1. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> I was just wondering if there is anyone on this list using (as their
> main machine) a 486, 386, or a (presumably 20-year-old) 286?
>
> I know Kat and some others are on windows 95, is anyone pre-dating
> that (again, as their main machine)?
>
> I've decided to have a bash at learning assembly (and possibly update
> the original/other Pete's asm.e), so let me know.
>
> Pete
> PS I trust there is no-one on this list not using intel x86...
>
2. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
The machine on which I do most Eu developments is a Cyeix-686 with
Win 3.1, but I use it under DOS 6.2 most of the time.
CChris
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> I was just wondering if there is anyone on this list using (as their
> main machine) a 486, 386, or a (presumably 20-year-old) 286?
>
> I know Kat and some others are on windows 95, is anyone pre-dating
> that (again, as their main machine)?
>
> I've decided to have a bash at learning assembly (and possibly update
> the original/other Pete's asm.e), so let me know.
>
> Pete
> PS I trust there is no-one on this list not using intel x86...
>
3. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
On 2 Feb 2004, at 11:58, Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
>
>
> The machine on which I do most Eu developments is a Cyeix-686 with
> Win 3.1, but I use it under DOS 6.2 most of the time.
See:
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5151137.html?tag=nefd_lede
Kat
> CChris
>
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> >
> >
> > I was just wondering if there is anyone on this list using (as their
> > main machine) a 486, 386, or a (presumably 20-year-old) 286?
> >
> > I know Kat and some others are on windows 95, is anyone pre-dating
> > that (again, as their main machine)?
> >
> > I've decided to have a bash at learning assembly (and possibly update
> > the original/other Pete's asm.e), so let me know.
> >
> > Pete
> > PS I trust there is no-one on this list not using intel x86...
> >
>
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
4. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. K. Lester [mailto:euphoric at cklester.com]
> Subject: Re: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
>
>
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> >>The machine on which I do most Eu developments is a Cyeix-686 with
> >>Win 3.1, but I use it under DOS 6.2 most of the time.
> >>
> >>
> >See:
> >http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5151137.html?tag=nefd_lede
> >
> >
> Kat, I saw that article just this morning... it makes me wonder if
> developers should really be worried about developing for the
> next gen or
> if we can take our time and work with the earlier
> technologies. I mean,
> how much of a market share does WinXP really have vs. other
> versions of
> Windows? Where can we find the "most accurate esimate" of
> market share
> figures for all operating systems? :)
I thought that too - but what a pain! There are too many variants now, in
both the Windows and *nix worlds.
On the other hand, the article made me also think that a *real* cut down
version of the Windows XP product for the home (non-professional) market
would be a seller - if it used a smaller hardware set than XP current
demands. The current 'home' version is still way too big for machines
purchased 2-3 years ago.
> Go Linux! Go FreeBSD! Go OSX! Go away Windows!
Go AmigaDOS!
--
Derek
5. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
> On 2 Feb 2004, at 11:58, Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
>
>
>>> The machine on which I do most Eu developments is a Cyeix-686 with
>>> Win 3.1, but I use it under DOS 6.2 most of the time.
>
>
> See:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5151137.html?tag=nefd_lede
>
> Kat
>
Well, I never called M$ for any kind of support, and learnt quite a lot in
not doing so. The only time this was done was in office a couple years ago,
and the thinness of what I got just had me looking for a solution by myself.
By luck, this succeeded without losing too much time. Further, as my software
base on this machine grows older, switching to Linux when it eventually breaks
down will become easier.
Thanks for the pointer, in case I get involved in Windows-specific
programming (not the current trend :) )
CChris
6. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
euphoric wrote:
>
>
> Kat wrote:
>
> >>The machine on which I do most Eu developments is a Cyeix-686 with
> >>Win 3.1, but I use it under DOS 6.2 most of the time.
> >>
> >>
> >See:
> >http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5151137.html?tag=nefd_lede
> >
> >
> Kat, I saw that article just this morning... it makes me wonder if
> developers should really be worried about developing for the next gen or
>
> if we can take our time and work with the earlier technologies. I mean,
> how much of a market share does WinXP really have vs. other versions of
> Windows? Where can we find the "most accurate esimate" of market share
> figures for all operating systems? :)
>
> Go Linux! Go FreeBSD! Go OSX! Go away Windows!
>
Can you give me some good reasons for why I should even consider an OS
other than the Windows XP Pro SP1 like I have? OK, I might have
considered Home edition, but what about the others.
Why do I keep imagining a bull goring a penguin?
Phil
P.S. In case you didn't catch on to that last statement, I'm refering to
Windows Longhorn and Linux.
7. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Philip Deets wrote:
>
> Can you give me some good reasons for why I should even consider an OS
> other than the Windows XP Pro SP1 like I have? OK, I might have
> considered Home edition, but what about the others.
Perhaps because you are a nice person:
You should consider *not* using an OS which has proven to be more
efficient at distributing viruses than it is at actually operating
your computer.
Perhaps because you hate to waste time:
I can only speak from personal experience here, but I have made a
living writing programs using Windows since 3.1 (and before that,
using DOS). Recently I have been using Linux, and for me it is at
least 3x more productive. No reboots when you install new software.
No lockups, not even when I write stupid code.
Things just work - fast. In most cases, *much* faster than Windows.
Perhaps because you value honesty:
1. Bill Gates
2. Linus Torvalds
One of the above has been involved in numerous underhanded and illegal
activities. It's not #2.
Perhaps because you're tired of being manipulated:
Do you really enjoy having to buy bigger and more powerful computers
every few years just to run the bloated OS at a half-decent speed?
Do you like to pay for a new OS whether you need one or not?
Perhaps because you've taken a look at the Windows API :)
Regards,
Irv
2.
> Why do I keep imagining a bull goring a penguin?
8. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
I Mullins wrote:
>
>
> Philip Deets wrote:
> >
> > Can you give me some good reasons for why I should even consider an OS
> > other than the Windows XP Pro SP1 like I have? OK, I might have
> > considered Home edition, but what about the others.
>
> Perhaps because you are a nice person:
> You should consider *not* using an OS which has proven to be more
> efficient at distributing viruses than it is at actually operating
> your computer.
>
> Perhaps because you hate to waste time:
> I can only speak from personal experience here, but I have made a
> living writing programs using Windows since 3.1 (and before that,
> using DOS). Recently I have been using Linux, and for me it is at
> least 3x more productive. No reboots when you install new software.
> No lockups, not even when I write stupid code.
> Things just work - fast. In most cases, *much* faster than Windows.
>
> Perhaps because you value honesty:
> 1. Bill Gates
> 2. Linus Torvalds
> One of the above has been involved in numerous underhanded and illegal
> activities. It's not #2.
>
> Perhaps because you're tired of being manipulated:
> Do you really enjoy having to buy bigger and more powerful computers
> every few years just to run the bloated OS at a half-decent speed?
> Do you like to pay for a new OS whether you need one or not?
>
> Perhaps because you've taken a look at the Windows API :)
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
Now I'm starting to get curious about what Linux is really like. Can I
use Linux on the same computer as Windows XP? If I do, will it make me
choose which OS to load each time I boot?
Phil
9. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Philip Deets wrote:
> Now I'm starting to get curious about what Linux is really like. Can I
> use Linux on the same computer as Windows XP? If I do, will it make me
> choose which OS to load each time I boot?
Yes, you can dual boot XP and Linux with no problem.
You will have a menu to choose which to boot, but you can
set either one to be the default which will boot automatically
(after x seconds) if you fail to make a choice.
Linux can see and use the Windows directories without any problem,
so you can move, edit, delete files, graphics, etc. (but not run Windows
programs, usually. Some will run with wine.)
Windows will not be able to see or use the Linux directories
(without some special software).
Regards,
Irv
10. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
I Mullins wrote:
>
>
> Philip Deets wrote:
>
> > Now I'm starting to get curious about what Linux is really like. Can I
> > use Linux on the same computer as Windows XP? If I do, will it make me
> > choose which OS to load each time I boot?
>
> Yes, you can dual boot XP and Linux with no problem.
> You will have a menu to choose which to boot, but you can
> set either one to be the default which will boot automatically
> (after x seconds) if you fail to make a choice.
>
> Linux can see and use the Windows directories without any problem,
> so you can move, edit, delete files, graphics, etc. (but not run Windows
>
> programs, usually. Some will run with wine.)
> Windows will not be able to see or use the Linux directories
> (without some special software).
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
Linux.org says I have to partition my drive to install Linux. Also, if
I want a nice installer, they said it costs 30-50 dollars. I think I'll
just stick with Windows.
Besides, I know in the earlier versions of Windows, there were lots of
crashes. I have only seen Windows XP crash once, and it recovered
nicely when I rebooted and even allowed me to optionally send Microsoft
an error report. It does freeze occasionally, but it normally recovers
if I push a hot key to start a program.
And also, I love the Windows GUI. As for the statement about the
Windows API, isn't .NET supposed to take care of that? I haven't looked
too far into .NET though, so I don't know if it actually does hide
complexity like MS says it does.
