Turned off the cache and the issues went way. Enabled the lower bank of cache (128k versus 256k) and it was still working without issues. Turned back on upper bank and the problem was back. All of my issues were caused by one bad cache chip. :)
wrong. Swapped out the memory and it was still seeing the same kind of issues. Turned off the cache and the issues went way. Enabled the lower bank of cache (128k versus 256k) and it was still working without
issues. Turned back on upper bank and the problem was back. All of my issues were caused by one bad cache chip. :)
Great job at finding the issue.... I was reading and thought "bad
memory", then you found it, but in a cache chip!... Do you have the
skill's and ability to replace it? I gather it's solderd to the
board?
It's not soldered on the board. It's just socketed. A replacement chip
has been procured. The performance jump between 128k cache and 256k
cache on a 386 is not the performance improvement between 0k and 128k,
so it's not a *huge* deal. Still, I want everything working as good as
it can get, since this is a 386 being asked to run a 4-node BBS.
Anything to get a old machine up and going... They need all the love
they can get
Anything to get a old machine up and going... They need all the love
they can get
This old guy is actually in pretty good shape. 1 GB CF card for the main drive, a Gotek for the floppy, ATI Mach 8, Etherlink III, a dual 16550
I have a 40 MHz AMD chip in it, 32 MB of RAM, and I have replaced that cache chip so now it has a working A> 256k cache. It's about as 'suped-up' as a 386 can get.
I've got a Gotek for my Amiga's. A great way to replace a dead floppy
drive when the original's are so hard to source.
It's at the sweet spot.. One of first intel based machines was a
386DX40 with 8mb of ram.. It ran OS/2 3 as well and served as the BBS machine. Started with Desqview/Qemm...
I've got a Gotek for my Amiga's. A great way to replace a dead floppy
drive when the original's are so hard to source.
Yeah, I've got a spare one that was destined for the Amiga 2000, I just never find myself using floppies with it. I suspect that has a lot to do with whdload, but even when I want to install software on it, I just
copy it over the network and use diskette images loaded off of the hard drive, rather than fooling around with real floppies.
I think the reason I never got around to sticking the Gotek in it is because the whiter A> beige of the gotek didn't match the tan beige of the Amiga 2000's front
panel.
It's at the sweet spot.. One of my first intel based machines was a
386DX40 with 8mb of ram.. It ran OS/2 3 as well and served as the BBS
machine. Started with Desqview/Qemm...
Yeah, I started the same way with this one and then moved it over to
OS/2 because I wanted a network stack that actually supported binkd.
That's a limit on the amiga's, when a *new* network card for the big
box units are $200AUD. At least with my A1200, I'd already had the
pcmcia card and just had to find it.. I was also given a WIFI one
that works well to.
Was that back in the day or now? Netwoking via lan was just at the very start and not many people had it.
I think I broke down and bought a x-surf for the Amiga 2000...probably about a decade ago. It was expensive (I want to say $150?) but it put an end to a lot of other shenanigans I'd been failing at to get reasonable access to the network.
Was that back in the day or now? Netwoking via lan was just at the very
start and not many people had it.
Back in the day I moved the board from DesqView to OS/2 because I wanted better multi-tasking. The BBS computer was my *only* computer. The
system that I'm on now I moved from DesqView to OS/2 because a) I wanted better multitasking for multiple telnet nodes and b) I wanted to divorce
Plus a GUI, I'm more happy in the command line, but some things are
just better with a GUI. Ie: Amiga OS is better at the GUI, but a lot
can still be done on the command line.
Vorlon wrote to Abbub <=-
Yep. Better multitasking! We now that that for granted!
Honestly...the first thing I did on OS/2 installs back in the day, and the first thing I do now is: a) install 4OS2 and 4DOS, and b) disable the workplace shell. Especially on modest machines like this one, WPS is a resource hog.
Plus a GUI, I'm more happy in the command line, but some things are
just better with a GUI. Ie: Amiga OS is better at the GUI, but a lot
can still be done on the command line.
Honestly...the first thing I did on OS/2 installs back in the day, and
the first thing I do now is: a) install 4OS2 and 4DOS, and b) disable
the workplace shell. Especially on modest machines like this one, WPS
is a resource hog.
Yep. Better multitasking! We now take that for granted!
