19 Aug
2004
19 Aug
'04
7:01 p.m.
I just landed hands on a Mac SE. It is currently running system 6, I
only have a bout 2mb of memory
and a 20mb hard drive. I even have an imagewriter to go with it!! :^)
Will system 7 run ok on this machine?
Where's the best place to download software stuff for system 6 and
system 7?
Anyone have a copy of "macintosh basic" they can spare?
19 Aug
19 Aug
11:12 p.m.
Hi,
Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> said:
I just landed hands on a Mac SE. It is currently
running system 6, I
only have a bout 2mb of memory
and a 20mb hard drive. I even have an imagewriter to go with it!! :^)
Great. They're good fun, I use one as a terminal to 2 Linux boxes.
Will system 7 run ok on this machine?
IIRC, yes but it needs more memory than 6 and runs slower. I run 6.08
on mine.
Where's the best place to download software stuff
for system 6 and
system 7?
See: http://ccadams.org/se/ and http://www.jagshouse.com/jagshouseopen.html
for software and info. Apple still has system 6 and 7 on their website if
you need it but getting system software from the net onto 400k floppies is
not easy if you don't have an old Mac already.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
20 Aug
20 Aug
5:38 a.m.
On Aug 20, 2004, at 1:12 AM, Stan Barr wrote:
See: http://ccadams.org/se/ and
http://www.jagshouse.com/jagshouseopen.html
for software and info. Apple still has system 6 and 7 on their
website if
you need it but getting system software from the net onto 400k
floppies is
not easy if you don't have an old Mac already.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
Thanks, I'll check out ccadams, I've been to Jagshouse.
1:44 a.m.
Am 19 Aug 2004 21:01 meinte Ron Hudson:
I just landed hands on a Mac SE. It is currently
running system 6, I
only have a bout 2mb of memory and a 20mb hard drive. I even have an
imagewriter to go with it!! :^)
Will system 7 run ok on this machine?
7.5.5 is the highest officialy running. if it's an SE/30, there
are rumors that even 8.1, the last release for the 68K Macs may work
http://lowendmac.com/tech/bornagain.html
In fact, Low End Mac is _the_ resource to start
http://lowendmac.com/
(note that they are among the few who got the name thing right ... no 'www.')
While they have started like 8 years agoas a site dedicated to show
that back then outdated 68000/020 Macs are still a great computer
to run on, they have by now evolved to even cover power Macs and
iMacs :)
Beside that, the 'resources for older Macs' are one of the most
comprehensive link collections for 68K Macs and a definite must
http://w3.trib.com/~dwood/oldmac.shtml
Where's the best place to download software stuff
for system 6 and
system 7?
Just follo above links.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 6.0 am 30.April und 01.Mai 2005 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
7:50 a.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Hans Franke wrote:
http://lowendmac.com/
(note that they are among the few who got the name thing right ... no 'www.')
Hans, I made it easy for you. The VCF website has always been accessible
this way:
http://vintage.org
Do I get a cookie? Or better yet, pumperknickel please!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
8:25 a.m.
>> Hans Wrote.....
>>
>> > http://lowendmac.com/
>> > (note that they are among the few who got the name thing
>> right ... no
>> > 'www.')
>>
First I will agree that nearly every site gets it wrong. But that does not
imply that this site got it right!
The protocol [http://] and site [...somewhere.tld] are really independent.
For many entities ftp.myplace.com and www.myplace.com can be located worlds
apart. To further complicate matters an entity may want independent features
using the same protocol [internal.mysite.com www.mysite.com].
For MOST sites http://mydomain.tld should map to http://www.mydomain.tld for
convience, but I will argue that is is not a requirement to have "done it
right".
David.
8:44 a.m.
Am 20 Aug 2004 13:25 meinte David V. Corbin:
>>> Hans Wrote.....
>>> > http://lowendmac.com/
>>> > (note that they are among the few who got the name thing
>>> right ... no
>>> > 'www.')
First I will agree that nearly every site gets it
wrong. But that does not
imply that this site got it right!
The protocol [http://] and site [...somewhere.tld] are
really independent.
For many entities ftp.myplace.com and www.myplace.com can be located worlds
apart. To further complicate matters an entity may want independent features
using the same protocol [internal.mysite.com www.mysite.com].
