'90s era PC recommendation.

[allison]

On 05/07/2018 07:38 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:
>> Unless you have a old copy of DOS, what OS can you get for the OLD
>> MACHINES?
>
> MS-DOS will, of course, work for all.
>
> Xenix 3.0 (1984?) worked with 8088, 512K RAM, 10MB disk.
> Microsoft had a license for Unix, since 1978, but NOT for the "Unix"
> name.
> By mid 1980s, Microsoft had the highest volume AT&T Unix license.
>
>
> Windows 3.00 is the last Windows that will work with an 8088.
>
> Windows 3.10 wants a 286, won't install without A20, with 64K of RAM
> above 1MB (640K, or even 512K in main RAM, and 64K of Extended RAM)
> Officially? it needs 2MB, but that is not true.
> It would like VGA, but "Hercules" MDA works.
> It WILL work with CGA (640x200), using the Win3.0 driver.
> It looked at the time that Microsoft porgrammers were using 800x600,
> because that is the only one that really looked "right".
>
> Win95 wants a 386 or above.
> (SX was limited to 16MB of RAM, which prob'ly won't work)
>
> Win98 said that it "needs" 486, but 386 works.
>
> Notice that Windoze was in an "I386" directory.
>
> BUT, MICROS~1 often blurred the lines between what was "NEEDED" V what
> was "RECOMMENDED".  Performance issues with Windoze made the
> "recommendations" more important.  And ANY complaints about
> performance, if answered at all, were answered with implications of
> personal inadequacy, "solution" of having you throw hardware at it,
> and variants of "233 MHZ Pentium?? I'm amazed that it would even RUN
> on that!"
> "Deskpro XL?? That's almost 6 months old!  What kind of performance
> would you expect from something that ancient?"
>
> XP calls for a 233MHz with 64MB RAM, 1.5GB disk space, 800x600 display.
>
> Vista calls for 1GHZ, 1GB
>
> Win7 same, but requires internet connection (during installation)
>
>
> Most will probably run on 386DX, with unacceptable performance.
>
> But, Windoze has raised "unacceptable performance" to a level where
> even we can't tolerate it!
> I thought that I could tolerate slow turn-around for batch processing,
> such as "Handbrake", but I eventually broke down and bought performance.
>
> -- 
> Grumpy Ol' Fred             cisin at xenosoft.com
My old dell 486DX/66, 32mb, 800xx600 video pizza box runs 3.11 95, 98,
NT4.  NT4 does run slowly
but for testing it proved near impossible to crunch.  DOS and 3.11 runs
like the wind on that.  I keep
the box for ISA-8/16 bus needs. I have minix for it and a old Slackware
linux as well.  The only
yabut is the disk must be partitioned 500meg for the first as the BIOS
can't figure out larger so all
the disks have a 500/and remainder partition.  I swap drives as needed
for what OS is in need.  I
have two as they are good fairly compact  boxes.  I must have at least
five WD4.3gb drives with various
OSes plus a few 500mb drives with win3.11/DOS.

For occasional needs I have a Compaq 333/384meg box that also has ISA
and PCI for those needs.
Its handy when I need a low end classic with Ethernet, USB plus all the
legacy ports.  Fair linux machine
running Ubuntu 10.4 on a 20gb drive.

And a white box Celeron 1ghz/1gb box for more modern needs.  It happens
to have a single ISA slot
plus the usual PCI.  I got that MB new back in '03 real cheap as the
board was being phased out but
the shop had one new but not much interest for celeron.  ITs plus is all
the legacy IO, USB, decent VGA,
and Ethernet.  The legacy IO keeps it around after all what can't you do
with a parallel port!

Alternate systems for utility work are epia-M board (ITX) also 1ghz/1gb
all running Ubuntu linux
version 10.4 as it has very low needs.  They are good for IO as most of
the ITX board have serial,
parallel, USB, Ethernet, good VGA, S-video, sound, and PS2 mouse and
keyboard.  Good enough
to run a HP4L and CUPS. or logging for field day.


Allison