21 Jun
2001
21 Jun
'01
1:36 p.m.
I have a Compaq Portable 386...
Classically speaking... what is best to do in the cases below?
1)I am running dos 6.12, but I am thinking about re-installing with
DOS 4 or DOS 5.
Or more generally is it better to use a circa operating system or a modern operating
system (Assuming the machine will run both) ?
2) The machine came with a 5 1/4" diskette drive, I am considering replacing that
with a 3 and a whatever" drive, or once again more generally when one has an older
machine is it good to upgrade the hardware to make it more usefull.
I suppose on my single machine no one cares really, the "historical Police" will
not appear at my doorstep.
Let us extend the argument, Given a running PDP/11, what of the person who installs a
current day 60GB disk drive and DVD CD ROM?
Curious in San Jose.
BTW I have two of these portables and recently offered one in trade for a part, I am also
willing to sell for cheap.
_______________________________________________________
21 Jun
21 Jun
2:31 p.m.
At 06:36 PM 6/21/01 -0400, you wrote:
I have a Compaq Portable 386...
I have a couple of those and about 4 Compaq Portable IIIs.. Damm
fine little machine IMHO, especially if you have the pod on the back.
Classically speaking... what is best to do in the cases
below?
1)I am running dos 6.12, but I am thinking about re-installing with
DOS 4 or DOS 5.
FWIW They originally came with Compaq DOS 3.3. I'm running that
and DR DOS something on mine.
Or more generally is it better to use a circa operating
system or a modern
operating system (Assuming the machine will run both) ?
They'll run at least MS-DOS 5. I don't know if I've tried anything
higher than that.
2) The machine came with a 5 1/4" diskette drive,
I am considering
replacing that with a 3 and a whatever" drive, or once again more
generally when one has an older machine is it good to upgrade the hardware
to make it more usefull.
Careful! Those are 1/3 height drives. It might not be as easy to
install a 3 1/2" drive as you think. Personally, I'd leave the floppy drive
alone. It's more trouble than it's worth to replace it and you're not going
to gain much in capacity by going from 1.2 Mb to 1.44 Mb. One of the nice
things about the P IIIs is that they have a very extensive drive table in
the BIOS so you can install a LOT bigger hard drive.
I suppose on my single machine no one cares really, the
"historical
Police" will not appear at my doorstep.
Let us extend the argument, Given a running PDP/11, what of the person who
installs a current day 60GB disk drive and DVD CD ROM?
Curious in San Jose.
BTW I have two of these portables and recently offered one in trade for a
part, I am also willing to sell for cheap.
FWIW they used to show up regularly on E-bay and they didn't bring much.
Joe
_______________________________________________________
4:17 p.m.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, joe wrote:
That is probably 3.31. Do function 30h of int 21h and see if AH gets 1Fh.
I'm not familiar with 6.12
You should use one of the COMPAQ OEM releases of MS-DOS, NOT a generic,
nor a PC-DOS. In particular you want COMPAQ's version of MODE.COM
6.2x is the ONLY product that I know of in the history of MICROS~1, where
improved reliability (rather than bells and whistles) was the primary
design goal.
The 386 (even 386SX) models, with >4M of RAM can run Windoze95. To
install Windoze98, you need to add a 387 or 387SX chip.
But would you rather have something that works well?
But 3.5" (or 3") are much more resistant to abuse than
5.25" diskettes. (3.25" is only marginably more robust than 5.25")
Check the CMOS for whether it already has support for 1.4M. If so, then
it's just a matter of a little carpentry to fashion mounting
brackets. Even if the CMOS doesn't support 1.4M, the hardware does, so
it's fairly easy to hack the setup program.
I have a Compaq
Portable 386...
1)I am running dos 6.12, but I am thinking about re-installing with
DOS 4 or DOS 5.
FWIW They originally came with Compaq DOS 3.3. I'm
running that
and DR DOS something on mine. Or more
generally is it better to use a circa operating system or a modern
operating system (Assuming the machine will run both) ?
