BARRY MARTIN wrote:

¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

.. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

This was a minimalist message? :)
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

Hi Ky!

BARRY MARTIN wrote:

¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®
.. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.

This was a minimalist message? :)

I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>

Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions:

https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7




¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

... What do you drive?

People crazy.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

BARRY MARTIN wrote:

Hi Ky!

> .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.

Oh, I see. The message is up above!

KM> This was a minimalist message? :)

I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>

He's gonna have a long wait for us to shut up <g>

Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions:

https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7

Ooh, neat! Never thought of running Win3.1 on a Pi, but now that I think
of it... Win3.1 just needs DOS to run, so DOSBox should work to host it.
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

Hi Ky!

> .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.

Oh, I see. The message is up above!
KM> This was a minimalist message? :)

I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>

He's gonna have a long wait for us to shut up <g>

<logging in> ..."No such user" ??!!

Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions: https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7

Ooh, neat! Never thought of running Win3.1 on a Pi, but now that
I think of it... Win3.1 just needs DOS to run, so DOSBox should
work to host it.

So I guess it is easier to understand the information when the
information is present! <g> Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)

As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a
Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application
saving a few dollars on the less expensive option isn't worth it. OTOH
one of the nice things about the Pi's is one can remove the SD card,
insert another and it's a 'different' computer! Easy to see if one
likes something, is fine with the response or an upgrade is worthwhile.


¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

... When tempted to fight fire w/fire, remember Fire Department uses water.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

BARRY MARTIN wrote:

Hi Ky!

> > .. Be an iconoclast. Stay with DOS.
KM> Oh, I see. The message is up above!
KM> KM> This was a minimalist message? :)
> I guess! Sort of a reaction to Lee saying we yakked to much! <JOKE!!!>
KM> He's gonna have a long wait for us to shut up <g>

<logging in> ..."No such user" ??!!

Well, that'll teach us to shoot off our keyboards!!

> Anyway, referenced an article on using the Raspberry Pi to emulate
> MS-DOS and optionally as a couple of early Windows versions:
> https://magpi.raspberrypi.org/articles/build-a-dos-emulation-system?mc_c
> id=7589d7823d&mc_eid=b112add5d7
KM> Ooh, neat! Never thought of running Win3.1 on a Pi, but now that
KM> I think of it... Win3.1 just needs DOS to run, so DOSBox should
KM> work to host it.

So I guess it is easier to understand the information when the
information is present! <g> Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)

Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to Windows,
the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded correctly. Or
the config options were different; as I vaguely recall Win3.1 used
different config options for its DOS shell.

I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat bits to
deal with something like this, then again I was using DRDOS underneath,
and while it had more functions, it also had more cranks compared to MSDOS.

As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application saving a few dollars on the less expensive option isn't worth it. OTOH
one of the nice things about the Pi's is one can remove the SD card,
insert another and it's a 'different' computer! Easy to see if one
likes something, is fine with the response or an upgrade is worthwhile.

Yeah, that way you're also flexible for other projects.
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

Hi Ky!

Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)

Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to
Windows, the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded correctly. Or the config options were different; as I vaguely
recall Win3.1 used different config options for its DOS shell.

Something like that. I did have at least one person take a look and everything appeared correct. Oh well, just loaded DOS first, then
Windows when I needed it.

I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat
bits to deal with something like this, then again I was using
DRDOS underneath, and while it had more functions, it also had
more cranks compared to MSDOS.

The 'we have good news and we have bad news' thing. I think I had tried
DRDOS but decided it would be best for me to stick with the 'mainstream'
stuff packed with the computers we were selling at the store and I could
(and did) provide some customer support.

As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application saving a few dollars on the less expensive option isn't worth it. OTOH
one of the nice things about the Pi's is one can remove the SD card,
insert another and it's a 'different' computer! Easy to see if one
likes something, is fine with the response or an upgrade is worthwhile.

Yeah, that way you're also flexible for other projects.

