13 Oct
2002
13 Oct
'02
7:56 p.m.
"Scarletdown" <SecretaryBird(a)SoftHome.net> wrote:
I might just build a very minimalist 386 or 486 system
from spare parts
I have lying about here, set it up with FreeDOS or MINIX, and make that
the console. [...]
Actually the easiest way to build a 386-based terminal is with MSDOS
(or DRDOS) and kermit. Kermit supports most serial cards and even some
ethernet cards (so you can telnet over TCP/IP). There is even
DOS-based software for mouse support (so you can cut & paste text).
Kermit or DOS can take care of most input and output conversions so
you can talk to almost any system that support telnet or async serial.
BTW since most IDE disk have a spin down feature, you can spin down the disk
just after you load kermit, so you don't even have to listen to the hard
disk. Many systems of that era didn't have PSU fans, so spinning down
the disk made the system totally quiet.
**vp
13 Oct
13 Oct
10:58 p.m.
On 13 Oct 2002 at 10:14, vassilip(a)dsl.cis.upenn.edu wrote:
"Scarletdown"
<SecretaryBird(a)SoftHome.net> wrote:
I've got most of the components gathered and ready for assembly. My
first choice for this is still MINIX. I need to check the FAQ to
determine whether or not this 3COM EtherLink II TP (8 Bit ISA
Ethernet adapter) is one of the few NICs supported by MINIX. Then I
have to check and see if Token Ring and 3270 are supported. If just
one of those is a no go, then I will be using FreeDOS; an open source
MS-DOS compatible OS (think of it as to MS-DOS as Linux is to Unix).
The system thus far will consist of a 486/DX-33 in a MB with 8 16-BIT
ISA slots and 8 MB of RAM, VGA adapter, 16 bit IO card with one
floppy controller, one IDE controller, 2 serial ports, and 1 parallel
port, a 2nd IO card with 2 serial and 1 parallel port, then an
Ethernet adapter and a 3270 adapter (don't have an ISA Token Ring
card yet), 3.5" and 5.25" floppies, and dual IDE hard drives (43MB
and 84MB respectively). If I end up going with FreeDOS instead of
MINIX, the EtherLink II will be replaced with either an EtherLink III
or EtherExpress and the II will be used in the PS/2 Model 30, since
its slots are all 8 bit ISA.
The reason this system will have four COM ports is because in
addition to serving as the console for the Cromemco System Two, she
will also be the bridge between our various other classics (TI-99/4a,
Apple II systems of various models, TRS-80s, KayPros, etc) and the
LAN, as those old beasts don't have Ethernet capability and will
connect via serial connection.
I'm really looking forward to getting this little project started
soon. It should make for a few experience points, much like building
a FreeSCO router did. :)
-- Scarletdown
I might just build a very minimalist 386 or 486
system from spare
parts I have lying about here, set it up with FreeDOS or MINIX, and
make that the console. [...]
Actually the easiest way to build a 386-based terminal is with MSDOS
(or DRDOS) and kermit. Kermit supports most serial cards and even some
ethernet cards (so you can telnet over TCP/IP). There is even
DOS-based software for mouse support (so you can cut & paste text).
11:22 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Scarletdown once stated:
The system thus far will consist of a 486/DX-33 in a MB with 8 16-BIT
ISA slots and 8 MB of RAM, VGA adapter, 16 bit IO card with one
floppy controller, one IDE controller, 2 serial ports, and 1 parallel
port, a 2nd IO card with 2 serial and 1 parallel port, then an
Ethernet adapter and a 3270 adapter (don't have an ISA Token Ring
card yet), 3.5" and 5.25" floppies, and dual IDE hard drives (43MB
and 84MB respectively). If I end up going with FreeDOS instead of
MINIX, the EtherLink II will be replaced with either an EtherLink III
or EtherExpress and the II will be used in the PS/2 Model 30, since
its slots are all 8 bit ISA.
Hmmm, Linux 2.0 will run fine on such a system, although getting it
installed (personally I use RedHat 5.2) is a bit tricky; I did get it
installed on a laptop with 120M harddrive and 4M RAM (although it took the
better part of a day and wasn't for the feight of heart---details if anyone
wants them).
The reason this system will have four COM ports is
because in
addition to serving as the console for the Cromemco System Two, she
will also be the bridge between our various other classics (TI-99/4a,
Apple II systems of various models, TRS-80s, KayPros, etc) and the
LAN, as those old beasts don't have Ethernet capability and will
connect via serial connection.
