In a message dated 97-12-31 17:40:13 EST, you write:
<< > (the XT came with a 10MB, but the XT's lasted so long that I found mine
with
> a 42, another reason that you can't run Linux, it requires 40MB minimum)
and
> So, Linux isn't possible, DOS isn't what you want, so get OS/2 or
Errrr...not to quibble...but the primary restriction on using Linux is the
processor and the RAM not so much the hard drive. You can run a usable
linux system on a 386 with 4mb of RAM and 20mb of drive space. I know
because I ran a small FTP/web server on one...if I powered it up, it'd
still run and do ok...can't handle many simultaneous users and swaps
itself to death if you don't reboot it every morning but that's easy
with crond.
You can't do ALOT of software development mind you...but you can have
full networking utilities...even run Lynx for web stuff...and write
shell scripts and editors and do all kinds of useful things.
Wirehead - Anthony Clifton
>>
Er....one question here. I've tried Linux many times, as well as Minix. From
all of my attempts, I have come to the following conclusion: Linux is not for
doing USEFUL things. The express purpose of Linux is to provide something for
people to recompile. After all, you HAVEN'T seen people doing something on
Linux besides recompiling the kernel and configuring TCP/IP stacks, HAVE YOU?
[[[ snip ]]]
> The XT came with a 4.77MHz 8088, but it's not
> hard to find a 8MHz version.
OK so far...
[[[ snip ]]]
> you can run Windows, up to 3.1. You can also run OS/2 (earlier
> versions) and many of the smaller OSes made during the early 80's.
I'll have to reserve judgement on Win 3.1 as I've never tried to run it on
an 8088 (I thought Microsoft dropped support for the mode required by the
8088 in Win3.1, though), but OS/2 is right out. It's entire reason for
being is to run on the 286, so an XT won't cut it.
In addition to Xenix, CP/M-86, Minix, and a variety of Forths, there are
other Unix clones (Venix, for exmaple), the UCSD P-system, and MP/M-86 (if you
can find it!). I don't know offhand whether Concurrent CP/M-86 requires a
286, but I do not believe it does.
> > yes, minix would work, but i dont think it's free.
The lastest version of Minix _is_ free for personal use.
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
>I'll have to reserve judgement on Win 3.1 as I've never tried to run it on
>an 8088 (I thought Microsoft dropped support for the mode required by the
>8088 in Win3.1, though), but OS/2 is right out. It's entire reason for
>being is to run on the 286, so an XT won't cut it.
I haven't personally tried it, but a Japanese company had some XT clone
laptops (OK, luggables) which ran Windows 3.x (Maybe it was 3.0, or 3.1,
there's not to awful much of a difference in my mind).
>In addition to Xenix, CP/M-86, Minix, and a variety of Forths, there are
>other Unix clones (Venix, for exmaple), the UCSD P-system, and MP/M-86 (if
you
>can find it!). I don't know offhand whether Concurrent CP/M-86 requires a
>286, but I do not believe it does.
Yes, but someone somehow (maybe they just upgraded the motherboard) used
OS/2 on their XT. (Well, it had an XT case)
Want to see how much people can laugh without getting knocked out/dying?
Call IBM tech support on it.
Tim D. Hotze
For those of you who would like an account on an honest-to-God
PDP10'ish system...
-=-=- <snip> -=-=-
Path:
Supernews70!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.eerie.fr!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news
From: xkladmin(a)paulallen.com (XKLeTen Admin)
Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp8,alt.sys.pdp10,alt.sys.pdp11,comp.sys.dec
Subject: XKL (PDP10) Site Announcement
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:55:47 GMT
Organization: XKLeTen
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <34a85fd3.3481181(a)nntp.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: xkladmin(a)paulallen.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: stl-wa16-15.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Dec 29 6:56:58 PM PST 1997
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Xref: Supernews70 alt.sys.pdp8:1899 alt.sys.pdp10:3974 alt.sys.pdp11:2924
comp.sys.dec:58635
Dear Fellow PDP-10 Enthusiast,
Over the past 25 years, it's been challenging for all of us to find a
place to run our PDP-10 software. At the same time, there hasn't
been a library of PDP-10 software that is well taken care of, and
made easily available to the interested public.