Plus relatively easy to have a back up: the newer OS allow copying of
the entire SD card as opposed to just the data partition (maybe was also
part of the OS partiion, I don't recall). Having a clone of the card is
nice!

¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

... Split personality? Who, us??
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

BARRY MARTIN wrote:

Hi Ky!

> Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
> I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
> to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
> others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
> software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)
KM> Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to
KM> Windows, the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded
KM> correctly. Or the config options were different; as I vaguely
KM> recall Win3.1 used different config options for its DOS shell.

Something like that. I did have at least one person take a look and everything appeared correct. Oh well, just loaded DOS first, then
Windows when I needed it.

If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in CONFIG.SYS --
due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era, some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to some ridiculously high
number. I remember this specifically because DRDOS Did Things
Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0 would not run, and Windows was a
little goofy in some other way I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft,
and was told to set FILES and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers...
and then suddenly all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again,
nor even misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single crash!)

Anyway, how this was set would change how Windows behaved, and whether
it could load all at once or had to first wait for DOS to settle down. I vaguely recall that Windows had its own FILES statement, but was
influenced by the one in CONFIG.SYS, at least for apps like Office that
still believed the world ran on DOS4. In fact, to this day...

C:\WINDOWS>setver

WINWORD.EXE 4.10
EXCEL.EXE 4.10
METRO.EXE 3.31
DD.EXE 4.01
DD.BIN 4.01
LL3.EXE 4.01

You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x didn't
close files properly on disk, and apparently these programs compensated,
which was disagreeable to other DOS versions (and thereby caused the
very files-left-open problem it was supposed to prevent).

KM> I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat
KM> bits to deal with something like this, then again I was using
KM> DRDOS underneath, and while it had more functions, it also had
KM> more cranks compared to MSDOS.

The 'we have good news and we have bad news' thing. I think I had tried DRDOS but decided it would be best for me to stick with the 'mainstream' stuff packed with the computers we were selling at the store and I could
(and did) provide some customer support.

Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started on this
stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't worth the trouble,
with rare exceptions -- frex, you could multiboot different species of
DOS... tho what it actually did was shell to the next DOS, not a true multiboot. (At one point I had a very silly setup of three different
DOSs on the same system, that chain-booted to the one you wanted.)

DRDOS had a DPMI memory manager, which was great for Windows, but caused conflicts with stuff like DOOM that had its own DPMI manager... so
needed a boot option to set up memory differently for that.

And DRDOS's performance was (per actual test) 20% slower than MSDOS6. So
after the Win3.1 system with DRDOS7 was finally retired, I never messed
with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS, by preference it's MSDOS7 from
Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver). Best performance and as bug-free as anything gets. FreeDOS is okay but I seem to run into more holes and
stuff that doesn't work as expected.

Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the sewers
of Ky's brain...

> As far as running Windows on an RPi, I think the article suggested a
> Raspberry Pi 4 -- faster than the earlier versions so a plus there.
> I'd probably go with the 8 GB version over the 4 -- for this application
KM> Yeah, that way you're also flexible for other projects.

Plus relatively easy to have a back up: the newer OS allow copying of
the entire SD card as opposed to just the data partition (maybe was also
part of the OS partiion, I don't recall). Having a clone of the card is nice!

Definitely!
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in CONFIG.SYS --
due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era, some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to some ridiculously high
number. I remember this specifically because DRDOS Did Things
Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0 would not run, and Windows was a
little goofy in some other way I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft,
and was told to set FILES and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers...
and then suddenly all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again,
nor even misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single crash!)

I can remember setting FILES to no lower than 50, and sometimes as high as
70, to get things to work right. You may be onto something there.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * As I was going up a stair, I met a man who wasn't there.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: ILink: CCO - capitolcityonline.net (454:3/105)

MIKE POWELL wrote:

If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in CONFIG.SYS --
due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era, some programs, and
therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to some ridiculously high
number. I remember this specifically because DRDOS Did Things
Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0 would not run, and Windows was a
little goofy in some other way I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft,
and was told to set FILES and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers...
and then suddenly all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again,
nor even misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
crash!)

