31 Dec
1997
31 Dec
'97
3:44 p.m.
At 04:02 PM 12/31/97 EST, you wrote:
1.03
(if
>> you
>> >can find it!). I don't know offhand whether Concurrent CP/M-86
requires a
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
I don't know about anyone else but I might consider it if I knew who
"me" is.
Joe
>> >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
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 >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