibility with outdated standards
past a certain point ...
Tell that to the automobile and other industries in this country [..]
Maybe you don't
2011/4/11, Eric Auer:
Finally about two other Zbigniew topics: You should not use 2 GB
FAT16 partitions, those still have very large clusters. Better use
FAT32 partitions of only a few GB at most if you want to have a
system with small clusters. Of course the FAT might be bigger then.
Of
2011/4/10, Jack:
Or, in fact, could this maybe [... just MAYBE!] be another case
of the Wintel Consortium software BRATS being UNABLE to achieve
their targets, using only their college-professors' and bosses'
much-beloved C, and it is actually THOSE brats who are asking
for such help??
This
2011/4/10, Jack gykazequ...@earthlink.net:
Your Forth's Dilemma is not any sort of rant but really
a statement of fact. I know, since I have BEEN there and
DONE that!, as we in the U.S.A. might say.
Well, actually it's not mine - but I've found it interesting, and (as
I wrote) your opinion
2011/3/13, Mateusz Viste:
Maybe. But it's still nice to lower the temperature of the chip, to make it
last longer, and not warm up components that are around it. Plus, it's
always
a little more electricity saved. Running FDAPM costs nothing, and provides
cool advantages. There's no reason to
I read, that the source of CPU (over)heating problems under original
MS/PC-DOS was the fact, that its waiting for key-loop (or however it
is called) didn't set CPU idle, when user (or application) was idle.
For example: when the computer has been left with the cursor blinking
in the command line.
2011/3/12, Eric Auer:
I'm wondering, whether this misfeature has been fixed in FreeDOS?
Yes! The good news is that newer FreeDOS kernels even have a simple
version built into the kernel itself. [..]
Good news! Well, I should have googling for FreeDOS idle CPU,
instead of DOS idle CPU. ;)