I can remember setting FILES to no lower than 50, and sometimes as high as 70, to get things to work right. You may be onto something there.

Yeah, I think the fix I was given went something like:
FILES=60
STACKS=32,512

A handy reference, for those of us living in the past! https://networkencyclopedia.com/config-sys/

Apparently the problem is still with us!

https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/ab8d5278-51c9-4d64-935c-b0eceac915b3/where-is-confignt-for-16-bits-apps-on-windows-10

If it won't let you see... some program that worked in Win7-32bit did
not play nice with Win10-32bit. Solution was... FILES statement in
CONFIG.NT!

===
It's still the same config.nt, but now (as in Windows 8.1):

files=60

device=%SystemRoot% system32ansi.sys

Found it here (in German): http://www.drwindows.de/windows-8-allgemein/60424-dos-programme-windows-8-probleme-anzahl-files.html
===
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

Hi Ky!

> Back in the old days I had a Windows and if
> I started DOS then opened Windows it worked fine but if I configured it
> to start at Windows and shell to DOS would in short time lock up. Had
> others check and they didn't find a problem with the hardware nor
> software. (Guess that was the start of my annoyance with Windows.)
KM> Huh. That's very strange, but I'd guess when it went direct to
KM> Windows, the underlying DOS memory manager was not getting loaded
KM> correctly. Or the config options were different; as I vaguely
KM> recall Win3.1 used different config options for its DOS shell. Something like that. I did have at least one person take a look and everything appeared correct. Oh well, just loaded DOS first, then
Windows when I needed it.

If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in
CONFIG.SYS -- due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era,
some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to
some ridiculously high number.

That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
back and check.

I remember this specifically
because DRDOS Did Things Differently there, and MSOffice 4.0
would not run, and Windows was a little goofy in some other way
I've forgotten. So I called Microsoft, and was told to set FILES
and HANDLES to some absurdly high numbers... and then suddenly
all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
crash!)

Seven days is considered a long time!!

You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x
didn't close files properly on disk, and apparently these
programs compensated, which was disagreeable to other DOS
versions (and thereby caused the very files-left-open problem it
was supposed to prevent).

One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
elsewhere. Which sort of makes points for having a base operating
system and seperate applications/utilites as opposed to having those applications and utilities built into the OS. Seems like separate and independent would be easier to correct without screwing up something
else. (Still a possibilty, just less so.)

KM> I recall having some rather strange config.sys and autoexec.bat
KM> bits to deal with something like this, then again I was using
KM> DRDOS underneath, and while it had more functions, it also had
KM> more cranks compared to MSDOS.
The 'we have good news and we have bad news' thing. I think I had tried DRDOS but decided it would be best for me to stick with the 'mainstream' stuff packed with the computers we were selling at the store and I could (and did) provide some customer support.

Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
worth the trouble, with rare exceptions -- frex, you could
multiboot different species of DOS... tho what it actually did
was shell to the next DOS, not a true multiboot. (At one point I
had a very silly setup of three different DOSs on the same
system, that chain-booted to the one you wanted.)

Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
...Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??

DRDOS had a DPMI memory manager, which was great for Windows, but
caused conflicts with stuff like DOOM that had its own DPMI
manager... so needed a boot option to set up memory differently
for that.

Yup: two utilities trying to do the same job at the same time isn't
going to work!

And DRDOS's performance was (per actual test) 20% slower than
MSDOS6. So after the Win3.1 system with DRDOS7 was finally
retired, I never messed with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS,
by preference it's MSDOS7 from Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver).
Best performance and as bug-free as anything gets. FreeDOS is
okay but I seem to run into more holes and stuff that doesn't
work as expected.

I'll admit to not really needing to return to the Old Stuff, mainly
because nothing I'm using needs it, though some does use NonCurrent
Stuff! Glad I learned the more or less bare bones MS-DOS and early
Windows: great for troubleshooting as I sort of understand what is
happening.

Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
sewers of Ky's brain...

