At 04:41 PM 1/22/03 +0000, you wrote: >> I wonder how many 80486s out there have only 8 megs? > >Many low-end 486s (I have several) have eight 30pin SIMM >slots. 1mb 30pin SIMMs are cheap and plentiful on the >secondhard market, so it's easy to take one of those >486s to 8mb. However, going beyond 8mb is much more >difficult because larger 30pin SIMMs (suitable for those >486s) are much harder to find.
OK, if that's the situation I understand where the 8 meg would be more 'common'. >> 80486 laptops might have been only 8 megs but the >> '486 desktop I have here has 16 megs in it > >I certainly agree that it is much better for a 486 to >have more RAM (particularly for X). However, if possible >I would like machines with 8mb RAM to be able to run BL2. I agree. I am not in favor of excluding anyone if it does not cripple the OS in the process (and it doesn't as yet). >> Not being sarcastic here but people with cable modems >> may not be the same people who would bother to keep a >> '486 operational for very long (if they even have one)? > >BL2 is not intended *only* for 486s. Many users of BL1 >have quite powerful computers. What I want to avoid is >shutting out 486s with 8mb RAM. Wouldn't those with 'more powerful computers' be able to add the support for cable modems without much difficulty? >> even though I do have enough network cards to setup >> an intranet I have never bothered. > >You've surprised me Charles. I would have though that >someone like you would have got into networking in a big >way (particularly since you have the hardware just sitting >there). Building my network gave me a great sense of >satifaction and I learned a lot. I've found that 'experts' at networking have usually only setup the same or similar hardware/software many many times. When there is a diversity of hardware they really don't know what they are talking about anymore. They 'got lucky' once or twice and think all machines are 'easy' to find drivers for and setup. This is not the case. Many just keep changing the setup until it works and have no idea how or why. Just attempting to identify my network cards was begining to be a project of it's own and, again, few had any useful information. Websites would 'id' the card most often as the best of it's class rather than the low-end card it actually is/was. I ran out of patience with the sloppiness. >> My machines die off at the rate of one per year > >Aren't some of your machines *really* old? The only 486 >that ever died on me was when I plugged the power connector >the wrong way round (duh). Yes I used an XT with a greenscreen for 15 years until it died really really dead just a few years ago. I then used an 80286 all DOS machine and it died. I moved to an 80386 with 4 meg of memory and it died. Am waiting to see if the 80486 here or the Pentium 5 will die off first. Getting XTs, '286s, and '386 and up all networking means a different setup for each machine not just cloning one working setup to many. >> >Note: people with NICs not in BL2 will still be able to >> >use it. They simply download a new kernel from Slack71 >> >(the bare.i bzimage has support for all NICs). And, as now, >> >they also need to download the correct Slack71 module for >> >their NIC. >> >> Not sure I understand what you mean in the above paragraph? >> The BL2 won't network unless they also download additional >> modules of SlackWare71, > >BL2 will come with six NIC modules (and the kernel will be >compatible with those six only). Users with other NICs will >need to get a module and new kernel from Slack71. fwiw: I have some SMC cards here and have no NE2000 even though I see the NE2000 mentioned more often. I guess I'm just 'lucky'? >Keep in mind that I'm just starting to built BL2. Everything >is subject to change. Perhaps BL2 will support seven NICs >or perhaps only five. It all depends on how things come >together. However, these things develop their own momentum. >Once I have compiled that kernel, I'll be moving on to other >things and it will probably become the final kernel. So >anybody with a strong preference for a NIC (or other feature) >should get in now. I don't feel that I know enough about the kernel to make useful suggestions. Eznet, as you may recall, threw me into a spiral trying to get a connect to my ISP and I had to add binaries to be able to monitor/troubleshoot the process. Being able to troubleshoot the install is important IMO. I hate VI or anything similar with a passion and much prefer WordStar key-cmds myself. I think the old SCO editor was somewhat menu-driven in DOS EDIT fashion and even looked a bit like EDIT? I also seem to recall that the SCO editor used WS key-cmds. None of these are in the kernel though. Charles.Angelich "DOS Ghost" Tech Website : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/ Music,Photos,Stories,etc. Website : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/ Default Browser HomePage : http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/homepage.asp To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