I'll say. I ran the BBS under DOS for several years, then ran DOS apps
as a window under OS/2, then ran OS/2 binaries. Running OS/2 native, I couldn't tell there was any processing going on, and this was on a
lowly 486.
I ditched OS/2 after Windows95 came out, and remember trying to get it
to run a DOS BBS comfortably, and needing idle TSRs, rebooting occasionally, and generally not having a good time of it. Callers were
on the decline, so it had less of an impact.
By the time 2000 rolled around, Intel PCs had enough horsepower to make
up for Windows 9x shortcomings and Windows 2000 was released.
But, by that time, I was down to a caller or two a day.
How would you multitask? Could you open multiple command prompts or
graphics programs?
Fixpack's was my first thing, then 4OS2!, then a decent file manager
I can't remember the name of the OS/2 software that was like it...
Vorlon wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I went along the same path, but went for OS/2 biniraries first if there was one... Maximus, Squish, Binkley was the mix.
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could even
run os/2 console progs... #-)
*** Quoting Vorlon to Abbub dated 04-29-23 ***
Fixpack's was my first thing, then 4OS2!, then a decent file manager
I can't remember the name of the OS/2 software that was like it...
Yeah, I sort of glossed 'fixpacks' in with installing the operating
system. Norton Commander was a Presentation Manager DOpus / XTree type utility. I seem to recall using Midnight Commander, though, which was
text based.
I went along the same path, but went for OS/2 biniraries first if
there was one... Maximus, Squish, Binkley was the mix.
I picked the same apps under DOS, with the intention of eventually
moving to OS/2...
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could even
run os/2 console progs... #-)
That, I missed. I ran Qedit for OS/2 as part of my offline reading
setup, it was much smoother under Windows 2000 than Qedit for DOS. The
DOS version was a little laggy.
Abbub wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-
So you have two options. One is to use TShell instead of Workplace
shell. That just gives you a TUI program launcher and leaves the system completely text based. The other option is to set the run workplace to CMD.EXE (or 4OS2.exe in my case) so that presentation manager still launches, but workplace shell doesn't. That's what I'm currently doing.
In either case, ctrl-esc pulls up a list of running windows. you can
run multiple windows just like you normally would, although in the case
of using TShell they're all full-screened.
Vorlon wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I picked the same apps under DOS, with the intention of eventually
moving to OS/2...
That was one of the reasons that OS/2 apps didn't take over more...
People just ran the DOS verions of the programs, after changing to the
OS.
They made the DOS compatability so good that it was like shooting them self in the foot. If the split between IBM/MS didn't happen, we would mostly be running OS/2 now.
The fact that Windoes 2000 could do that shows how much of the code MS took from the joint venture.
Now, it's coming back to me. I ran OS/2 1.1 and 1.2 at work, and I'm
pretty sure those were pre-WPS.
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could even run os/2 console progs... #-)
That was one of the reasons that OS/2 apps didn't take over more...
People just ran the DOS verions of the programs, after changing to the
OS.
I'd heard that Microsoft made it very easy for developers to get SDKs
and develop on Windows, whereas OS/2 development tools were pricy and harder to get. That seemed to jibe with what I'd heard.
They made the DOS compatability so good that it was like shooting them
self in the foot. If the split between IBM/MS didn't happen, we would
mostly be running OS/2 now.
I didn't think it was DOS support so much that hampered them, by the
time GUI apps rolled around Windows got them first. The OS/2 graphical
app market felt like the B team of apps, or names that were associated with corporate IT, like Lotus and WordPerfect.
The fact that Windoes 2000 could do that shows how much of the code MS
took from the joint venture.
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could even
run os/2 console progs... #-)
Wasn't Windows NT (before Windows 2000) supposed to be fairly stable? Windows NT was always targeted toward businesses.
And I heard NT was based on a fork of OS/2 that Microsoft got when they split with IBM - N> and that's why it (along with Windows 2000, which was based on NT) was
able to run OS/2 console programs.
Re: Re: 386 OS/2 Woes... By: Vorlon to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat
Apr 29 2023 09:37 am
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could
even run os/2 console progs... #-)
Wasn't Windows NT (before Windows 2000) supposed to be fairly stable?
Windows NT was always targeted toward businesses. And I heard NT
was based on a fork of OS/2 that Microsoft got when they split with
IBM - and that's why it (along with Windows 2000, which was based on
NT) was able to run OS/2 console programs.