I don't think you'll be able to run all four serial ports at the same
time; that is, if they share IRQs you probably won't be able to. I was able
to shoehorn in four on my main Linux system, but I had to give each one its
own IRQ, and modify the serial driver (that was easier for me than
attempting to dig up the required kernel command line arguments).
But since I obtained a Cyclades serial board, I haven't had to deal with
the stock serial ports 8-)
-spc (Wouldn't run anything higher than 2.0 on a 486 though ... )
11:28 p.m.
On 14 Oct 2002 at 0:23, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
I don't think you'll be able to run all four
serial ports at the
same
time; that is, if they share IRQs you probably won't be able to. I
was able to shoehorn in four on my main Linux system, but I had to
give each one its own IRQ, and modify the serial driver (that was
easier for me than attempting to dig up the required kernel command
line arguments).
Fortunately, the second serial card has jumpers for using IRQ 5 and 9
as well. Since there won't be a sound card or a mouse, there
shouldn't be any conflicts.
-- Scarletdown
11:38 p.m.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Hrm, this is getting a little OT isn't it?
Hmmm, Linux 2.0 will run fine on such a system,
although getting it
installed (personally I use RedHat 5.2) is a bit tricky; I did get it
installed on a laptop with 120M harddrive and 4M RAM (although it took
the better part of a day and wasn't for the feight of heart---details if
anyone wants them).
I have 486 boxen running both 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, which seem to work much
more efficiently than the ancient 2.0 kernels. As far as distributions go,
Debian seems to be better suited for installs on small hard drives, but I
managed an install of RedHat on a 120MB drive once (and I swore I'd never
do it again).
I don't think you'll be able to run all four
serial ports at the same
time; that is, if they share IRQs you probably won't be able to. I was
able to shoehorn in four on my main Linux system, but I had to give each
one its own IRQ, and modify the serial driver (that was easier for me
than attempting to dig up the required kernel command line arguments).
The 2.2 and 2.4 Linux kernels support IRQ sharing, so it should work "OK"
so long as you don't attempt to run the shared ports at very high baud
rates.
But since I obtained a Cyclades serial board, I
haven't had to deal with
the stock serial ports 8-)
I have to agree, intelligent serial cards really help. I use a Digi in one
of my systems.
-Toth
14 Oct
14 Oct
12:40 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Tothwolf once stated:
I tried compiling a 2.4 kernel for one of my systems (static compilation,
no modules---I tend to forgoe modules for servers) and it was (with the same
settings) about twice the size as the 2.0 kernel I'm currently running. My
486 systems are a bit tight with memory so that is a concern for me.
And yes, I did a RedHat on 120MB (okay, more like 112MB---had to use 8M
for swap 8-) but like I said, it wasn't something I'd like to repeat any
time soon.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Hrm, this is getting a little OT isn't it?
Well, most 486 systems are on topic, and the Linux 2.0 kernel is about
half-way to being on topic so ...
Hmmm, Linux
2.0 will run fine on such a system, although getting it
installed (personally I use RedHat 5.2) is a bit tricky; I did get it
installed on a laptop with 120M harddrive and 4M RAM (although it took
the better part of a day and wasn't for the feight of heart---details if
anyone wants them).
I have 486 boxen running both 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, which seem to work much
more efficiently than the ancient 2.0 kernels. As far as distributions go,
Debian seems to be better suited for installs on small hard drives, but I
managed an install of RedHat on a 120MB drive once (and I swore I'd never
do it again). The 2.2 and 2.4 Linux kernels support IRQ sharing, so
it should work "OK"
so long as you don't attempt to run the shared ports at very high baud
rates.
What about the hardware?
-spc (Thought the PC hardware didn't allow sharing of IRQs ... )
12:57 a.m.
On 14 Oct 2002 at 1:41, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Tothwolf once stated:
Also, I was talking about using MINIX as the OS for my Cromemco
Command Center; and MINIX is a somewhat classic *NIX OS. So both the
MINIX factor, and especially the Cromemco angle help keep this on
topic.
I just did a bit of snooping and it seems that although the 3Com
EtherLink II is supported under MINIX, there is no Token Ring or 3270
support. Ethernet is the only network supported.
Therefore, I am now looking at the possibility of using Coherent as
the OS. Hopefully it will meet my networking needs. I really don't
want to go with FreeDOS or MS-DOS actually, since I realized that
there is no login/password feature. I will consider some sort of
minimalist Linux implementation as well. FreeSCO is a prime example
of one of these Tiny Linux systems. However, FreeSCO would not be
suitable for me, as it is intended just to be used as a router, and I
do not think that Token Ring or 3270 are supported there either.