For MOST sites http://mydomain.tld should map to
http://www.mydomain.tld for
convience, but I will argue that is is not a requirement to have "done it
right".
Yep, you're right here. If there are multiple _computers_ with multiple
_ip-addresses_ involved. Just, to my unserstandig at least 98% of all
domain names registered are done so for websites, often running with
several hundrets other on the same machine. So, why do they tell their
servers only to react onto the subdomain www. ?
Anyway, it's one of the things we will never get rid of again.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 6.0 am 30.April und 01.Mai 2005 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
9:25 a.m.
Hans Franke wrote:
Am 20 Aug 2004 13:25 meinte David V. Corbin:
Ahem.
First, as referenced by "http://www.mydomain.tld",
"www.mydomain.tld"
is NOT a subdomain, it's the FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) of an
individual host. Even if the hostname www.mydomain.tld is served by a
farm or cluster, as far as client access goes and as far as DNS is
concerned, it's a single entity, and it's a hostname, not a subdomain.
Second, resolving a domain name as a host breaks RFC definitions and
recommendations. A lot of sites do it (including my company, against my
wishes), but it is improper.
Doc
>>>Hans Wrote.....
>>>
>>>>http://lowendmac.com/
>>>>(note that they are among the few who got the name thing
>>>
>>>right ... no
>>>
>>>>'www.')
First I will agree that nearly every site gets it
wrong. But that does not
imply that this site got it right!
The protocol [http://] and site [...somewhere.tld]
are really independent.
For many entities ftp.myplace.com and www.myplace.com can be located worlds
apart. To further complicate matters an entity may want independent features
using the same protocol [internal.mysite.com www.mysite.com].
For MOST sites http://mydomain.tld should map to
http://www.mydomain.tld for
convience, but I will argue that is is not a requirement to have "done it
right".
Yep, you're right here. If there are multiple _computers_ with multiple
_ip-addresses_ involved. Just, to my unserstandig at least 98% of all
domain names registered are done so for websites, often running with
several hundrets other on the same machine. So, why do they tell their
servers only to react onto the subdomain www. ? 
11:26 a.m.
[about http://exmaple.com/ vs http://www.example.com/]
[Doc Shipley <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>]
First, as referenced by
"http://www.mydomain.tld", "www.mydomain.tld"
is NOT a subdomain, it's the FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) of an
individual host.
What's the difference?
That's a serious question. What is your definition of a subdomain, as
distinct from an "FQDN of an individual host"?
Second, resolving a domain name as a host breaks RFC
definitions and
recommendations.
Which ones?
[Jochen Kunz <jkunz(a)unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>]
[L]earn the difference between a (Full Qualified) Host
Name and a
Domain Name.
What _is_ the difference? As far as I can tell, a host name is just a
domain name that happens to correspond to a host in some sense (usually
by way of an address).
IP numbers refer to hosts (FQDN) and vice versa.
...huh? Some IP addresses refer to nothing at all. Some IP addresses
refer to individual hosts. Some IP addresses refer to multiple hosts
(think a large load-balanced server farm). And that's not even
considering IP addresses that have different meaning to different
places (any RFC-1918 address, or anything in 127/8).
Some hosts have no addresses (though we can probably ignore them for
our purposes). Some hosts have exactly one. Some have more than one.
Also, equating hosts to FQDNs, as your parenthetical comment does, is
incorrect, unless you are trying to redefine one or both of the terms.
Some FQDNs do not refer to anything; some refer to exactly one machine;
some refer to multiple machines - and some machines have no FQDN, some
have exactly one, and some have more than one.
Similar remarks are true of the mapping between FQDNs and IP addresses.
Hosts are the leaves in the hierarchical DNS name
space tree, where
domains are branches in the name space. Services run on hosts so
myserver.mydomain.tld is the correct way.
Whatever gives you the idea that hosts have to be leaves of the DNS
tree, that only leaves may have addresses, or be used as machine names?
I can't recall ever seeing any such requirement, nor even
recommendation, nor can I see any basis for one.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
10:25 p.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
der Mouse <mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote:
[Jochen Kunz <jkunz(a)unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>]
I have to admit: My description was
a very simplified view of the DNS.