So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
and during droughts..... <g>


¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

... Shouldn't you be doing something productive?
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

BARRY MARTIN wrote:

Hi Ky!
KM> If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in
KM> CONFIG.SYS -- due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era,
KM> some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to
KM> some ridiculously high number.

That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes

When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else... kablooie.

almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
back and check.

Time machine needs rebooting? :D

KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
KM> crash!)

Seven days is considered a long time!!

Not in MY house! <g>

KM> You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x
KM> didn't close files properly on disk, and apparently these
KM> programs compensated, which was disagreeable to other DOS
KM> versions (and thereby caused the very files-left-open problem it
KM> was supposed to prevent).

One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed

Haha, so it goes!

elsewhere. Which sort of makes points for having a base operating
system and seperate applications/utilites as opposed to having those applications and utilities built into the OS. Seems like separate and independent would be easier to correct without screwing up something
else. (Still a possibilty, just less so.)

Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak and
AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency Hell).

KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't

Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??

There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>

Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...

KM> retired, I never messed with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS,
KM> by preference it's MSDOS7 from Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver).

I'll admit to not really needing to return to the Old Stuff, mainly
because nothing I'm using needs it, though some does use NonCurrent

Yeah, I'm down to just a couple things that need Old Stuff, and some
year I'll find me a Pascal programmer and get the 16bit DOS pedigree
program converted to 32bit Windows. Or x64 linux, as the case may be.

Stuff! Glad I learned the more or less bare bones MS-DOS and early
Windows: great for troubleshooting as I sort of understand what is
happening.

Indeed... I can feel baffled often enough without lacking these old foundations!

KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
KM> sewers of Ky's brain...

So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
and during droughts..... <g>

....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

Hi Ky!

KM> If I had to bet, I'd be looking at the FILES= statement in
KM> CONFIG.SYS -- due to some cranks left over from the MSDOS4.x era,
KM> some programs, and therefore Win3.1x itself, needed them set to
KM> some ridiculously high number.
That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes

When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape
by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else...
kablooie.

Probably -- not questioning, just not recalling as that was a long time
ago, and haven't fiddled with this Windows XP (on the virtual machine)
in I don't know how long -- I think it's even a clone of what was on the
old computer. ...Yup: 2008 (!) Well, c:\windows\system32\config.nt has Files=40. (And I've switched topic from ~WFWG to XP.)

almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
back and check.

Time machine needs rebooting? :D

Might be abad time to find the motherboard battery is dead and we're at
the computer epoch date!

KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
KM> crash!)
Seven days is considered a long time!!

Not in MY house! <g>

It's all due to the typewriter hung onthe fence!!

KM> You may note a common theme here... the problem was that DOS4.x
KM> didn't close files properly on disk, and apparently these
KM> programs compensated, which was disagreeable to other DOS
KM> versions (and thereby caused the very files-left-open problem it
KM> was supposed to prevent).
One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed

Haha, so it goes!

Job security for the programmers! Fix on problem, create another, but
not so it looks like incompetence!

elsewhere. Which sort of makes points for having a base operating
system and separate applications/utilites as opposed to having those applications and utilities built into the OS. Seems like separate and independent would be easier to correct without screwing up something
else. (Still a possibilty, just less so.)

Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak
and AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency
Hell).

I can sort of see both sides: mainly why re-invent the wheel so use
something already working (guess called a 'dependency'), but of course
that has backfired with the utility no longer working when the other
utility was altered. (Thinking in particular of GET and STRINGS.)

KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??

There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>

Maybe the Desktop background caught my eye: a Felt Fedora - yawn! An
Energetic Ermine -- hmm! <g> ...Probably more MythDora died (no longer supported) and Mythbuntu was the replacement. (I do recall looking at
other options but they appeared to be too complex, especially for the
other person here.) Mythbuntu was built on Ubuntu and so if seems
halfway logical to get more into Ubuntu.

Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...

I'm thinking it's just a personality conflict: no real problems here;
have been some minor issues but IMO they got resolved quickly. Now
maybe when looking at a more in-depth and technical mindset....