Nightfox --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could
even run os/2 console progs... #-)
Wasn't Windows NT (before Windows 2000) supposed to be fairly stable? Windows NT was always targeted toward businesses. And I heard NT was
based on a fork of OS/2 that Microsoft got when they split with IBM -
and that's why it (along with Windows 2000, which was based on NT) was
able to run OS/2 console programs.
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
Windows 2000, was the first stable verion of windows.. It could even
run os/2 console progs... #-)
Wasn't Windows NT (before Windows 2000) supposed to be fairly stable? Windows NT was always targeted toward businesses. And I heard NT was based on a fork of OS/2 that Microsoft got when they split with IBM - and that's why it (along with Windows 2000, which was based on NT) was able to run OS/2 console programs.
I'd heard that Microsoft made it very easy for developers to get
SDKs and develop on Windows, whereas OS/2 development tools were
pricy and harder to get. That seemed to jibe with what I'd heard.
Typical of MS,, screw the other guy over and make our product look better.
If the current holders of the os/2 licence, didn't charge so much for it, I would have given both a look... At $250AUD aprox. it's just not worth it. I run linux on my personal machine(s), even though I do have licences for that other os, and support it in my $$ job.. I'd rather not have to deal with it in my own time....
afaik NT4 was stable 3.xx not really.
I'd heard that Microsoft made it very easy for developers to get
SDKs and develop on Windows, whereas OS/2 development tools were
pricy and harder to get. That seemed to jibe with what I'd heard.
Typical of MS,, screw the other guy over and make our product look better.
Man, totally displaced NT4 from my memory... NT4 was decent, 3.5x was really clunky... Win2K was a pretty nice OS, even if it didn't do games.
Ran it as my main OS for a long while until XP SP3, and even then, I'd copy over the MCE UI to it, as I didn't like the Fisher Price look.
I'd heard that Microsoft made it very easy for developers to get SDKs
and develop on Windows, whereas OS/2 development tools were pricy and
harder to get. That seemed to jibe with what I'd heard.
Typical of MS,, screw the other guy over and make our product look
better.
That was IBM's decision far more than MS.
If the current holders of the os/2 licence, didn't charge so much for
it, I would have given both a look... At $250AUD aprox. it's just not
worth it. I run linux on my personal machine(s), even though I do have
licences for that other os, and support it in my $$ job.. I'd rather
not have to deal with it in my own time....
Main reason MS doesn't charge for upgrades anymore is the expense for supporting older versions is higher than the money they made from individual upgrade sales.
Typical of MS,, screw the other guy over and make our product look
better.
IMO that doesn't really seem like MS screwing the other guy. MS just wanted to make it easy to develop software for their platform, which I think is understandable. IBM was shooting themselves in the foot a bit
by charging a lot for their SDKs for OS/2.
Typical of MS,, screw the other guy over and make our product look
better.
IMO that doesn't really seem like MS screwing the other guy. MS
just wanted to make it easy to develop software for their platform,
which I think is understandable. IBM was shooting themselves in
the foot a bit by charging a lot for their SDKs for OS/2.
Oh ok.. I did see back in the day, MS purchasing the rights or the whole company to just kill a product.. Then x time latter come out with there own version that was worse than the initial product.
Man, totally displaced NT4 from my memory... NT4 was decent, 3.5x was really clunky... Win2K was a pretty nice OS, even if it didn't do games.
Win2k with LiteStep was great.
full copies of Visual Studio 2002 and Windows XP. I got my copy of Windows XP from that event, and I ran that for years. I thought it was cool that I got a legit copy of Windows XP for free from there and was able to use it for so long.
MS are making more money from there "Cloud" products and Business accounts, so they can aford to give the home user a free bone.. #-)
Oh ok.. I did see back in the day, MS purchasing the rights or the whole company to just kill a product.. Then x time latter come out with there own version that was worse than the initial product.
I worked for a large internet auction site when Windows 8 came out, and Microsoft invited us to their Silicon Valley campus their dog-and-pony show for Windows 8 in call center environments.
We had a lunch break and got to go to the Microsoft employee store. I bought a Windows 8.1 CD with license for $15, a copy of Office for the same price, and other were buying a year of Xbox Live for something like $25. Well worth it - my 8.1 license key works with Windows 10!