I am not going to explain DNS details here. Especially as I am no big
DNS expert, although I happen to be responsible for some DNS servers.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
[L]earn the difference between a (Full Qualified)
Host Name and a
Domain Name.
What _is_ the difference? 
11:38 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great der Mouse once stated:
Yes, I too would like to know.
-spc (I personally prefer "www.example.com" but have also set up
the bare domain name to point to an IP address for serving
up the website)
[1] I'd use my own network as an example, but on a lark (several years
ago) I set up my own private TLD for use here on the home network
(".area51") and experiemented around with zone delagations (I had
three second level domains defined, all delegated---one was my half
of the network, the second was my roommate's half of the network,
and the third was the wireless network). I figured that would
confuse the issue even more.
[about http://exmaple.com/ vs http://www.example.com/]
[Doc Shipley <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>]
Well, in my case, slab.conman.org and nolab.conman.org refer to actual
networks (slab.conman.org being my home network, and nolab.conman.org being
the home network of a friend) so technically they would be subdomains (for
instance, I have area51.slab.conman.org as a host (firewall/NAT system), and
my friend has kwalitee.nolab.conman.org as a host (his firewall/NAT
system)).
The two subdomains also have their own zone files (in the case of
slab.conman.org, the master is on swift.conman.org, which is the primary DNS
server for my domain as a whole, while nolab.conman.org is on my friend's
computer which swift.conman.org slaves from). While I didn't *have* to do
this, for a larger organization it does make sense to break up subdomains
into their own zones.
A FQDN is simply the host name with its domain (and subdomains, if any).
So, "kwalitee" [1] is just a hostname, while it's fully qualified domain
name is "kwalitee.nolab.conman.org" (or "kwalitee.nolab.conman.org.");
I'm
not sure what you would call "kwalitee.nolab" as it's not a hostname, and
it's not a FQDN. Perhaps a Partially Qualified Domain Name (PQDN)?
First, as referenced by
"http://www.mydomain.tld", "www.mydomain.tld"
is NOT a subdomain, it's the FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) of an
individual host.
What's the difference?
That's a serious question. What is your definition of a subdomain, as
distinct from an "FQDN of an individual host"? Second,
resolving a domain name as a host breaks RFC definitions and
recommendations.
Which ones?
10:01 a.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:44:34 +0200
"Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)siemens.com> wrote:
So, why do they tell their servers only to react onto
the subdomain
www. ?
Hans, learn the difference between a (Full Qualified) Host Name and a
Domain Name. mydomain.tld is a subdomain. It _may_ have an A record with
an IP address also, but usually it is only a domain with no IP address
associated. Where www.mydomain.tld is a FQDN leading to an A record with
an IP address or an CNAME alias. IP numbers refer to hosts (FQDN) and
vice versa. Hosts are the leaves in the hierarchical DNS name space
tree, where domains are branches in the name space. Services run on
hosts so myserver.mydomain.tld is the correct way.
p.s. Zum Gl?ck kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der Freundlichkeit. ;-)
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:38 a.m.
Am 20 Aug 2004 21:01 meinte Jochen Kunz:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:44:34 +0200
"Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)siemens.com> wrote:
Ok, I know why I love this group so much. Not only nerds,
but also nitpicking nerds ... I guess I fit here quite well.
Fine, a whole load of ashes on my head.
Nonetheless, the point stays, that, if a second level domain
has only one host, there is no need to create computer names
within. Nor any standard asking that, if you run a specific
service, you have to add names.
So, why do they tell their servers only to react
onto the subdomain
www. ?
Hans, learn the difference between a (Full Qualified) Host Name and a
Domain Name. mydomain.tld is a subdomain. It _may_ have an A record with
an IP address also, but usually it is only a domain with no IP address
associated. Where www.mydomain.tld is a FQDN leading to an A record with
an IP address or an CNAME alias. IP numbers refer to hosts (FQDN) and
vice versa. Hosts are the leaves in the hierarchical DNS name space
tree, where domains are branches in the name space. Services run on
hosts so myserver.mydomain.tld is the correct way. p.s. Zum Gl?ck kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der
Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 6.0 am 30.April und 01.Mai 2005 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
1:59 p.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Hans Franke wrote:
Hey, what's all this foreign speak!? Are you guys plotting something
unsavory? Damn Mexicans.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Nonetheless, the point stays, that, if a second level
domain
has only one host, there is no need to create computer names
within. Nor any standard asking that, if you run a specific
service, you have to add names.