KM> retired, I never messed with it again., Nowadays when I use DOS,
KM> by preference it's MSDOS7 from Win98 (with the 8.0 mouse driver).
I'll admit to not really needing to return to the Old Stuff, mainly
because nothing I'm using needs it, though some does use NonCurrent

Yeah, I'm down to just a couple things that need Old Stuff, and
some year I'll find me a Pascal programmer and get the 16bit DOS
pedigree program converted to 32bit Windows. Or x64 linux, as the
case may be.

Well I'll admit to being a bit biased in my searches so ignoring the
Windows options and looking at those for Linux.

https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/run-dos-application-in-linux/
He's wanting to run a 16-bit MS-DOS game. WINE won't work because
16-bit applications want to access the first 64K of kernel memory and
that's a security issue. DOSBox and DOSemu seem to be working.

I was expecting another page as he said 'tutorial'...


This article may give you some other clues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15597155/porting-16-bit-dos-x86-asse mbly-to-32-bit-linux-x86-assembly

My search was "convert 16 bit DOS to Linux" ==> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=convert+16+bit+ DOS+to+Linux
Probably the more technical hits will be what you need -- they're over
my head.

Stuff! Glad I learned the more or less bare bones MS-DOS and early
Windows: great for troubleshooting as I sort of understand what is happening.

Indeed... I can feel baffled often enough without lacking these
old foundations!

<chuckle> Yeah! Like my little issue with getting the fiber optic
system going here: details is posts with Nancy in Chit Chat, basically I figured out why my computers weren't seeing the outside world: (a)
Ethernet cable was disconnected, and (b) needed another device (a router
-- I wasn't sure of the terminology so when talking to IT let them give
me their name for the device).

Over the years have done lots of troubleshooting by paying attention to details. Stuff doesn't run off 'magic'.

KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
KM> sewers of Ky's brain...
So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
and during droughts..... <g>

....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D

Nah: Prodigy!

¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

... Shell to DOS...Come in DOS; do you Copy? Shell to DOS...
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

BARRY MARTIN wrote:

Hi Ky!

> That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
> of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
> little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
KM> When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape
KM> by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else...
KM> kablooie.

Probably -- not questioning, just not recalling as that was a long time

I probably wouldn't remember so specifically except for that MSOffice
problem, and that my brain never throws away anything. Doesn't label or
index a durn thing, but keeps all of it!

ago, and haven't fiddled with this Windows XP (on the virtual machine)
in I don't know how long -- I think it's even a clone of what was on the
old computer. ...Yup: 2008 (!) Well, c:\windows\system32\config.nt has Files=40. (And I've switched topic from ~WFWG to XP.)

Topic? What topic?? :D Tho I vaguely recall that with the NT base, it
no longer really matters, tho might be there for compatibility.

> almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
> back and check.
KM> Time machine needs rebooting? :D

Might be abad time to find the motherboard battery is dead and we're at
the computer epoch date!

Especially if it's Borg (the first of mine built by assimilating other
PCs), who left to its own devices thought the year was 2093!!

> KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
> KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
> KM> crash!)
> Seven days is considered a long time!!
KM> Not in MY house! <g>

It's all due to the typewriter hung onthe fence!!

38 years or so later, the warning is still in force! <g>

> One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
KM> Haha, so it goes!
Job security for the programmers! Fix on problem, create another, but
not so it looks like incompetence!

I've heard of some actually attempting that... thing is, those who think
that way usually aren't as good as they thought... and get caught.

KM> Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak
KM> and AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency
KM> Hell).

I can sort of see both sides: mainly why re-invent the wheel so use
something already working (guess called a 'dependency'), but of course

Dependency: same as a DLL, except for linux. Shared bits of programs
and/or OS.

But the problem is that dependencies can get out of sync, and then
whichever program didn't update its build... no longer works.