Actually, wasn't Windows 2000 the first version of an NT-based Windows that could run a recent (at the time) version of DirectX? I ran Windows 2000 for a little while and remember it as the version of Windows where they were able to unite 9x and NT, and I was able to play some of my favorite PC games on Windows 2000. Windows XP did end up becoming a lot more well-known though.
$25. Well worth it - my 8.1 license key works with Windows 10!
I worked for a large internet auction site when Windows 8 came out, and Microsoft invited us to their Silicon Valley campus their dog-and-pony show for Windows 8 in call center environments.
We had a lunch break and got to go to the Microsoft employee store. I bought a Windows 8.1 CD with license for $15, a copy of Office for the same price, and other were buying a year of Xbox Live for something like
$25. Well worth it - my 8.1 license key works with Windows 10!
That's pretty cool. It's always nice to find some deals like that.
Nightfox
Actually, wasn't Windows 2000 the first version of an NT-based
Windows that could run a recent (at the time) version of DirectX? I
I think the Win2K had decent enough OpenGL support, but not DirectX iirc, XP was the first windows with DX support. I think most of the DOS games also had issues running, at least audio and inputs were an issue in Win2K as well.
My wife and I went to Seattle and visited Microsoft. I saw they has a store there so I
tried to enter. It was for Employees only. Not sure why that was, but I left very
disgruntled.
Oh ok.. I did see back in the day, MS purchasing the rights or the
whole company to just kill a product.. Then x time latter come out
with there own version that was worse than the initial product.
That was a different thing entirely. And Microsoft isn't the only tech company to do that.
MS are making more money from there "Cloud" products and Business
accounts, so they can aford to give the home user a free bone.. #-)
Free? There's a Microsoft tax we pay on any PC that's got a COE or an embedded license - which is pretty much any PC except for niche Linux
PCs these days.
Oh ok.. I did see back in the day, MS purchasing the rights or the
whole company to just kill a product.. Then x time latter come out
with there own version that was worse than the initial product.
My co-sysop in the '90s worked for Addstor, a disk compression product. Microsoft essentially plagiarized Stacker, made Windows not work well
with Addstor's product, then came out with a free compression tool and paid chunp change to the makers of the product they plagiarized - which was no longer a viable product.
Microsoft, bastards they were back then.
MS are making more money from there "Cloud" products and Business
accounts, so they can aford to give the home user a free bone.. #-)
Free? There's a Microsoft tax we pay on any PC that's got a COE or an embedded license - which is pretty much any PC except for niche Linux
PCs these days.
embedded license - which is pretty much any PC except for niche Linux PCs these days.
Vorlon wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
No one is forced to pay for windows, unless you go for a name brand
(Ie: HP/Dell etc).. They have deals with MS. There is *nothing*
stopping you from putting on another OS from a non name brand pc.
I re-did a pc for a friend the other week, and after lending her a
laptop with linux on it, the new pc (to her) has linux on it as well.
It originally came with NO os. It's a Intel NUC.
Nightfox wrote to Tracker1 <=-
Until Windows 2000, I remember a problem with Windows NT 4.0 and
earlier was that the newest version of DirectX supported by NT was a fairly old verison, meaning newer Windows games wouldn't run on NT. Windows 2000 supported a much newer version of DirectX, which allowed a lot more games to run on it.
Nightfox wrote to Mike Dippel <=-
Some companies do have an employee store where employees can buy the company's products at a discount. It might not even be a physical store
(I used to work at Intel, and Intel employees can buy Intel CPUs at a discount through an internal web site). Some companies open their employee store to a limited number of non-employees for a certain time, but that usually requires some kind of application (through another company, for instance). I wouldn't necessarily expect a store at a company like Microsoft to be open to the public.
I worked at a gaming company back in the '90s, and our parent company's consultant flew in and wanted me to upgrade all of accounting's desktops to NT 4.0 Workstation to resolve crappy performance. Unfortunately, they didn't have budget for resources, licenses, and didn't realize that everyone played a role in QA for the games - and gaming after hours was
a part of the culture.
Lesson one of consulting is "Never tell the client No, tell them how
much Yes costs..."
But more importantly, lesson two is "Know your customer's customers..."
No one is forced to pay for windows, unless you go for a name brand
(Ie: HP/Dell etc).. They have deals with MS. There is *nothing*
stopping you from putting on another OS from a non name brand pc.