I would like to offer a solution. I have invested in a TOAD-1
machine running the PDP-10 architecture, and would like to make
its capabilities available. The TOAD is manufactured
by XKL Systems Corporation, and is a completely new hardware
implementation of Digital's 36-bit PDP-10 architecture, not an
emulator running on another platform. This machine I've purchased
will be a repository for PDP10 public domain software, including the
collection of the DEC-10 and DEC-20 DECUS tapes.
By making access accounts available to an initial limited group, we
hope to learn of any issue areas with our new program. Through an
account you can set up with us, you can access this library, and run
programs you may not have seen for years. You may also submit your
own programs for storage, and for use by fellow advocates. These
programs may be submitted via FTP, email or 9-track tapes. Once you
have an account established you could access XKLeTen via telnet.
Anyone may download the libraries of software through anonymous
FTP from XKLeTen.paulallen.com.
The machine, named XKLeTen, is configured as follows:
TOAD-1, 36-bit computing system
TOPS-20 system software
32 MW memory board
4 mm DDS tape drive
9 track tape drive
8 gigabyte disk
I encourage any of you who are interested to contact us to set up an
account. To be considered for an account, please submit the
following information to XKLadmin(a)paulallen.com:
Full name
Email address
Interest or purpose in this project (short summary)
Desired account name
If you have any questions about XKLeTen, or how to execute the
anonymous FTP, please contact us via the same email address.
Bill Gates and I used PDP10s to develop much of Microsoft's early
software. I hope many of you take advantage of this new opportunity
to keep alive some of your old memories.
Paul G. Allen
-=-=- <snip> -=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, SysOp,
The Dragon's Cave BBS (Fido 1:343/272)
kyrrin2 {at} wiz<ards> d[o]t n=e=t
"...No matter how hard we may wish otherwise, our science can only describe
an object, event, or living creature, in our own human terms. It cannot possibly
define any of them!..."
>> >I'll have to reserve judgement on Win 3.1 as I've never tried to run it on
>> >an 8088 (I thought Microsoft dropped support for the mode required by the
>> >8088 in Win3.1, though), but OS/2 is right out. It's entire reason for
>> >being is to run on the 286, so an XT won't cut it.
>>
>> Now if you want to see something really fly, load up Windows 1.03 or 2.0
on
>> it. Those'll run like lightning on any x86 with 512k or more. I have 1.03
>> running off a DD 3.5" floppy on a GRiDCASE 3 laptop (XT class, no HD, Gas
>> Plasma CGA, 512k, DOS in ROM)
>
> Yes, Win 2.0 was quick; code bloat in those days wasn't merely the
> inconvienience it is today-- back then it was FATAL! We had a small,
> minimalist programming ethic back then.
>
> > >In addition to Xenix, CP/M-86, Minix, and a variety of Forths, there are
>> >other Unix clones (Venix, for exmaple), the UCSD P-system, and MP/M-86
(if
>> you
>> >can find it!). I don't know offhand whether Concurrent CP/M-86 requires a
>> >286, but I do not believe it does.
>
>I have a copy of Concurrent. The version I have will ONLY run on a
>PC or XT! Hell, I don't think it even supports hard disks! (But I
>can check).
>
>>
>> Anyone know of a free source for x86 CP/M? or forth? Am I missing
>> something? Isn't forth a language, not an OS?
>>
>>
>> - John Higginbotham
>> - limbo.netpath.net
>>
>
>
> Jeff
Well, would someone dare offend the MS EULA and send me one of:
a)Windows 1.x/2.x
b)Concurrent CP/M
c)Xenix
d)Forth
Finally something that I KNOW about! The XT won't use Linux, that's only
for 386 & higher processors. The XT came with a 4.77MHz 8088, but it's not
hard to find a 8MHz version. You've got to consider that you've ususally
got less than 512K of workable RAM. Depending on what kind of HDD you have
(the XT came with a 10MB, but the XT's lasted so long that I found mine with
a 42, another reason that you can't run Linux, it requires 40MB minimum) and
monitor (the XT came with a mono, but many have CGA EGA and I've even found
a VGA) you can run Windows, up to 3.1. You can also run OS/2 (earlier
versions) and many of the smaller OSes made during the early 80's. Software
is EASY to find for 'em, they'll run most of the software I've seen that was
made up to 88-89 or so. Many of the programs that are found on the
"Ultimate Collections of xxxx Shareware", or stuff like that, mostly old DOS
programs will run on the XT.