In fact I lost my preferred font manager to that very problem. It has a dependency old enough it conflicts with current OS versions. So this
program works on the, uh, archival PCLOS that I've never updated, but
not on the one I keep up to date. (Synaptic removed it, being fairly
good about resolving conflicts that way. Otherwise I would have had
several broken packages.)

that has backfired with the utility no longer working when the other
utility was altered. (Thinking in particular of GET and STRINGS.)

No idea about GET and STRINGS!!

> KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
> KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
> Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
> at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
> ..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??
KM> There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>

Maybe the Desktop background caught my eye: a Felt Fedora - yawn! An Energetic Ermine -- hmm! <g> ...Probably more MythDora died (no longer supported) and Mythbuntu was the replacement. (I do recall looking at

That sounds like a less fanciful explanation. <g>

other options but they appeared to be too complex, especially for the
other person here.) Mythbuntu was built on Ubuntu and so if seems
halfway logical to get more into Ubuntu.

Whereas I have a variety of OSs... in fact Fireball has accumulated a
stack of <counts> SIX hard drives with several different Windows and one PCLOS. (I no longer multiboot, thanks to issues variously with GRUB and
with the current Windows bootloader. Much safer to just swap HDs.)

KM> Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...
I'm thinking it's just a personality conflict: no real problems here;

Heh.. in my book, Gnome3 is completely unusable. If I wanted a cellphone interface, I'd use a bloody cellphone!!

Also, compared to just about every other species of linux (except
possibly Mageia), Ubuntu is a hog. Not so critical on newish hardware,
but it's downright sluggish on an older box. Realized why when I
compared it directly to Mint... Mint is built from Ubuntu, but runs MUCH faster, and... per actual count only loads 1/4th as many modules. Well,
no wonder!!

So that's how I came to so very much dislike Ubuntu.

have been some minor issues but IMO they got resolved quickly. Now
maybe when looking at a more in-depth and technical mindset....

Or a complete lack of patience :)

https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/run-dos-application-in-linux/
He's wanting to run a 16-bit MS-DOS game. WINE won't work because
16-bit applications want to access the first 64K of kernel memory and
that's a security issue. DOSBox and DOSemu seem to be working.

Decided WINE and DOSbox both not worth the effort; easier to run
VirtualBox and WinXP. In fact that is now how I deal with 16-bit
anything, and with Win-only apps I can't live without. And being lazy,
built it once then exported an OVA, so I have the same WinXP in every VM.

I was expecting another page as he said 'tutorial'...

This article may give you some other clues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15597155/porting-16-bit-dos-x86-asse mbly-to-32-bit-linux-x86-assembly

Assembly language is its own arcanity... this program is in Pascal
(author gave me the source code for my personal use... if I could track
him down again I'd ask about opensourcing it).

My search was "convert 16 bit DOS to Linux" ==> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=convert+16+bit+ DOS+to+Linux

Now my brain hurts. <g>

Probably the more technical hits will be what you need -- they're over
my head.

That's because they're hitting me over the head! <g>

<chuckle> Yeah! Like my little issue with getting the fiber optic
system going here: details is posts with Nancy in Chit Chat, basically I figured out why my computers weren't seeing the outside world: (a)
Ethernet cable was disconnected, and (b) needed another device (a router
-- I wasn't sure of the terminology so when talking to IT let them give
me their name for the device).

Ah, yes, the old "unplugged cable" gambit... <g>

Over the years have done lots of troubleshooting by paying attention to details. Stuff doesn't run off 'magic'.

Wait, it doesn't??

> KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
> KM> sewers of Ky's brain...
> So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
> and during droughts..... <g>
KM> ....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D

Nah: Prodigy!

LOL, not AOL? :)

.. Shell to DOS...Come in DOS; do you Copy? Shell to DOS...

I hear water...
þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)

Hi Ky!

> That would almost make sense: here it seemed as if a buffer/holding area
> of some sort was being overloaded/overfilled as always worked for a
> little while and then stopped. The amount of time varied: sometimes
KM> When it ran out of file handles, probably. Windows could scrape
KM> by on 20 (IIRC) but as soon as you run something else...
KM> kablooie.
Probably -- not questioning, just not recalling as that was a long time

I probably wouldn't remember so specifically except for that
MSOffice problem, and that my brain never throws away anything.
Doesn't label or index a durn thing, but keeps all of it!