Agreed, albeit in the past Microsoft worked with the courts to have computer manufacturers pay them whether Microsoft was installed or not. This was a condition of selling any Microsoft products and was an
example of their abuse of monopoly power in the '90s.
Lesson one of consulting is "Never tell the client No, tell them how
much Yes costs..."
But more importantly, lesson two is "Know your customer's customers..."
What the avreage person dosn't understand is that due to that products bloat it takes a tank to run... Do the same task on Linux/BSD and it will run with a quarter of the requirements.
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I can imagine that didn't work very well..
Vorlon wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
What the avreage person dosn't understand is that due to that products bloat it takes a tank to run... Do the same task on Linux/BSD and it
will run with a quarter of the requirements.
Vorlon wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
hahah! I had a now xclient get quoted I7 dell pc's for a POS (Point Of Sale) system... I just walked away laughing! They are now paying them
on a lease at twice the cost for what I could have done the job for...
You *dont* need I7 based machines to do POS work, a entry I5 (Gen 9 or 10), would have done the job.
was between Windows and OS/2 (and to some extent, GeoWorks Ensemble had
been around for PCs but wasn't really common) - and I thought OS/2 was
embedded license - which is pretty much any PC except for
niche Linux PCs these days.
"niche" linux? I feel insulted. I won't be under the Bill Gates
spell.
... This virus requires Microsoft Windows 3.x
Have to agree - I much prefer my Kubuntu Linux laptop to the Win10 box I keep around for a few stubborn games. :)
was between Windows and OS/2 (and to some extent, GeoWorks Ensemble had
been around for PCs but wasn't really common) - and I thought OS/2 was
GeoWorks came with a ridiculously good tetris clone and amazingly good printer drivers for dot matrix printers.
What the avreage person dosn't understand is that due to that products
bloat it takes a tank to run... Do the same task on Linux/BSD and it
will run with a quarter of the requirements.
And back in the 90s (when Linux was still fairly new), the competition
was between Windows and OS/2 (and to some extent, GeoWorks Ensemble had been around for PCs but wasn't really common) - and I thought OS/2 was technically a lot better than Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.
What the avreage person dosn't understand is that due to that products
bloat it takes a tank to run... Do the same task on Linux/BSD and it
will run with a quarter of the requirements.
I had a lot of success with single-core CPU Thinkpads. Most of them had
2 GB of RAM and spinning drives, and when we went from XP to Windows 7, they had a hard time. I found a company that made PATA SSDs, threw
Lubuntu on them and got another 5-7 years of useful life out of them.
hahah! I had a now xclient get quoted I7 dell pc's for a POS (Point Of
Sale) system... I just walked away laughing! They are now paying them
on a lease at twice the cost for what I could have done the job for...
You *dont* need I7 based machines to do POS work, a entry I5 (Gen 9 or
10), would have done the job.
I was thinking i3 or Atom, myself. :)
And it even ran well on a XT, and was really fast on a 486. And it
featured real multitasking (between GeoWorks applications), and
together with Novell-DOS, it even could multitask DOS applications.
Nightfox wrote to Vorlon <=-
And back in the 90s (when Linux was still fairly new), the competition
was between Windows and OS/2 (and to some extent, GeoWorks Ensemble had been around for PCs but wasn't really common) - and I thought OS/2 was technically a lot better than Windows 3.1 or Windows 95.
Windows XP was definitely not the first Windows with DirectX support. DirectX has been around since the mid-90s, and DirectX was initially available for Windows 95:
What the avreage person dosn't understand is that due to that products bloat it takes a tank to run... Do the same task on Linux/BSD and it will run with a quarter of the requirements.
You *dont* need I7 based machines to do POS work, a entry I5 (Gen 9
or 10), would have done the job.
I was thinking i3 or Atom, myself. :)
OS/2 was technically better, but just like the VHS/BETA war's, the lesser product came to win, due to being on more machnes...
Windows XP was definitely not the first Windows with DirectX
support. DirectX has been around since the mid-90s, and DirectX was
initially available for Windows 95:
You are correct, apparently DX9 was available on Win2k... I don't know about earlier versions, or where compatibility was. I may be confusing NT4 in my memory, it's been a while.
