Subj : multitask or die! To : Charles Angelich From : David Drummond Date : Sat Nov 24 2001 11:17 pm Charles 23 Nov 01 11:14, Charles Angelich wrote to David Drummond: CA>>> So what you said about multiple applications wasn't quite CA>>> 100%? DD>> OK, More than two. DD>> The DoubleDOS I had only worked in conjunction with about DD>> DOS 3.x - It didn't offer the features of the newer DOSes. CA> What features are you referring to? I don't recall now. There was something in 5 that I thought I wanted. DD>> I found OS/2 suited me better. CA> Many are/were fond of OS/2. The many patch files really sounded CA> horrible to me but I guess you get used to that? Dunno, I never applied a fix-pack. The version I was running (OS/2 Warp Connect) seem sufficiently stable right out of the packet for what I wanted to do. DD>> Now I find Linux does the job. CA> On the right machine with enough memory I would guess that it CA> does. Of course so do quite a few other OS on similar equipment. The OS is only the start of it. I run applications on my computers, not just OSs. The wealth of software out there these days for Linux is astounding. And it has all that TCP/IP Internet stuff included. DD>>>> Desqview was never distributed in this country with DOS, DD>>>> one have to pay extra to buy it. CA>>> I did buy both DoubleDOS and then Desqview with QEMM. CA>>> Neither was cheap at the time either. :-\ DD>>>> Linux can be had legally for no capital outlay. CA>>> Sort of. I don't really see myself ever downloading CA>>> hundreds of meg of files at home. At work on a T1 maybe. DD>> Get a mate to burn it onto a CD for you. Even here, a CDR DD>> can be had for less than $1. CA> We are slowly getting to where I began this topic. What?? No-one would clone their CD for you?? The bastards! CA> Some time ago I could see that most who considered themselves CA> experienced LINUX users were resorting to an install on a newer CA> machine with more memory and then transferring that setup to CA> the older machine. I've never heard of anyone doing this. How exactly do they get it from the newer machine to the old - swap the harddrive over? CA> Logic seemed to dictate finding someone with a working install and get an CA> image copy from them to avoid the requirement of two machines (one newer, CA> one older). I have never taken a "working image" and installed it on a machine, I've allways gone through the installation process. (Actually, I fib - the ZIPSlack install cound be considered a "working image" I suppose, one just copies it to the hardrive, or 100Mb ZIPDrive, and reboots.) CA> This seemed very doable from discussions between various echo CA> participants about the 386 in the basement that their kids used CA> or the wife had connected to the `family server' etc. I thought CA> there must be quite a few of these out there. Basements are not a popular fitting in homes here so I'm not combing those. I have the word out amoung my friends/associates to borrow a working 386 box. Someone's sure to have one somewhere that I can use. CA> My need was to convince one of them to burn an image copy for CA> me. Being on an 80386 I reasoned it would fit on one CD with CA> room to spare. When asked for an image copy of their machine in CA> the basement they became aggitated and accused me of being a CA> `troll'. Surprised me a bit at first then I realized they were CA> trying to brag and didn't actually have a working 386 install CA> and I had made that fact too obvious to others. Install the thing from scratch yourself. Unless the image making person's machine has identical hardware/firmware to yours, there's no gurantee that it would boot. Following the install prompts is not hard you know. CA> From that time until my last 386 died I have looked for a CA> working machine to draw an image copy from. I have followed CA> leads mentioned in the LINUX echo. I asked in usenet LINUX CA> echos. I have followed links on those pages to links on other CA> pages. I have used all the major search engines. At times it CA> looked as though I had found the `missing link' as I read about CA> how this or that person had setup a really great install for CA> themselves only to get to the end and find the usual CA> disclaimer. That the machine had vanished, died, exploded, gone CA> to the mother ship - any excuse possible to avoid anyone asking CA> for a copy of the wonder setup that worked for them so very CA> well. Slackware installs are very easy - as long as one has a little computer experience. CA> Probably the better part of an entire year. Not every day of CA> course, but I followed every lead and tried to search out what CA> wasn't being told just in case it was there and no one was CA> noticing it. Meanwhile the first 386 died. Recently the second CA> one died. I don't think I will ever find the uber-LINUX that CA> works so very well on an 80386 but if I did, now I don't have CA> one myself to try it on. Two 386's died helping me look for an CA> OS they will never see. As geekish as it sounds, I feel badly CA> they will never get the chance. CA> My Pentium 5 with only 16 meg would, no doubt, install some CA> older version for text mode use. The time wasted looking for CA> what did not exist has not given me the best overall impression CA> of people who would claim to have had something that seems to CA> not exist. If this is typical I can imagine how many other CA> vaporware recommendations are passing daily between LINUX users CA> with a warped sense of bravado? I had ZIPSlack 4 running OK on my P75 notebook (32Mb RAM) - BTW you've missed a digit with your P5 above. It included general workstation stuff (comms, ppp dialup, text based browser, text editor etc) and it fitted within 100Mb of drive space. Its beauty was that it sat in a directory on the FAT (16 or 32) drive without having to repartition. The ZIPSlack image on Slackware 8 does not include the text editor etc. I guess the main OS parts are taking up too much space now. If one had more than 100Mb available one could install the apps oneself. You could consider it (ZIPSLack 8) on your 16Mb Pentium x5 I no longer have my Slackware 4 CDROM however - it's got lost somewhere between here and work. I can avail you of ZIPslack 8 CA> Meanwhile my requirements have been met using DOS and W31 here CA> and I'm not certain that LINUX can add anything to what I can CA> already do (that I need done). Switching to WFWG should solve CA> the networking problem for me and would speed up my browser in CA> the process. If FTP servers continue to erase DOS and W31 files CA> I will be painted into a corner eventually and have to bail CA> just to find software when I need it. Meanwhile my impression CA> of LINUX wasn't improved by my experiences and I occasionally CA> try to warn others who might waste a year or so following dead CA> ends up blind alleys. Hardly anyone has 386's out there anymore. The current distibutions/versions of Linux will definitely run on the hardware employed by the average user today. True, Linux may not offer much to the DOS/Win3.1 user, but they are very thin on the ground too (like working 386s). Regards, David --- Msged/LNX TE 06 (pre) * Origin: Godzone, Oz. (3:640/305) .