But thanks for the info anyway,
Phil
11. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
On 3 Feb 2004, at 18:36, Philip Deets wrote:
>
>
> I Mullins wrote:
> >
> >
> > Philip Deets wrote:
> >
> > > Now I'm starting to get curious about what Linux is really like. Can I
> > > use
> > > Linux on the same computer as Windows XP? If I do, will it make me choose
> > > which OS to load each time I boot?
> >
> > Yes, you can dual boot XP and Linux with no problem.
> > You will have a menu to choose which to boot, but you can
> > set either one to be the default which will boot automatically
> > (after x seconds) if you fail to make a choice.
> >
> > Linux can see and use the Windows directories without any problem,
> > so you can move, edit, delete files, graphics, etc. (but not run Windows
> >
> > programs, usually. Some will run with wine.)
> > Windows will not be able to see or use the Linux directories
> > (without some special software).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Irv
> >
> Linux.org says I have to partition my drive to install Linux. Also, if
> I want a nice installer, they said it costs 30-50 dollars. I think I'll
> just stick with Windows.
Yeas, $30 - $50 for an OS that works beats $100+ for winblow$ any day.
> Besides, I know in the earlier versions of Windows, there were lots of
> crashes.
<cough> i usually go 2 to 3 weeks tween reboots with win95b, and i pick the
time and day for them. Maybe you were not configured properly.
> I have only seen Windows XP crash once, and it recovered
> nicely when I rebooted and even allowed me to optionally send Microsoft
> an error report. It does freeze occasionally, but it normally recovers
> if I push a hot key to start a program.
Hey Travis, are you still here?
Kat
12. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
On 3 Feb 2004, at 15:46, Philip Deets wrote:
<snip>
> Now I'm starting to get curious about what Linux is really like. Can I
> use Linux on the same computer as Windows XP? If I do, will it make me
> choose which OS to load each time I boot?
Nither can read your mind yet.
Kat
13. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Hi
For a 'taste' of linux try knoppix - no partitioning or anything.
http://www.knoppix.org/
or
http://www.linux.org/dist/index.html
for lots of other (confusing to beginners), and much smaller downloads
For tips on multibooting
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/russel/september10.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/howto/gettingstarted/multiboot.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q306/5/59.asp&NoWebContent=1
(ironic!)
Most linux installers (SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat's offshoot - can't
remember its name now (but not too sure) will automatically and very
user freindlily (?) re-partition, resize and preserve your hard drive
and contents (but I didn't say don't backup), and give you a multi boot
menu.
I triple boot mine - win98, winxp, SuSE8.1
Its a fun thing
Chris
Philip Deets wrote:
>
>
> I Mullins wrote:
> >
> >
> > Philip Deets wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you give me some good reasons for why I should even consider an OS
> > > other than the Windows XP Pro SP1 like I have? OK, I might have
> > > considered Home edition, but what about the others.
> >
> > Perhaps because you are a nice person:
> > You should consider *not* using an OS which has proven to be more
> > efficient at distributing viruses than it is at actually operating
> > your computer.
> >
> > Perhaps because you hate to waste time:
> > I can only speak from personal experience here, but I have made a
> > living writing programs using Windows since 3.1 (and before that,
> > using DOS). Recently I have been using Linux, and for me it is at
> > least 3x more productive. No reboots when you install new software.
> > No lockups, not even when I write stupid code.
> > Things just work - fast. In most cases, *much* faster than Windows.
> >
> > Perhaps because you value honesty:
> > 1. Bill Gates
> > 2. Linus Torvalds
> > One of the above has been involved in numerous underhanded and illegal
> > activities. It's not #2.
> >
> > Perhaps because you're tired of being manipulated:
> > Do you really enjoy having to buy bigger and more powerful computers
> > every few years just to run the bloated OS at a half-decent speed?
> > Do you like to pay for a new OS whether you need one or not?
> >
> > Perhaps because you've taken a look at the Windows API :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Irv
> >
> Now I'm starting to get curious about what Linux is really like. Can I
> use Linux on the same computer as Windows XP? If I do, will it make me
> choose which OS to load each time I boot?
>
> Phil
>
14. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
--- Philip Deets <philip1987 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> Linux.org says I have to partition my drive to
> install Linux. Also, if
> I want a nice installer, they said it costs 30-50
> dollars.
Regardless of what Linux.org says, I dual
booted Mandrake Linux for years without
paying for any kind of installer.
I have paid retail price for a couple of versions
of Linux and downloaded the last 3 or four
since I obtained DSL. I will probably buy
the next commercial release of Mandrake,
just to support Linux development.
In my opinion Linux lags behind Microsoft
as far as a lot or ritzy stuff like Yahoo, MSN,
and Excite Chat clients. It took me a while
to figure out how to configure Linux for my Alcatel
SpeedTouch USB modem, but once I did
I reformated my entire harddrive and now
am totally MicroSoft free.