Had one client go from a 5minute startup/stable usable system, to the same in 30s, just from imigaging the hd to the SSD. When they saw the difference they were quite willing to pay for the extra. This was when 500Gb drives was rather higher in price to a 256Gb one...
An atom, would be too slow... A higer i3, would have been ok, but when there are customers standing in line, you want the response from the software to be as fast as posable. The server is allready a mod range xeon, with dual cpu's and 8cores per cpu...running sas drives...
I remember starting to see DirectX and DirectX games with Windows 95 and 98.
Had one client go from a 5minute startup/stable usable system, to the same in 30s, just from imigaging the hd to the SSD. When they saw the difference they were quite willing to pay for the extra. This was when 500Gb drives was rather higher in price to a 256Gb one...
I don't remember it from a multi-tasking perspective. I did run it on a
That was right - the Geoworks apps would multitask. If memory serves,
Novell DOS did task switching, and Geoworks had hooks for that in their environment. I don't recall how useful it was.
Tracker1 wrote to Vorlon <=-
I tend to run relatively OP to begin with... but there are some really lean Windows images out there.
Tracker1 wrote to Vorlon <=-
I put a small ssd in my first gen i7 build. I had to symlink certain directories to the spinning drive to save space, but it was so much faster, that when it died at a year old, I went ahead and bought a
bigger drive that I didn't have to worry about.
Night and day difference. Going from SSD to NVME/PCIe less so, but
that makes a big difference in build times.
Tracker1 wrote to Vorlon <=-
Current i3 will run circles around an i7 from a couple generations
back. Similar for current and last gen N-series. It's doubtful the bottleneck would be the POS even with like an N6005 or similar.
Tracker1 wrote to Vorlon <=-
Current i3 will run circles around an i7 from a couple generations back. Similar for current and last gen N-series. It's doubtful the bottleneck would be the POS even with like an N6005 or similar.
I'm an i7 snob, been shopping for new systems semi-seriously. I should compare benchmarks on my old i7 and a new i3 to get a reality check.
Doing a random check of a i7-4790 versus an i3-9100, it looks like the
i3 edges out the i7 in everything except octa-core speeds. The -4790 has
8 threads.
On 05 May 2023, Darklord said the following...
Have to agree - I much prefer my Kubuntu Linux laptop to the Win10 box keep around for a few stubborn games. :)
i'd say KDE is just as big of a bloated mess as Windows is..
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (21:1/616)
I am not a fan of KDE/Plasma. QT is a bit of a mess. The whole thing
chugs lots of resources for what it does.
Night and day difference. Going from SSD to NVME/PCIe less so, but
that makes a big difference in build times.
Really? I'm on a SATA-3 SSD now and from what I'm reading, raw speeds on nvme look to be around 5 times faster. I was thinking that might merit
an upgrade when the time comes. I was hoping it'd be a significant difference from a user perspective, too.
Current i3 will run circles around an i7 from a couple generations
back. Similar for current and last gen N-series. It's doubtful the
bottleneck would be the POS even with like an N6005 or similar.
I'm an i7 snob, been shopping for new systems semi-seriously. I should compare benchmarks on my old i7 and a new i3 to get a reality check.
Doing a random check of a i7-4790 versus an i3-9100, it looks like the
i3 edges out the i7 in everything except octa-core speeds. The -4790 has
8 threads.
OS/2 was technically better, but just like the VHS/BETA war's, the
lesser product came to win, due to being on more machnes...
I'd say at the point of Windows 2000 (NT Based) it had definitely passed OS/2. Of course that was about a decade after the breakup.
Current i3 will run circles around an i7 from a couple generations back.
I love Plasma, and have total disdain for all things Gnome or GTK. To each h
Re: Re: 386 OS/2 Woes...
By: esc to Arelor on Sun May 07 2023 05:42 pm
I love Plasma, and have total disdain for all things Gnome or GTK. To e
That is because Gnome and GTK are their own mess.
What the avreage person dosn't understand is that due to that products
bloat it takes a tank to run... Do the same task on Linux/BSD and it
will run with a quarter of the requirements.
I tend to run relatively OP to begin with... but there are some really
lean Windows images out there. Amazing how much can be ripped out,
though some images probably tear out too much imo. I wouldn't yank defender or uap myself.
[...]Had one client go from a 5minute startup/stable usable system, to the
same in 30s, just from imigaging the hd to the SSD. When they saw the
difference they were quite willing to pay for the extra. This was when
500Gb drives was rather higher in price to a 256Gb one...
