operating systems

From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
Date: Wed Dec 31 23:44:27 1997

At 04:02 PM 12/31/97 EST, you wrote:
>>> >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
>


    I don't know about anyone else but I might consider it if I knew who
"me" is.

    Joe
Received on Wed Dec 31 1997 - 23:44:27 GMT