I don't worry about viruses. I don't have
to defrag my hard drive. The GCC compiler
is right there ready to use. The Mandrake
download version has an incredible number
of other programming languages to play
arround with - Ruby, Perl, Java, Python, etc.
I am not a skilled programmer - but much
prefer programing Euphoria under Linux.
whether I am using the Linux console or
one of the x terminals.
Anyway, to each his own.
=====
Kenneth Rhodes
100% MicroSoft Free!
15. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Philip Deets wrote:
>
> Linux.org says I have to partition my drive to install Linux. Also, if
> I want a nice installer, they said it costs 30-50 dollars. I think I'll
>
> just stick with Windows.
If partitioning a hard drive worries you, then I strongly recommend
you do not try Linux. However, for those who are still interested,
Mandrake (the version I use) can automatically re-partition a drive.
http://cheapbytes.com offers several Linux versions on CDs for
$5 - $10. Much better than trying to download, because you get
thousands of programs (programming languages, games, etc.) along
with the basic OS.
> Besides, I know in the earlier versions of Windows, there were lots of
> crashes. I have only seen Windows XP crash once, and it recovered
> nicely when I rebooted and even allowed me to optionally send Microsoft
> an error report. It does freeze occasionally, but it normally recovers
> if I push a hot key to start a program.
XP *is* quite a bit more stable than earlier versions.
Provided that you aren't doing anything remotely dangerous, like
writing programs, it can run for months without problems.
This is great for office situations, where people run 1 or 2
well-tested programs, and aren't allowed to surf the internet
or install any additional software.
However, if you are trying to develop new software, those lockups
and reboots get really annoying and time-wasting. So much so that
I now write prototypes of new software using Linux/GTK, and only
write the Windows version once the project is demo'd and approved.
> And also, I love the Windows GUI. As for the statement about the
> Windows API, isn't .NET supposed to take care of that? I haven't looked
>
> too far into .NET though, so I don't know if it actually does hide
> complexity like MS says it does.
Give it a try and let us know.
Irv
16. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Travis Beaty wrote:
<snip>
> No programming languages ... not even QBasic. (For that, you'll need
> Visual
> Studio, for about $300.)
<snip>
Lol I wish Visual Studio was still $300. Depending on the edition, it
now ranges from about $1700 to $2500.
Phil
17. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
I Mullins wrote:
>
>
> Philip Deets wrote:
>
> > And also, I love the Windows GUI. As for the statement about the
> > Windows API, isn't .NET supposed to take care of that? I haven't looked
> >
> >
> > too far into .NET though, so I don't know if it actually does hide
> > complexity like MS says it does.
>
> Give it a try and let us know.
>
> Irv
>
I'll do that.
Phil
18. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Im running a 2GHZ celeron with just under 1 GB of RAM and Win XP.
Woulndn't use any thing less. 
Andy Cranston wrote:
>
>
> >Hayden McKay <hmck1 at dodo.com.au> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >I still use the old Pentium3 866mhz
> >w/Win98SE to do buisness and run Euphoria, Dreamweaver etc.
> ></snip>
>
> :-] <Smiles>
>
> Just goes to show that everything is relative. I'm happily chugging
> along
> with Windows 98 Second Edition on a Pentium2 MMX 233Mhz for email, web
> design, programming (Euphoria & C) and capturing the odd digital camera
> picture. This is my main machine.
>
> By the time I get *my* hands on a 866Mhz system you will have all flown
> to
> Mars on a 128 billion bit Pentium10 running at a trillion Mhz :-]
>
> Regards,
>
> Andy Cranston.
>
>
19. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
Kat wrote:
> If anyone is interested, i found piles of win98 desktop boxes for sale,
> and
> win98se on laptops. Those older OSs are still useable! (Even if MS won't
> fix
> the bugs anymore.)
>
> Kat
>
I'm interested. Can you send me some info?
20. RE: [OT]: Spot poll: pre-win95 and pre-pentium
On 22 Jan 2004, at 2:24, Ed Davis wrote:
>
>
> Kat wrote:
> > If anyone is interested, i found piles of win98 desktop boxes for sale,
> > and
> > win98se on laptops. Those older OSs are still useable! (Even if MS won't fix
> > the bugs anymore.)
> >
> > Kat
> >
>
> I'm interested. Can you send me some info?
Since i found them, and didn't pounce on those, i found another that will
prolly suit more of you, since the responces were mostly from linux peoples.
This one has nix on it, with known nix-compatable cards and things, and a
much faster cpu:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2233757&cat=4193
7&type=19&dept=3944&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937%3A86796%3A
106562%3A106560
Kat