I put a small ssd in my first gen i7 build. I had to symlink certain
Night and day difference. Going from SSD to NVME/PCIe less so, but that makes a big difference in build times.
Back in the day, we had good luck upgrading single-core laptops with
SSHD drives - a standard spinning SATA drive with 4-8gb of NAND cache
on the side. The system would boot up normally, then as you loaded DLLs and programs, they'd load from the cache. Boot up time wasn't faster,
but once it got up and running it made a nice speed difference loading, for example, Office apps and a browser.
fusion wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Doing a random check of a i7-4790 versus an i3-9100, it looks like the
i3 edges out the i7 in everything except octa-core speeds. The -4790 has
8 threads.
depends on what you do.. there are some very practical uses for those extra cores.
Nightfox wrote to Tracker1 <=-
I thought Windows 2000 was pretty good. Being a newer OS, though, I
think Windows 2000 probably had higher system requirements than OS/2.
Re: Re: 386 OS/2 Woes... By: Tracker1 to Vorlon on Sat May 06
2023 08:52 pm
Current i3 will run circles around an i7 from a couple
generations back.
With Intel's Core "i" series, it seems just a generation or 2 doesn't
make a whole lot of difference. I've even seen Intel ads where they
were comparing a current processor of theirs with a processor from 7
yaers ago (or something) to show what significant progress it had
made.
My main desktop PC at home has an i9-9900K, and the PC my BBS runs on
has an i7-8700K. I've done some video transcoding on both PCs with
the same software, using the same settings, and the i9-9900K is only
1-2fps faster at that than the i7-8700K. One difference, though, is
that I was using Windows on the 9900K PC and Linux on the 8700K PC..
Nightfox --- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
I built a new i9-12900K pachine in August. Shortly after, the
i9-13900K came out. What I read about it was a 5% speed improvement
at twice the power consumption (12th gen = 125W; 13th gen = 250W). IF
these numbers are correct (cause I don't always believ everything I
read), I'll stick with the 12th gen and save power.
--- RATSoft/FIDO v09.14.95 [JetMail 1.01] * Origin: STar Fleet HQ -
Real Atari! bbs.sfhqbbs.org:5983 (21:3/171.0)
i'd say KDE is just as big of a bloated mess as Windows is..
I'd say at the point of Windows 2000 (NT Based) it had definitely
passed OS/2. Of course that was about a decade after the breakup.
I thought Windows 2000 was pretty good. Being a newer OS, though, I think Windows 2000 probably had higher system requirements than OS/2.
So for Final Fantasy 14 or your favorite MMO and web
browsing/playing video games an i5 would be just right?
So for Final Fantasy 14 or your favorite MMO and web
browsing/playing video games an i5 would be just right?
Yeah, an i5, or an AMD R5/R7 3000 or 5000 series would both do well for that. Depending on where pricing lands. The Ryzen R5 5500 is under
$100 now.
On 11 May 23 19:57:18 Bf2K+ wrote...
I built a new i9-12900K pachine in August. Shortly after, the
i9-13900K came out. What I read about it was a 5% speed
improvement at twice the power consumption (12th gen = 125W; 13th
gen = 250W). IF these numbers are correct (cause I don't always
believ everything I read), I'll stick with the 12th gen and save
power.
--- RATSoft/FIDO v09.14.95 [JetMail 1.01] * Origin: STar Fleet
HQ - Real Atari! bbs.sfhqbbs.org:5983 (21:3/171.0)
To which Commodore Clifford replies...
Also, what was the price difference? 5% performance increase, 200%
the price?
--- RATSoft/FIDO v09.14.95 [JetMail 1.01] * Origin: STar Fleet HQ -
Real Atari! bbs.sfhqbbs.org:5983 (21:3/171.0)
I thought Windows 2000 was pretty good. Being a newer OS, though, I
think Windows 2000 probably had higher system requirements than
OS/2.
Probably, I don't even remember what I was running when it came out. I think I was using a 5x86-133 with 64mb ram and a 256k cache module with an s3 virge... Not 100% sure on that. The next computer I remember at all was
On 06 May 23 04:12:22 fusion wrote...
i'd say KDE is just as big of a bloated mess as Windows is..
To which Darklord replies...