They'll run at
least MS-DOS 5. I don't know if I've tried anything
higher than that. 2) The machine
came with a 5 1/4" diskette drive, I am considering
replacing that with a 3 and a whatever" drive, or once again more
generally when one has an older machine is it good to upgrade the hardware
to make it more usefull.
Careful! Those are 1/3 height drives. It might not
be as easy to
install a 3 1/2" drive as you think. Personally, I'd leave the floppy drive
alone. It's more trouble than it's worth to replace it and you're not going
to gain much in capacity by going from 1.2 Mb to 1.44 Mb. One of the nice
things about the P IIIs is that they have a very extensive drive table in
the BIOS so you can install a LOT bigger hard drive.
If you are running DOS 3.3[0], then you can't easily exceed 32M per drive
letter. If you are running 3.31 or above, then you can go up to 500M.
>I suppose on my single machine no one cares
really, the "historical
>Police" will not appear at my doorstep.
IF you cut a hole in the case for easy mounting of a 3.5" drive, then that
will invoke somebody offering e-bay level of money for an unmodified
machine. (BTDT)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
4:42 p.m.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, joe wrote:> One of the nice
There were some OEM versions of 3.3 that allowed greater than
32meg per partition, notably Zenith's 3.3+. Is the 3.31 with 500meg
partitons a Compaq-specific item? With the exception of Zenith, I
thought the 32meg partition barrier wasn't broken until DOS 4? Not
that I'd ever recomend the use of PC-DOS 4 to anyone.....buggy as all
heck....
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
things about the P IIIs is that they have a very
extensive drive table in
the BIOS so you can install a LOT bigger hard drive.
If you are running DOS 3.3[0], then you can't easily exceed 32M per drive
letter. If you are running 3.31 or above, then you can go up to 500M.
5:12 p.m.
If you are
running DOS 3.3[0], then you can't easily exceed 32M per drive
letter. If you are running 3.31 or above, then you can go up to 500M.
There were some OEM versions of 3.3 that allowed
greater than
32meg per partition,
NO version of 3.3[0] did. NONE. NOT ANY. Only starting
with 3.31
notably Zenith's 3.3+. Is the 3.31 with 500meg
partitons a Compaq-specific item? With the exception of Zenith, I
thought the 32meg partition barrier wasn't broken until DOS 4?
Compaq released an MS-DOS 3.31, as did Zenith and a few
others. Apparently ALL 3.31 releases supported >32M.
HOWEVER, IBM did NOT release a 3.31, so 4.00 was the first
PC-DOS >32M.
There was more difference between 3.30 and 3.31 than there was between
3.31 and 4.00
BTW, the OS MINOR version is converted from a two digit decimal number
into binary for the storage of the internal ("true") OS version.
therefore, 3.30 is stored internally as release THIRTY of version THREE,
and there does not exist a version three point THREE (which would be
3.03).
Version three point thirty-one is when the 32M limitation was eliminated.
The 500M limitation was an issue of BIOS, not DOS.
Not
that I'd ever recomend the use of PC-DOS 4 to anyone.....buggy as all
heck....
Quite a few (not all) of the "bugs" in PC-DOS 4.00 were actually
incompatabilities. When they changed the drive access to cross 32M, many
programs that did "low level" disk I/O (such as Norton fUtilities) would
not work with the new OS release. InfoWorld, et al, reasoned that because
their favorite utilities worked with 3.30, but not with 4.00, that that
constituted a bug in 4.00. For version 5.00 ("new and improved"),
MICROS~1 coordinated with Norton, etc. to assure availability of upgrades
of incompatible utilities.
But as an indicator of the "thoroughness" with
which 4.x was debugged: 4.01 misreports itself as 4.00.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
PO Box 1236 (510) 558-9366
Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
22 Jun
22 Jun
5:23 a.m.
