19 Sep
1998
19 Sep
'98
6:06 p.m.
Can I recomend that you grab the parallel port FAQ off
the web. Those
printer ports are really 12 output lines and 4 input lines each. You can
do all sorts of neat stuff with those. Like _directly_ control the
stepper motors (or use some simple stepper control ICs). Hook up
switches/sensors. You can do that from BASIC, but I think you have to be
running MS-DOS and not Windows (cetainly not 95 or NT), since that tends
to get in the way of direct port access.
That's not a problem. I'm using a Tandy 1000TX running DOS 3.2, and
GW-BASIC 3.11
Using the electronics from the printer, faking it so
it thinks it's still
connected to a printer, and the using the motors seems
a rather complex
way to do it, actually.
Maybe. I'm just trying to get something to work, first, then I'll improve
it and make it easier to use after it works.
--
-Jason
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#-1730318
20 Sep
20 Sep
5:08 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2959 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19980920/7ff447a9/at…
1:27 p.m.
Anything up to windows 3.0 will run on an xt, given enough memory and disk
space. (win 3.0 will run in real mode). I used to follow the HP200lx
mailing lists and people actually got win 3.0 to run on the hp200lx, which
is an xt class machine with cga.
In theory win95 will run in safe mode on one, but I haven't ever tried it,
and safe mode isn't very useful anyway. Safe mode is apparently very similar
to win 3.0/3.1's real mode.
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)calico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8:36 p.m.
Jim wrote:
Anything up to windows 3.0 will run on an xt, given enough memory and disk
space. (win 3.0 will run in real mode). I used to follow the HP200lx
mailing lists and people actually got win 3.0 to run on the hp200lx, which
is an xt class machine with cga.
In theory win95 will run in safe mode on one, but I haven't ever tried it,
and safe mode isn't very useful anyway. Safe mode is apparently very similar
to win 3.0/3.1's real mode.
Considering the 4-6 hours it takes for Win-95 to boot on a 386-16 with
8 Mb RAM, the week it would take with an '88 is probably not worth the
wait. Win-95 safe mode isn't even as useful for fixing problems as
Win 3.x real mode anyway -- Win 3.x you could edit the .ini files,
Win-95 registry crap even with "good" tools it's a crapshoot whether or
not anything can be fixed unless you approach the job like a veterinarian
with a tomcat instead of a mechanic with a Ford.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked me if I had any
firearms with me. I said "Well, what do you need?" -- Steven Wright
1:40 p.m.
On 20 Sep 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
Tony Duell wrote:
Even Windows 3.0 could run on an 8088. It wasn't until 3.1 that they
dropped real-mode support.
-- Doug
As somebody else pointed out, you're not
going to be running
Windows on an 8088
Are you certain? I thought I saw Windows 1.0 run on XTs? 
1:53 p.m.
It doesn't look to see what processor you're running then? I've never
thought to try it on an XT with a bunch of EMS/XMS memory. Thanks for
creating yet another tinkering project that I'll be dying to get at.
Doug Yowza wrote:
On 20 Sep 1998, Eric Smith wrote:
--
___________________________________________________
Russ Blakeman, aka "Pooter Fixer"
Email: rhblake(a)bbtel.com or rhblake(a)bigfoot.com
Website: http://members.xoom.com/pooterfixer/
___________________________________________________
Tony Duell wrote:
Even Windows 3.0 could run on an 8088. It wasn't until 3.1 that they
dropped real-mode support.
-- Doug As somebody else pointed out, you're not
going to be running
Windows on an 8088
Are you certain? I thought I saw Windows 1.0 run on XTs?
2:05 p.m.
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Russ Blakeman wrote:
It doesn't look to see what processor you're
running then? I've never
thought to try it on an XT with a bunch of EMS/XMS memory. Thanks for
creating yet another tinkering project that I'll be dying to get at.
You'll be sorry. There is a reason they dropped real-mode support, you
know. In any case, it will try to detect the CPU and use the run-time for
that CPU, but there is a way to force it to run as if it were on a
lower-class CPU.
I'm not positive, and I don't have an easy way to check, but I think it
is:
win/s -- standard (i.e., 286) mode
win/r -- real mode
-- Doug
2:17 p.m.
Doug Yowza wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Russ Blakeman wrote:
It's only experimental to see what it does anyway, so if it runs like crap I
don't care. Just never thought it would run on a PC/XT platform. You're right
on the switches though, and /3 is enhanced mode on 386's and up.
___________________________________________________
Russ Blakeman, aka "Pooter Fixer"
Email: rhblake(a)bbtel.com or rhblake(a)bigfoot.com
Website: http://members.xoom.com/pooterfixer/
___________________________________________________
It doesn't look to see what processor
you're running then? I've never
thought to try it on an XT with a bunch of EMS/XMS memory. Thanks for
creating yet another tinkering project that I'll be dying to get at.
You'll be sorry. There is a reason they dropped real-mode support, you
know. In any case, it will try to detect the CPU and use the run-time for
that CPU, but there is a way to force it to run as if it were on a
lower-class CPU.
I'm not positive, and I don't have an easy way to check, but I think it
is:
win/s -- standard (i.e., 286) mode
win/r -- real mode
9431
days inactive
9433
days old
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
marvin＠rain.org -
rhblake＠bbtel.com -
roblwill＠usaor.net -
yowza＠yowza.com