Ah well. Back to the hunt.
-- Scarletdown
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Hrm, this is getting a little OT isn't it?
Well, most 486 systems are on topic, and the Linux 2.0 kernel is
about
half-way to being on topic so ...
2:34 a.m.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Scarletdown wrote:
I just did a bit of snooping and it seems that
although the 3Com
EtherLink II is supported under MINIX, there is no Token Ring or 3270
support. Ethernet is the only network supported.
The EtherLink II is quite inefficient as far as ISA ethernet cards go too.
The 3C501 is probably the only thing worse than a 3C503. My favorite ISA
card is still the 3C509B (EtherLink III), but the original 3C509 works
quiet well too.
Therefore, I am now looking at the possibility of
using Coherent as the
OS. Hopefully it will meet my networking needs. I really don't want to
go with FreeDOS or MS-DOS actually, since I realized that there is no
login/password feature. I will consider some sort of minimalist Linux
implementation as well. FreeSCO is a prime example of one of these Tiny
Linux systems. However, FreeSCO would not be suitable for me, as it is
intended just to be used as a router, and I do not think that Token Ring
or 3270 are supported there either.
If you are looking for something with lots of support for network
hardware, Linux seems to be the way to go. Linux network drivers are quite
diverse, and unsupported cards tend to be the exception. I often still
prefer *BSD for dedicated servers, but in those cases, more common
hardware is usually in use.
I investigated FreeSCO, LRP, and several derivatives for one of my 486
router/gateway systems. None of them were exactly what I was looking for,
mostly because the software they contained wasn't up to date. In the end,
I ended up stripping down a Debian install to the essentials, and then
built a custom kernel with support for the different interfaces and
networks I wanted to bridge. I'm fairly sure I could even add 3270 support
to that router if I ever have the need.
-Toth
3:22 a.m.
On 14 Oct 2002 at 4:15, r. 'bear' stricklin wrote:
Yeah. I discovered that shortly after my last post. How about
FreeBSD? Would that work on such a miniscule setup?
> Therefore, I am now looking at the
possibility of using Coherent
> as the OS. Hopefully it will meet my networking needs.
You will probably be disappointed, as Coherent never supported TCP/IP. 
1:12 p.m.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Scarletdown wrote:
Yeah. I discovered that shortly after my last post. How about
FreeBSD? Would that work on such a miniscule setup?
About a year and half ago I booted the 1.4.2 release of NetBSD/i386 on a
4MB 386DX/25. It was tight, but it worked. I can even remember running
pre-1.0 versions of Linux on a friend's 2MB 386SX/16. I had to
temporarily lend him two 1MB SIMMs for the initial install and a kernel
recompile.
-brian.
On 14 Oct 2002 at 4:15, r. 'bear' stricklin
wrote:
> Therefore, I am now looking at the possibility of
using Coherent
> as the OS. Hopefully it will meet my networking needs.
You will probably be disappointed, as Coherent never supported TCP/IP.
15 Oct
15 Oct
1:47 a.m.
On 14 Oct 2002 at 11:02, Brian Chase wrote:
About a year and half ago I booted the 1.4.2 release
of NetBSD/i386 on
a 4MB 386DX/25. It was tight, but it worked. I can even remember
running pre-1.0 versions of Linux on a friend's 2MB 386SX/16. I had
to temporarily lend him two 1MB SIMMs for the initial install and a
kernel recompile.
After looking through the supported hardware list for NetBSD, it
looks like we may have a winner here. Only thing not mentioned is
3270 support, but I can deal with that issue later. Now, I think it
is time to begin Build-0000 of this beast (This is just going to be a
build purely for hardware testing, which will use DOS 6.22 and WfW
3.11.)
-- Scarletdown
14 Oct
14 Oct
2:49 a.m.
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
Some cards handle it better than others. I only had a few cards that
didn't want to get along. Strangely enough, for older cards, I had the
best luck with cards that had real 16550A uarts on them instead of custom
multifunction I/O chips. Many of the newer multi-I/O cards can cope with
shared IRQs too.
-Toth
It was thus said that the Great Tothwolf once stated:
I did forget to mention something quite important about the 2.2 kernels
when running them on older hardware. Kernels of the 2.2 series prior to
2.2.19 or so have a tendency to act *very* slow on these systems. I never
could track the problem down, but I think it was something to do with IRQ
or DMA handling. The problem did not show up on 586 and later hardware,
and it still puzzles me. I had no trouble at all once I installed 2.2.20
and later.