Sure there is. What if you want to logically segregate different
features that your one host offers, for the convenience of your visitors?
I have an example in mind that may well be unleashed
p.s. Zum Gl?ck
kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
10:18 p.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Vintage Computer Festival <vcf(a)siconic.com> wrote:
Hey, what's all this foreign speak!? Are you guys plotting something
unsavory? Damn Mexicans. Fremde Sprache? Kommt auf den Standpunkt an. ;-)))
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
p.s. Zum Gl?ck kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der
Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du kommen wir miteinander zurecht? 
21 Aug
21 Aug
2:21 a.m.
At 03:18 AM 8/21/2004, you wrote:
Hey, what's all this foreign speak!? Are you
guys plotting something
unsavory? Damn Mexicans. Fremde Sprache? Kommt auf den Standpunkt an. ;-)))
Mexican! So, that's what that was.
Damn NAFTA!
Have to reup my John Birch Society membership.
Thought it was my email HTML parser going funky on me.
I've got my Eudora spam filters set just right (all 300 of them) and
dreaded having to change them.
Ed
p.s. Zum Gl?ck
kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du
kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
6:07 a.m.
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Vintage Computer Festival <vcf(a)siconic.com> wrote:
Hey, what's all this foreign speak!? Are you guys plotting something
unsavory? Damn Mexicans. Fremde Sprache? Kommt auf den Standpunkt an. ;-)))
In Amerika, alle volk nicht von hier ist Fremde ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
p.s. Zum Gl?ck kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der
Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
23 Aug
23 Aug
9:12 a.m.
Am 21 Aug 2004 8:07 meinte Vintage Computer Festival:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Jochen Kunz wrote:
You mean everyone beside gophers, praerie dogs and road runners?
*G*
H.
--
VCF Europa 6.0 am 30.April und 01.Mai 2005 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Vintage Computer Festival <vcf(a)siconic.com> wrote:
Fremde Sprache? Kommt auf den Standpunkt an. ;-)))
In Amerika, alle volk nicht von hier ist Fremde ;) > p.s.
Zum Gl?ck kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
Hey, what's all this
foreign speak!? Are you guys plotting something
unsavory? Damn Mexicans.
12:29 p.m.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Hans Franke wrote:
Am 21 Aug 2004 8:07 meinte Vintage Computer Festival:
Nope, especially the critters. You have to blow them away whenever you
see them poke their head out of the ground. You can't trust 'em!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Jochen Kunz wrote:
You mean everyone beside gophers, praerie dogs and road runners? On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Vintage Computer Festival <vcf(a)siconic.com> wrote:
In Amerika, alle volk nicht von hier ist Fremde ;) > > p.s. Zum Gl?ck kennst du ja meine
spezielle Art der Freundlichkeit. ;-)
> Klar, warum glaubst Du kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
Hey, what's all this foreign speak!? Are you guys plotting something
unsavory? Damn Mexicans.
Fremde Sprache? Kommt auf den Standpunkt an. ;-)))
20 Aug
20 Aug
10:26 p.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:38:09 +0200
"Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)siemens.com> wrote:
Weil wir beide Erbsenz?hler sind? ;-))
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
p.s. Zum Gl?ck
kennst du ja meine spezielle Art der Freundlichkeit. ;-)
Klar, warum glaubst Du
kommen wir miteinander zurecht?
11:18 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Hans Franke once stated:
Nonetheless, the point stays, that, if a second level domain
has only one host, there is no need to create computer names
within. Nor any standard asking that, if you run a specific
service, you have to add names.
I beg to differ. Technically, my domain, conman.org, only has one host,
swift.conman.org. I also defined the following "names:"
ns1
www
literature
bible
boston
lists
as CNAMEs pointing to swift.conman.org. NS1 for domain registration
purposes (it just makes it easier to deal) and LISTS *was* intended to
separate the mailing lists I run (like I'm ever going to get another server
just for the mailing lists). The others, WWW, LITERATURE, BIBLE and BOSTON
are all websites (with WWW.conman.org being the same site as just
CONMAN.ORG). I'm actually surprised at how few sites actually take
advantage of multiple hostnames for portions of their website.