So, Linux isn't possible, DOS isn't what you want, so get OS/2 or
Windows. Also, try to use the best monitor that you can find, as they can
pretty much run what a 286 can. Try to find as much RAM as possible.
Hope that this helps,
Tim D. Hotze
-----Original Message-----
From: SUPRDAVE <SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: operating systems
>In a message dated 97-12-31 10:36:45 EST, you write:
>
><< K, let's say I have a stock IBM PC XT. What can I put on it except DOS?
> >>
> yes, minix would work, but i dont think it's free. there's something
called
>ELKS which is under development, but you need to have a working linux box
or
>similar to download the images and create them for use on the xt. seems
that
>720k drives on the xt were recommended as well. for more info, goto
>www.uk.linux.org (i think)
>
>david
Classifieds 2000 (http://www.classifieds2000.com/) has a thing to
automatically let you know when new listings are added. I've signed up for
anything in the "old computers" category, and got this t'other day:
>Greetings from Classifieds2000,
>
>Cool Notify found the following items meeting your search criteria:
[...]
> IMSAI 1978 - DESK TOP, $200, Used
> Eve: (530) 877-5368 Mail: sugar-ii(a)webtv.net
[...]
>To view the complete ads, go to:
>
> http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/Search.exe?358502+29-DEC-97
Hope someone can afford to give it a good home!
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
Have a look at: http://www.linux.org.uk/ELKS-Home/index.html
----------
From: Zeus334[SMTP:Zeus334@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 5:32 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: operating systems
In a message dated 97-12-31 17:40:13 EST, you write:
<< > (the XT came with a 10MB, but the XT's lasted so long that I found mine
with
> a 42, another reason that you can't run Linux, it requires 40MB minimum)
and
> So, Linux isn't possible, DOS isn't what you want, so get OS/2 or
Errrr...not to quibble...but the primary restriction on using Linux is the
processor and the RAM not so much the hard drive. You can run a usable
linux system on a 386 with 4mb of RAM and 20mb of drive space. I know
because I ran a small FTP/web server on one...if I powered it up, it'd
still run and do ok...can't handle many simultaneous users and swaps
itself to death if you don't reboot it every morning but that's easy
with crond.
You can't do ALOT of software development mind you...but you can have
full networking utilities...even run Lynx for web stuff...and write
shell scripts and editors and do all kinds of useful things.
Wirehead - Anthony Clifton
>>
Er....one question here. I've tried Linux many times, as well as Minix. From
all of my attempts, I have come to the following conclusion: Linux is not for
doing USEFUL things. The express purpose of Linux is to provide something for
people to recompile. After all, you HAVEN'T seen people doing something on
Linux besides recompiling the kernel and configuring TCP/IP stacks, HAVE YOU?
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:02:06 +0000 (GMT), Tony Duell
<ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>OK... Assuming all your hardware is working and at the standard addresses
>>t will be, unless somebody has messed about with it), try the following.
{...snip...}
Wow, this thing works great! Faster than I expected. Thanks for the
help!
On Tue, 30 Dec 97 09:23:28 GMT Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk wrote:
>>Rich, you don't say what flavour of PDP-11 you've got, but I have vague
>>mories of a '44. Certainly your description of behaviour sounds like
>>the '44 console program (which runs on an Intel microprocessor somewhere
>>in there.
Phil, it's an 11/34a. Booting works by issuing a "DK" at the $ prompt.
The front keypad controller is an Intel 8008.
Rich Cini/WUGNET
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
============================================
There were (still are) a lot of cartridges for the PCjr. Many of the
games came on these cartridges so that Junior's internal memory could be
taken advantage of. Also second parties came out with "quick boot"
cartridges that would speedup the booting process. There was one called
"jr Video" and also one that had another BIOS on it for a hard drive set
up. The BASIC cartridges are still in demand.
Does this help anyone ot there??
Louie Levy
Eugene PCjr Club Newsletter Editor
www.efn.org/~pcjrclub