Did you happen to notice how much memory the kernel may have freed at
bootup? I've not noticed a significant increase in terms of memory usage
I have 486 boxen running both 2.2 and 2.4
kernels, which seem to work
much more efficiently than the ancient 2.0 kernels. As far as
distributions go, Debian seems to be better suited for installs on
small hard drives, but I managed an install of RedHat on a 120MB drive
once (and I swore I'd never do it again).
I tried compiling a 2.4 kernel for one of my systems (static
compilation, no modules---I tend to forgoe modules for servers) and it
was (with the same settings) about twice the size as the 2.0 kernel I'm
currently running. My 486 systems are a bit tight with memory so that
is a concern for me. from 2.2 to 2.4. Both 2.2 and 2.4 can be compiled much
smaller than 2.0,
if you disable everything you don't really need. Both versions
are much
preferred over 2.0 when used for embedded applications...
The 2.2 and
2.4 Linux kernels support IRQ sharing, so it should work
"OK" so long as you don't attempt to run the shared ports at very high
baud rates.
What about the hardware? 
12:27 p.m.
It all seems rather elaborate for a dumb terminal!
Y'all seem to be moving from building a terminal, into building a network
server!
Why not XTs with serial ports?
If you are THAT hung up on avoiding MS-DOS (I don't think that MICROS~1
really got truly evil until about 3.00), why not just write a trivial
terminal emulation program and put it in the bootstrap?
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Scarletdown wrote:
On 13 Oct 2002 at 10:14, vassilip(a)dsl.cis.upenn.edu
wrote:
"Scarletdown"
<SecretaryBird(a)SoftHome.net> wrote:
I've got most of the components gathered and ready for assembly. My
first choice for this is still MINIX. I need to check the FAQ to
determine whether or not this 3COM EtherLink II TP (8 Bit ISA
Ethernet adapter) is one of the few NICs supported by MINIX. Then I
have to check and see if Token Ring and 3270 are supported. If just
one of those is a no go, then I will be using FreeDOS; an open source
MS-DOS compatible OS (think of it as to MS-DOS as Linux is to Unix).
The system thus far will consist of a 486/DX-33 in a MB with 8 16-BIT
ISA slots and 8 MB of RAM, VGA adapter, 16 bit IO card with one
floppy controller, one IDE controller, 2 serial ports, and 1 parallel
port, a 2nd IO card with 2 serial and 1 parallel port, then an
Ethernet adapter and a 3270 adapter (don't have an ISA Token Ring
card yet), 3.5" and 5.25" floppies, and dual IDE hard drives (43MB
and 84MB respectively). If I end up going with FreeDOS instead of
MINIX, the EtherLink II will be replaced with either an EtherLink III
or EtherExpress and the II will be used in the PS/2 Model 30, since
its slots are all 8 bit ISA.
The reason this system will have four COM ports is because in
addition to serving as the console for the Cromemco System Two, she
will also be the bridge between our various other classics (TI-99/4a,
Apple II systems of various models, TRS-80s, KayPros, etc) and the
LAN, as those old beasts don't have Ethernet capability and will
connect via serial connection.
I'm really looking forward to getting this little project started
soon. It should make for a few experience points, much like building
a FreeSCO router did. :)
-- Scarletdown I might just build a very minimalist 386 or 486
system from spare
parts I have lying about here, set it up with FreeDOS or MINIX, and
make that the console. [...]
Actually the easiest way to build a 386-based terminal is with MSDOS
(or DRDOS) and kermit. Kermit supports most serial cards and even some
ethernet cards (so you can telnet over TCP/IP). There is even
DOS-based software for mouse support (so you can cut & paste text).
1:16 p.m.
I actually was pretty close to doing this in the late
'80s. The original PC/XT used 2764 compatible ROMs,
and had extra sockets on the MoBo for BASIC. You could
take the BASIC roms out, drop in your own up to 32K of
code, add a magic signature to the ROM, and there you
go. Many XT clones had spaces for these ROMs. So, you
could, with the appropriate firmware, have a nearly
instantly booting terminal. The only useful thing I
made with this idea was a password UVEPROM for my XT
clone, but making terminals did come to mind and made
a really dumb teletype with it. Lots you could do with
32K and a BIOS. BBRAM or flash would have been useful
for storing settings, which I was thinking about doing
with a clock/calendar board and its extra available
bytes.
