operating systems

From: Zeus334 <Zeus334_at_aol.com>
Date: Wed Dec 31 15:02:51 1997

>> >I'll have to reserve judgement on Win 3.1 as I've never tried to run it on
>> >an 8088 (I thought Microsoft dropped support for the mode required by the
>> >8088 in Win3.1, though), but OS/2 is right out. It's entire reason for
>> >being is to run on the 286, so an XT won't cut it.
>>
>> Now if you want to see something really fly, load up Windows 1.03 or 2.0
on
>> it. Those'll run like lightning on any x86 with 512k or more. I have 1.03
>> running off a DD 3.5" floppy on a GRiDCASE 3 laptop (XT class, no HD, Gas
>> Plasma CGA, 512k, DOS in ROM)
>
> Yes, Win 2.0 was quick; code bloat in those days wasn't merely the
> inconvienience it is today-- back then it was FATAL! We had a small,
> minimalist programming ethic back then.
>
> > >In addition to Xenix, CP/M-86, Minix, and a variety of Forths, there are
>> >other Unix clones (Venix, for exmaple), the UCSD P-system, and MP/M-86
(if
>> you
>> >can find it!). I don't know offhand whether Concurrent CP/M-86 requires a
>> >286, but I do not believe it does.
>
>I have a copy of Concurrent. The version I have will ONLY run on a
>PC or XT! Hell, I don't think it even supports hard disks! (But I
>can check).
>
>>
>> Anyone know of a free source for x86 CP/M? or forth? Am I missing
>> something? Isn't forth a language, not an OS?
>>
>>
>> - John Higginbotham
>> - limbo.netpath.net
>>
>
>
> Jeff
Well, would someone dare offend the MS EULA and send me one of:
a)Windows 1.x/2.x
b)Concurrent CP/M
c)Xenix
d)Forth
Received on Wed Dec 31 1997 - 15:02:51 GMT