Yes, Compaq was the source of v3.31. That was, as you point out, an early
"large"-disk-volume-capable version. I swiped a version from one of the
Compaq's with which I had frequent contact, and happily used it with ESDI drives
for years.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: What's best to do?? classically speaking
On Thu, 21 Jun
2001, joe wrote:> One of the nice
There were some OEM versions of 3.3 that allowed greater than
32meg per partition, notably Zenith's 3.3+. Is the 3.31 with 500meg
partitons a Compaq-specific item? With the exception of Zenith, I
thought the 32meg partition barrier wasn't broken until DOS 4? Not
that I'd ever recomend the use of PC-DOS 4 to anyone.....buggy as all
heck....
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
things about the P IIIs is that they have a very
extensive drive table in
the BIOS so you can install a LOT bigger hard drive.
If you are running DOS 3.3[0], then you can't easily exceed 32M per drive
letter. If you are running 3.31 or above, then you can go up to 500M.
7:39 a.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Yes, Compaq was the source of v3.31. That was, as you
point out, an early
"large"-disk-volume-capable version. I swiped a version from one of the
Compaq's with which I had frequent contact, and happily used it with ESDI drives
for years.
NO, Compaq was NOT "the source of v3.31". They were one of many.
ALL OEMs were offered 3.31. Many did not want to pay the asking price.
Compaq and Zenith were the most notable ones who did.
There are minor differences in MODE.COM, IO.SYS, FORMAT.COM, and a few
other files from one OEM's version to the next. 1.25?, 2.11, and 3.31 are
the OEM versions that were most commonly customized, with changes such as
support for 720K 5.25", 720K 3.5" (same, but a few messages altered),
internal/external video, ... Whenever using 1.25, 2.11, or 3.31, ALWAYS
keep track, AND IDENTIFY, which OEM it was. The customizations were
different from one OEM to the next.
Prior to 5.00, MS-DOS was, IN THEORY, available only from OEMs. Yes,
there was such a giant gray market that nobody noticed the restriction.
There appears to have been a 10 year non-competition contract between
MICROS~1 and IBM, wherein MICROS~1 could sell to OEMs, but could not sell
DOS as a retail product. 5.00 was the first version where DOS was
available legitimately as a retail product. It was "NEW and IMPROVED!"
The "NEW and IMPROVED" consisted mostly of bug fixes to 4.00, plus
availability from MICROS~1.
NOTE: 5.00 has met the 10 year rule for over a month now. Windoze 3.10
has 2 more months to go, even for BETA.
OB_OT: NOT COUNTING bundling of additonal [third party] programs, who can
name what the differences are between 5.00 and 6.00?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8:06 a.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
Prior to 5.00, MS-DOS was, IN THEORY, available only
from OEMs. Yes,
there was such a giant gray market that nobody noticed the restriction.
There appears to have been a 10 year non-competition contract between
MICROS~1 and IBM, wherein MICROS~1 could sell to OEMs, but could not sell
DOS as a retail product. 5.00 was the first version where DOS was
available legitimately as a retail product. It was "NEW and IMPROVED!"
The "NEW and IMPROVED" consisted mostly of bug fixes to 4.00, plus
availability from MICROS~1.
NOTE: 5.00 has met the 10 year rule for over a month now. Windoze 3.10
has 2 more months to go, even for BETA.
Ah yes, DOS 5.0. The last time I felt I got my money's worth from
a Microsoft product. It was SO cool when you were used to whatever
3.3 copies you'd pilfered from wherever. Win95 came close to this
only when fresh out of the box installed with all protected mode
drivers. It was all downhill from there. I bought DOS 5.0
from one of the campus computing organizations at my
grad school.
It was expensive, if memory serves. But worth it.
---
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8:55 a.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
I liked PC-DOS 4.00. 8-)
Peace... Sridhar
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Jim Strickland wrote:
Prior to 5.00,
MS-DOS was, IN THEORY, available only from OEMs. Yes,
there was such a giant gray market that nobody noticed the restriction.
There appears to have been a 10 year non-competition contract between
MICROS~1 and IBM, wherein MICROS~1 could sell to OEMs, but could not sell
DOS as a retail product. 5.00 was the first version where DOS was
available legitimately as a retail product. It was "NEW and IMPROVED!"
The "NEW and IMPROVED" consisted mostly of bug fixes to 4.00, plus
availability from MICROS~1.