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
wrote:
It all seems rather elaborate for a dumb terminal!
Y'all seem to be moving from building a terminal,
into building a network
server!
Why not XTs with serial ports?
If you are THAT hung up on avoiding MS-DOS (I don't
think that MICROS~1
really got truly evil until about 3.00), why not
just write a trivial
terminal emulation program and put it in the
bootstrap?
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Scarletdown wrote:
I've got most of the components gathered and ready for assembly. My
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
On 13 Oct 2002 at 10:14,
vassilip(a)dsl.cis.upenn.edu wrote:
> "Scarletdown" <SecretaryBird(a)SoftHome.net>
wrote:
> > I might just build a very minimalist
386 or
486 system from spare
> > parts I have lying about here, set it
up with
FreeDOS or MINIX, and
> > make that the console. [...]
>
> Actually the easiest way to build a 386-based
terminal is with MSDOS
> (or DRDOS) and kermit. Kermit supports most
serial cards and even some
> ethernet cards (so you can telnet over
TCP/IP).
There is even
> DOS-based software for mouse support (so you
can
cut & paste text).
first choice for this is still MINIX. I need to
check the FAQ to
determine whether or not this 3COM EtherLink II
TP
(8 Bit ISA
Ethernet adapter) is one of the few NICs
supported
by MINIX. Then I
have to check and see if Token Ring and 3270 are
supported. If just
one of those is a no go, then I will be using
FreeDOS; an open source
MS-DOS compatible OS (think of it as to MS-DOS as
Linux is to Unix).
The system thus far will consist of a 486/DX-33 in
a MB with 8 16-BIT
ISA slots and 8 MB of RAM, VGA adapter, 16 bit IO
card with one
floppy controller, one IDE controller, 2 serial
ports, and 1 parallel
port, a 2nd IO card with 2 serial and 1 parallel
port, then an
Ethernet adapter and a 3270 adapter (don't
have an
ISA Token Ring
card yet), 3.5" and 5.25" floppies, and
dual IDE
hard drives (43MB
and 84MB respectively). If I end up going with
FreeDOS instead of
MINIX, the EtherLink II will be replaced with
either an EtherLink III
or EtherExpress and the II will be used in the
PS/2 Model 30, since
its slots are all 8 bit ISA.
The reason this system will have four COM ports is
because in
addition to serving as the console for the
Cromemco System Two, she
will also be the bridge between our various other
classics (TI-99/4a,
Apple II systems of various models, TRS-80s,
KayPros, etc) and the
LAN, as those old beasts don't have Ethernet
capability and will
connect via serial connection.
I'm really looking forward to getting this little
project started
soon. It should make for a few experience
points,
much like building
a FreeSCO router did. :)
-- Scarletdown
1:42 p.m.
--- "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote:
It all seems rather elaborate for a dumb terminal!
Y'all seem to be moving from building a terminal, into building a network
server!
Or at least a network client.
Why not XTs with serial ports?
Why not indeed... and how about a parallel-port pocket LAN adapter, too?
If you are THAT hung up on avoiding MS-DOS (I
don't think that MICROS~1
really got truly evil until about 3.00), why not just write a trivial
terminal emulation program and put it in the bootstrap?
What _I_ did was to take a $15 Zenith XT laptop with dual 720 floppies,
load on DOS 3.3 (an *original copy*, thank you) with MS-Kermit and the
packet driver for a Xircom PE-3-10BT. There's no hard drive noise,
I can move it around from place to place, and it goes to sleep when I'm
not using it. MS-Kermit's TCP/IP interface is pretty slick - I also
use it to telnet into my Sun server and Lynx around.
What I'd like to do is to fit the PE3 in the side bay where the large
internal modem goes - just have an RJ-45 out the side. For now, though,
it's fine, hung off the back end.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
6:41 p.m.
New subject: Rise and fall of MS-DOS floppy FORMAT program
1.00 had 160K (SS, 8 SPT)
1.25/ PC-DOS 1.10 added 320K (DS), with /1 option for FORMAT for doing SS
2.00 added 180K and 360K (9 SPT), with /8 option for FORMAT for doing 8
SPT
2.11 some manufacturers added support for 3.5", but it was specific to
each of their customized version of MS-DOS
3.00 added 1.2M, with /4 option for FORMAT for doing 360K (in 1.2M drive)
3.20 added 720K, with /T:80 /N:9 being used to specify 720K
3.30 added 1.4M, added /F:2 for 720K to be easier to remember
5.00? added /F:720 to be easier to remember.
