Yeah. EGA is pretty much the same as standard VGA (where windows is
concerned). The colors (to me) look alot richer and more vibrant on an EGA.
Maybe they just ditched the CGA/Herc drivers then.
At 06:40 PM 1/1/98 EST, you wrote:
>actually, the drivers are present for ega on 3.1 version. just run
>\windows\setup and change to ega. i tried it just for kicks one time, and
>didnt notice much difference except for the splash screen. dialog boxes and
>program manager looked almost identical.
>
>david
>
- John Higginbotham
- limbo.netpath.net
[[[ 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
Happy New Year to All
Yesterday I picked up a few more item including this short list, a Sanyo
model DM8012CX monitor that works; a LaserWriter II $15; two Kodak Diconix
150 Plus printers for free; LattisNet Model 102 power module and four model
505 transceivers for $15; Mac IIsi shell for free; and few other items.
Messages to the those of you that asked about a few things, yes the HP is a
model 9114; I will be trading or selling some of the travelmates; I will be
getting the Mac KB for the person that asked on Friday I hope. That's it
for now Keep Computing. John
In a message dated 98-01-01 18:07:53 EST, you write:
<< CGA, EGA, and Herc are supported by 3.0 and below, but if you want to run
them on 3.1/3.11, you need to download the drivers from microsoft. (Either
that, or I had some screwed up install disks). I figure they were think
"Who'd want to install 3.1/3.11 on something so slow???"
>>
actually, the drivers are present for ega on 3.1 version. just run
\windows\setup and change to ega. i tried it just for kicks one time, and
didnt notice much difference except for the splash screen. dialog boxes and
program manager looked almost identical.
david
groberts(a)mitre.org (Glenn Roberts) wrote:
> i have recently been given an old Zenith laptop model ZFL-181-92. batteries
> discharged or dead. no power supply. i would like information if anyone
> can help me on what type of power supply to use. the label on the bottom
> of the systems says: DC 12 V, Plug-in power supply Model 150-272.
Sorry, I don't know the power-supply polarity, but maybe this will give
you another thing to look for.
I am thinking that HP badge-engineered this model of Zenith as the
Vectra Portable CS. The place I worked at the time bought two or
three of them to replace a couple of HP 110s that were three or four
years old and becoming a data-interchange hassle (different stiffy
format, had to get the 9114A and hook it up, Lotus 1A on the 110
vs. 2.x on the desktops (HP Vectra and Vectra ES), those sorts of
things). My admittedly dim memories of those fit with the pop-up dual
720KB stiffy drive, and I think there was also a bar graph LCD "fuel
gauge" to tell you how much oomph was left in the battery.
As I recall it was very IBM-compatible, but then just about anything
was compared to the 110s.
-Frank McConnell
At 02:39 PM 1/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
><CGA, Hercules or MDA, I can't recall off the top of my head if it even
><supported EGA but I think it did.
>
>3.0 supports all, so does 3.1.
The way I remember it is this way:
CGA, EGA, and Herc are supported by 3.0 and below, but if you want to run
them on 3.1/3.11, you need to download the drivers from microsoft. (Either
that, or I had some screwed up install disks). I figure they were think
"Who'd want to install 3.1/3.11 on something so slow???"
- John Higginbotham
- limbo.netpath.net
>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
>First, I don't consider word processing to be a meaningful test of an
>OS'susefulness. Word processing is probably the most wasteful >way ever
invented to use personal computers. Sure it's easy but I >can word process
just as quickly and easily on my old Mac SE as I >can on a new 95 box.
It IS NOT a test of usefulness, but still, it's one of the reasons that has
made PC computing popular. Besides, there ARE WORD PROCESSORS AVAIBLE FOR
LINUX! Just because billg won't make a word processor for a x86 OS that
isn't his doesn't mean that the OS isn't useful.
>Second, there are applications...I believe WordPerfect is available for
>Linux as well as many other WSIWYG programs. I don't use them on my
>Linux box because I prefer to have it do useful things.
Yep. Visit their site, and you can download a trial. Also, you can
download a beta for the Java version.
>Third, I think you need to pick up a copy of Linux Journal as it has
>listings for commercial software etc.
Where can I get one of those?
>Fourth, let's not underestimate the value of what you call 'TCP/IP Stack'
>operations. We're not talking about a replacement for Trumpet Winsock
>here...we're talking about being able to do EVERYTHING that thousands of
>dollars worth of commercial software can do, do it better and
>FASTER...for FREE. The financial value of that alone is incalculable
>when you realize how much of the Internet simply would not have been
>implemented had it not been for Linux (and other free unix-based OSs).
It IS an advanced system. That's what happens when you get 500 expert
programmers together working cooperatively as their hobby.
>> That was the end of my last try at Linux, a few months ago. I have a
Slackware
>> Linux CD with Kernels up to 1.3.12. I now have T-1 access, though, so if
you
>> can suggest a system which COULD BE A VIABLE REPLACEMENT FOR MacOS OR
WINDOWS,
Try OS/2 Warp. But there arn't too many commercial apps. I guess that it's
most useful to preven hacking, as no one owns a copy. ;-)
>Linux isn't a replacement for MacOS or Windows...it goes FAR BEYOND the
>capabilities of either. Certainly you can use it for word processing,
>using the WordPerfect etc mentioned above, but Linux boxes are serious
>business machines that can represent thousands of dollars in revenues to
>a business that uses it.
Exactly. PC's also became popular because they could do ANYTHING. But my
uses and yours probably are different. I use word processing, (I can type
faster than I handwrite), but I also use e-mail, the 'Net, my browser, 3D
software, and many other things.
>It's like saying a Cray could never be useful because you can't run
Microsoft Word on >it. I don't think it's reasonable to make Word the
be-all end-all basis for judging a >machine.
Exactly. It's one example of a word processor. It's not a standard, just
another popular app. If you're going to measue word processing, just look
at what the avaible editors CAN DO.
>Keep in mind that there's a trade-off between flexibility and
>ease-of-use. Linux will never be as easy to install as Windows 95. It
>isn't intended for that purpose. It's far too powerful and flexible for
>that and assumes that the user wants to go beyond mere word processing.
No, it won't. But that doesn't mean that it can't get easy. (Or just not
hard) Linux will be here for awhile, and so we've got to live withit.