NOTE: 5.00 has met the 10 year rule for over a month now. Windoze 3.10
has 2 more months to go, even for BETA.
Ah yes, DOS 5.0. The last time I felt I got my money's worth from
a Microsoft product. It was SO cool when you were used to whatever
3.3 copies you'd pilfered from wherever. Win95 came close to this
only when fresh out of the box installed with all protected mode
drivers. It was all downhill from there. I bought DOS 5.0
from one of the campus computing organizations at my grad school.
It was expensive, if memory serves. But worth it.
---
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4:09 p.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
Jim Strickland skrev:
Ah yes, DOS 5.0. The last time I felt I got my
money's worth from
a Microsoft product. It was SO cool when you were used to whatever
3.3 copies you'd pilfered from wherever. Win95 came close to this
only when fresh out of the box installed with all protected mode
drivers. It was all downhill from there. I bought DOS 5.0
from one of the campus computing organizations at my grad school.
It was expensive, if memory serves. But worth it.
Why? It had no GUI, no multitasking and rudimentary limitations on filenames.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
23 Jun
23 Jun
9:37 a.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
Jim Strickland skrev:
>Ah yes, DOS 5.0. The last time I felt I got my money's worth from
On 23
Jun 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Why? It had no GUI, no multitasking and rudimentary
limitations on filenames.
So?, what's the down side?
3:30 p.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
XenoSoft skrev:
Jim Strickland
skrev:
>Ah yes, DOS 5.0. The last time I felt I got my money's worth from
On 23
Jun 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Why? It had no GUI, no multitasking and rudimentary limitations on
> filenames. So?, what's the down side?
Are you into whips, chains and latex clothing as well?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
3:09 p.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
>> >Ah yes, DOS 5.0. The last time I felt I
got my money's worth from
>> Why? It had no GUI, no multitasking and rudimentary limitations on
>> filenames.
>So?, what's the down side?
On 24 Jun 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Are you into whips, chains and latex clothing as well?
Thank you for the invitation, but I'll wait until I know you better.
Admittedly, if you are going to have only one computer, and want it to
serve multiple purposes, then a GUI, multitasking, and verbose file names
might be useful. (BTW, DOS 5.00 DID have a poor quality GUI, called
WIN3.1x)
For many uses, a GUI can be more hassle than it is worth.
If you have multiple computers, then multitasking ceases to be so
important. I've often found it preferable to use multiple machines
simultaneously instead of task switching. Bookkeeping, order entry and
shipping, development, analysis, and testing were better off on separate
machines. Yes, I did fire up 5 machines when I worked.
It would be nice to have slightly relaxed constraints on filenames, but
I've seen too many people make a paragraph long filename.
4:19 p.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
For many uses, a GUI can be more hassle than it is
worth. If you have
multiple computers, then multitasking ceases to be so important.
I've often found it preferable to use multiple machines simultaneously
instead of task switching. Bookkeeping, order entry and shipping,
development, analysis, and testing were better off on separate
machines. Yes, I did fire up 5 machines when I worked.
Me too. And the added advantage was that if one app crashed, it didn't
take the rest with it (as is the case with Windows 9x).
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
24 Jun
24 Jun
4:46 p.m.
New subject: MS-DOS version (was: What's best to do?? classically speaking
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Admittedly, if you are going to have only one
computer, and want it to
serve multiple purposes, then a GUI, multitasking, and verbose file names
might be useful. (BTW, DOS 5.00 DID have a poor quality GUI, called
WIN3.1x)
[...]
What? No one has mentioned the task-switching DOSSHELL yet? It's not
multitasking, but it did let you switch between the program you ran, and
it did offer a GUI of sorts.
-brian.
21 Jun
21 Jun
3:05 p.m.
rhudson(a)cnonline.net wrote:
I have a Compaq Portable 386...
Classically speaking... what is best to do in the cases below?
Let us extend the argument, Given a running PDP/11, what of the person who installs a
current day 60GB disk drive and DVD CD ROM?