Heck, I went completely overboard with the zonefile for conman.org; I'm
sure I'm one of the very few people with acurrate HINFO, RP, WKS and LOC
records (along with SRV records---why not?).
-spc (oh, and TXT records ... can't forget those ... )
9:18 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:25, David V. Corbin wrote:
For MOST sites http://mydomain.tld should map to
http://www.mydomain.tld for
convience, but I will argue that is is not a requirement to have "done it
right".
It's one of those features that I don't particuarly like, though. I
remember once when using a sluggish browser randomly hitting a few keys
in the address bar and hitting return to see if it was alive, expecting
an error page back. As it happens, I happened to happened to hit 'kkk'
and ended up on the Ku Klux Klan website - nice.
A quick test just now (using Opera; the previous time would have been IE
- version 4 probably - in a work environment) shows that this is still
the case. I'm not sure if it's Opera being clever and guessing at stuff
to stick on the front and end of whatever's in the address bar, or a
function of some transparent web proxy somewhere within my ISP.
I think I'd much rather things to work such that the address I type in
either resolves to something or comes back with nothing. Oh, and for
advertisers to actually give the full address - I've seen cases before
where they leave off such as the 'www' expecting your browser to add it
for you.
cheers
Jules
10:28 a.m.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
A quick test just now (using Opera; the previous time
would have been IE
- version 4 probably - in a work environment) shows that this is still
the case. I'm not sure if it's Opera being clever and guessing at stuff
to stick on the front and end of whatever's in the address bar, or a
function of some transparent web proxy somewhere within my ISP.
I thought IE assumes you mean "www.kkk.com" if you just type in "kkk",
but
I just tested that theory and it didn't work in IE6. I was pretty sure it
used to work this way.
I think I'd much rather things to work such that
the address I type in
either resolves to something or comes back with nothing. Oh, and for
advertisers to actually give the full address - I've seen cases before
where they leave off such as the 'www' expecting your browser to add it
for you.
Or they forgot to point the basic domain name to their webserver in DNS.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:21 a.m.
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 19:28, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
Well, with a bit of luck they've made it an option in IE6 (it wasn't
user-controllable in whatever version of IE I stumbled across this in
way back when) and just defaulted it to disabled.
I've since found that it's user-controllable in Opera (umm, 7 I think
I'm using), but defaults to on.
cheers
Jules
A quick test just now (using Opera; the previous
time would have been IE
- version 4 probably - in a work environment) shows that this is still
the case. I'm not sure if it's Opera being clever and guessing at stuff
to stick on the front and end of whatever's in the address bar, or a
function of some transparent web proxy somewhere within my ISP.
I thought IE assumes you mean "www.kkk.com" if you just type in
"kkk", but
I just tested that theory and it didn't work in IE6. I was pretty sure it
used to work this way. 
12:21 p.m.
At 19:18 20/08/2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
A quick test just now (using Opera; the previous time
would have been IE
- version 4 probably - in a work environment) shows that this is still
the case. I'm not sure if it's Opera being clever and guessing at stuff
to stick on the front and end of whatever's in the address bar, or a
function of some transparent web proxy somewhere within my ISP.
In opera.
Tools > Preferences > Network > [Server Name Completion]
Allows you to specify what (if anything) Opera will add to the front and
end if it can't find the host you asked for.
IE does support this too, but I think it's buried in registry entries
somewhere.
Rob
6:18 a.m.
Will system 7 run ok on this machine?
I wouldn't recommend going above System 7.1, when I bought my first
Mac, a Powerbook 520c (680LC40/25Mhz) 9 years ago, it came with a
base of 4MB RAM. It was set to run System 7.1 with the disk images
to upgrade to 7.5.3 on the HD should you upgrade your RAM.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
7268
days inactive
7272
days old
25 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
classiccmp.org＠irrelevant.fsnet.co.uk -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
Hans.Franke＠siemens.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
Pres＠macro-inc.com -
ron.hudson＠sbcglobal.net -
spc＠conman.org -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
vcf＠siconic.com