Windoze 98? dropped /F:2
Windoze XP dropped /F:720. /F:x is still supported, but only for
x == 1.44. /T:x/N:y is still supported, and is the only way to format
anything other than 1.4M. T can be 40 or 80, N can be 8, 9, or 15
T and N are used for selecting from an internal menu; they can not be set
to other values like a true variable.
With it, you can still do:
/T:80 /N:9 720K
/T:80 /N:8 640K Hmmm! haven't seen that one since the Toshiba T300!
/T:40 /N:9 360K
/T:40 /N:8 320K
/T:80 /N:15 1.2M
You can NOT do /T:40 /N:15, (you must choose between supported formats.)
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
PO Box 1236 (510) 558-9366
Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
8:53 p.m.
New subject: Rise and fall of MS-DOS floppy FORMAT program
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Windoze 98? dropped /F:2
Windoze XP dropped /F:720. /F:x is still supported, but only for
They add gigabytes of superfluous sound and graohics but they can't spare
a few dozen bytes to retain old switches that still might be useable to
some folks?
Microsoft: We May Not Be Good, But We're Slow.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
10:43 p.m.
New subject: Rise and fall of MS-DOS floppy FORMAT program
Sounds like motivation to keep a bootable DOS5 system around, with both
3.5" and 5.25" drives....
Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Windoze 98? dropped /F:2
Windoze XP dropped /F:720. /F:x is still supported, but only for
They add gigabytes of superfluous sound and graohics but they can't spare
a few dozen bytes to retain old switches that still might be useable to
some folks?
Microsoft: We May Not Be Good, But We're Slow.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
10:09 p.m.
New subject: Rise and fall of MS-DOS floppy FORMAT program
...they can not be set to other values like a true
variable....
Amen. Thanks for the table, Fred!
I remember when I started getting serious about PC's I bought
the v3.30 reference manual. For FORMAT the ref. entry looked
promising. Sectors and Tracks individually settable, for example.
Several dozen (hundred?) possible parameter combinations.
Then by page four of FORMAT: 20 seperate caveats spelled out
over 4 more pages ('The large print giveth and the small print
taketh away') of what you couldn't do. They then included a table
with five possibilities and concluded "No other combinations are
allowed." by now we're on page 8. Oh, thanks for letting me read
all the other B*S* first.
This may have been the very first (for me at least) of the by now
innumerable MS Gotchas
John A.
15 Oct
15 Oct
1:31 a.m.
On 14 Oct 2002 at 10:28, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
It all seems rather elaborate for a dumb terminal!
Y'all seem to be moving from building a terminal, into building a
network server!
The idea did just start out as a terminal for the Cromemco. It's
only natural that it is increasing a bit in scope. I figure that
since I have the old components, I might as well see what kind of
weirdness I can concoct with them. All part of the learning
experience. :)
Why not XTs with serial ports?
This is being built with parts I have readily available. I have a
buttload of 486-33 CPUs, and several 486 motherboards and assorted
video cards, drive controllers, etc., due to my packrat nature. The
surprisingly few 8086, 286, and 386 boards are being saved for future
projects (systems to run classic video games and RPGs from the eras
when those particular systems were top of the line.) The 486 boards
are the most versatile workhorses, and easiest to accumulate at this
time.
If you are THAT hung up on avoiding MS-DOS (I
don't think that
MICROS~1 really got truly evil until about 3.00), why not just write a
trivial terminal emulation program and put it in the bootstrap?
I don't really have anything against MS-DOS. That and Windows for
Workgroups 3.11 are examples of Microsoft's better products (Windows
98 Lite - Internet Excreter eradicated from the system - is also an
excellent OS, and is the farthest I plan on going here at home in the
Windows realm.)
Biggest reason I don't want to use MS-DOS for this project is simply
due to a lack of login/password type security. This is the same
reason I have vetoed FreeDOS, and one of the reasons I decided
against CP/M-86. Additionally, I have plenty of systems running MS-
DOS and the MS-DOS/WfW 3.11 combo; and I am trying to gain experience
points with a variety of different and often obscure operating
systems.
-- Scarletdown
8121
days inactive
8123
days old
20 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
allain＠panix.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
pietstan＠rogers.com -
red＠bears.org -
SecretaryBird＠SoftHome.net -
sloboyko＠yahoo.com -
spc＠conman.org -
tothwolf＠concentric.net -
vassilip＠dsl.cis.upenn.edu -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org