I am not quite sure what the question is here. Someone can correct me
if I am wrong, but I believe the largest single disk drive DEC ever sold
that can be attached to a PDP11 (UNIBUS or QBUS) was the RA73 SDI disk
at 2GB. Although SCSI interfaces were available from 3rd party vendors
that can support larger drives, I don't think 60GB would be very
appropriate for a PDP11. A DVD-ROM drive? Now that would be
interesting if it was even possible. Maybe I can convert all my 9-track
media for the 11/70 to a single DVD :)
On a more serious side: I run RA72, RL02 disks, and a TU81+ tape unit
on my 11/70, which are much newer than the machine itself. Although
these devices are original DEC storage devices and are supported by
later OS's, vintage OS versions were written for the storage devices of
their time. Having these more "modern" storage devices, I find it
difficult to run older OS versions that pre-date them. For instance,
6th edition AT&T UNIX supports disks such as the RK05 and RP04, but not
the newer MSCP disks like the RA72.
Running newer storage devices with vintage CPU's has its advantages in
size, cost, serviceability, and availability, but can be a problem with
OS versions that were not designed to support them.
--
Doug Carman
pdp11(a)bellsouth.net
3:15 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1734 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010622/68931e02/at…
5:47 p.m.
> I have a Compaq Portable 386...
On Fri, 22
Jun 2001, Tony Duell wrote:
I'm a user, not a collector. I want my machines to
work and be useful, so
I am generally happy doing modifications.
Hmmm... Often modern OSes require rather more memory, disk space,
processor speed, etc than you get on classic machines. I'm normally
happier with OSes from about the time of the machine. My MS-DOS PC(s) run
3.3, nothing later.
I would run _COMPAQ_ MS-DOS 3.31, or _COMPAQ_ MS-DOS 5.00, or [FIRST
CHOICE:] generic 6.2x with MODE.COM from Compaq 5.00 (with SETVER). It is
nice to have a version of MODE.COM that supports the internal/external
video issues of the Compaq.
That'll permit running Windoze 3.1x.
I would not run Windoze9x unless you are really desperate for that.
2) The machine
came with a 5 1/4" diskette drive, I am considering
replacing that with a 3 and a whatever" drive, or once again more
generally when one has an older machine is it good to upgrade the
hardware to make it more usefull.
I have no problem with reversable hardware
mods. If it's just a matter
of slipping out the 5.25" drive and slotting in a 3.5" one in one of
those adapter frames, then I see no problem. But I find it very useful to
keep 5.25" drives around. I asusme, though, you can't fit 2 drives into
this machine.
I do, however, object to modifications that totally change the machine
(e.g. putting a Pentium motherboard, even one running a PDP11 emulator,
into a PDP11 case).
22 Jun
22 Jun
12:52 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1479 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010622/f1c1906d/at…
5:07 a.m.
rhudson skrev:
I have a Compaq Portable 386...
Classically speaking... what is best to do in the cases
below?
1)I am running dos 6.12, but I am thinking about
re-installing with
DOS 4 or DOS 5.
Or more generally is it better to use a circa operating system or a modern
operating system (Assuming the machine will run both) ?
MS-DOS really doesn't put much demand on the system regardless of version,
AFAIK. If you find DOS 6 more comfortable and can afford the extra hard drive
space, go ahead.
2) The machine came with a 5 1/4" diskette drive,
I am considering replacing
that with a 3 and a whatever" drive, or once again more generally when one
has an older machine is it good to upgrade the hardware to make it more
usefull.
It is definitely good to upgrade machines. When machines stop being upgraded,
that's when they turn into useless antiques.
I suppose on my single machine no one cares really, the
"historical Police"
will not appear at my doorstep.
Let us extend the argument, Given a running PDP/11,
what of the person who
installs a current day 60GB disk drive and DVD CD ROM?
All power to them! Time-typical setups are fine for museums, but if you're
going to actually use the computer in a day-to-day way, authenticity is a
minor concern.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
8431
days inactive
8434
days old
19 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bdc＠world.std.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
pdp11＠bellsouth.net -
rhudson＠cnonline.net -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
vance＠ikickass.org