It does seem to suffer from bloat, more and more as time goes by. I'm
not sure I personally would insult it by putting it in the same
category as Windows though. Of course, it's well known that I loathe Windows and all things Microsoft. :)
THe two prices were close to the same, although I think the 12th gen
had dropped $50-$100 since the 13th gen came out... but maybe not
that much of a price drop... can't really remember...
--- RATSoft/FIDO v09.14.95 [JetMail 1.01] * Origin: STar Fleet HQ -
Real Atari! bbs.sfhqbbs.org:5983 (21:3/171.0)
I don't remember it from a multi-tasking perspective. I did run it on a
That was right - the Geoworks apps would multitask. If memory serves, Novell DOS did task switching, and Geoworks had hooks for that in their environment. I don't recall how useful it was.
I was amused by the fact that Geoworks running on a 386sx with 2MB of
RAM looked just like UNIXWare running on high-end boxes at work - they
both used the same window manager.
Unfortunately, the bulk of OS/2 use is a lot of embedded and legacy applications that are their bread and butter. Even at the price they charge it's likely they aren't making enough money to keep a lot of
people on payroll, so aren't seeing many advances. At $200 each, it
takes a *LOT* of sales to cover even one six-figure developer salary.
And most people aren't willing to pay anything for an OS.
To which Commodore Clifford replies...
Honestly, as an Atari guy I don't see how you can't be using Linux
Mint. :)
On 13 May 23 07:03:50 Commodore Clifford wrote...
To which Commodore Clifford replies...
Honestly, as an Atari guy I don't see how you can't be using
Linux Mint. :)
To which Darklord replies...
You're kidding, right? Of course I have MINT setup on my CT60
powered, 256 megs of RAM Falcon, with the Thing desktop. :)
However, MINT doesn't lend itself as well to regular ST's due mostly
to it's memory requirements. As soon as I get the STorm-ST memory
setup in my Pak 68/3 equipped STacy, I'll set it up there as well.
For 4 meg ST machines I'd highly recommend something like
Geneva/Neodesk or MagiC/Jinnee...for alternative OS's.
To which Commodore Clifford replies...
All good advice on the real hardware ST side... but I was talking
about you using (Ubuntu?) instead of Linux Mint. It's kinda
blasphemy.
On 28 May 23 12:34:26 Commodore Clifford wrote...
To which Commodore Clifford replies...
All good advice on the real hardware ST side... but I was talking
about you using (Ubuntu?) instead of Linux Mint. It's kinda
blasphemy.
To which Darklord replies...
Well, yes and no. It's been a long time, mind you, but I remember
playing around with (non Atari) Mint and having problems with it. I
tried a couple of other things then wound up with Kubuntu Linux and
just seemed to get a long with it better sooo... :)
Well, yes and no. It's been a long time, mind you, but I remember playing around with (non Atari) Mint and having problems with it. I tried a
couple of other things then wound up with Kubuntu Linux and just seemed
to get a long with it better sooo... :)
To which Commodore Clifford replies...
I used Kubuntu back when I was finishing my degree. Not a bad
distro. But the only real problem I have had with Mint in the past
was when I was trying to dual boot (well, more than dual... Windows, Fedora, Red-Hat, Mint, Kubuntu, Hackintosh... and I think there was
one other in there).
Don't even ask why....
I also use Kubuntu. I'm on 23.04 and really like it. For years I used
Arch with KDE Plasma, but eventually migrated to Kubuntu to simplify
things a bit. Arch is great if maintaining your OS is part of your
hobby, as it was mine for a long time, but I've lost interest in that
of late.
My wife and I went to Seattle and visited Microsoft. I saw they has a store there so I
tried to enter. It was for Employees only. Not sure why that was, but
I left very
disgruntled.
Alonzo wrote to Mike Dippel <=-
Many companies have a store where employees can shop and get a discount
on the company's products. I used to work at General Electric and we
had our own store - for employees only.
My wife and I went to Seattle and visited Microsoft. I saw they has a
store there so I
tried to enter. It was for Employees only. Not sure why that was, but I
left very
disgruntled.
Many companies have a store where employees can shop and get a discount on the company's products. I used to work at General Electric and we had our own store - for employees only.
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 02:56:10 |
| Calls: | 516 |
| Files: | 7,024 |
| Messages: | 286,474 |