I can relate! There are times when it being all indexed neat and tidy
would be handy, then there are those times when the randomness works
better (like "got a problem? Don't know what it fixed but 'FILES=40'
worked").

ago, and haven't fiddled with this Windows XP (on the virtual machine)
in I don't know how long -- I think it's even a clone of what was on the
old computer. ...Yup: 2008 (!) Well, c:\windows\system32\config.nt has Files=40. (And I've switched topic from ~WFWG to XP.)

Topic? What topic?? :D Tho I vaguely recall that with the NT
base, it no longer really matters, tho might be there for
compatibility.

Topic: those random words in the Subject field! As for my "FILES=40"
guess I'll just leave it alone as things seem to be working acceptably.

> almost immediately to a few minutes. Would be nice to be able to go
> back and check.
KM> Time machine needs rebooting? :D
Might be a bad time to find the motherboard battery is dead and we're at
the computer epoch date!

Especially if it's Borg (the first of mine built by assimilating
other PCs), who left to its own devices thought the year was
2093!!

<snortle!!> That was 1993, add a hundred years to make the BIOS look current....

> KM> all was well. (And Windows never, ever crashed again, nor even
> KM> misbehaved in any noteworthy way. Seven years without a single
> KM> crash!)
> Seven days is considered a long time!!
KM> Not in MY house! <g>
It's all due to the typewriter hung onthe fence!!

38 years or so later, the warning is still in force! <g>

A little rusty, but that's part of the punishment!

> One fix for a problem creates a problem which needs to be fixed
KM> Haha, so it goes!
Job security for the programmers! Fix on problem, create another, but
not so it looks like incompetence!

I've heard of some actually attempting that... thing is, those
who think that way usually aren't as good as they thought... and
get caught.

The job security is there will always be problems, and they don't have to
be created. Was reading a post the other day where an automatic
firmware update took a company's system down. Company's IT fixed the
problem, then called the hardware company to find a way to turn off
automartic updates (run manually instead so could test first). Hardware
tech minsuderstood and rolled back the firmware update instead, and so
the company's computers crashed again!

KM> Or why I'm a big fan of portable apps, and why we have Flatpak
KM> and AppImage for linux (given DLL Hell has NOTHING on Dependency
KM> Hell).
I can sort of see both sides: mainly why re-invent the wheel so use something already working (guess called a 'dependency'), but of course

Dependency: same as a DLL, except for linux. Shared bits of
programs and/or OS.

So a dependency depends on the OS! <jk>

But the problem is that dependencies can get out of sync, and
then whichever program didn't update its build... no longer
works.

Right: and probably can't keep the old dependency for compatibility:
first thing coming to mind is the old and the new have the same
filename. Can't change to 'depencency.old' as the utility is looking
for 'dependency.current'. Suppose the best way would be a version: 'dependency.20200804'. That probably creates some other problems.

In fact I lost my preferred font manager to that very problem. It
has a dependency old enough it conflicts with current OS
versions. So this program works on the, uh, archival PCLOS that
I've never updated, but not on the one I keep up to date.
(Synaptic removed it, being fairly good about resolving conflicts
that way. Otherwise I would have had several broken packages.)

<rattle-rattle!> I had a semi-similar problem with my scanner software.
I use the scanner intermittently: might use it a few times in a week and
then not again for a month. Went to use it: utility didn't see but did
see the all-in-one in the basement. (The scanner is USB, the all-in-one wireless.) Retry, unplug/plug USB -- <grumble> - try different utility
- it works fine ('oddly' doesn't see the all-in-one) so make the scan
that way.

Check on-line for troubleshooting. Update utility - same problem. Try
a few command-line checks - no problems. Check the original utility -
problem still. Not sure what happened but something finally broke
through: took a longer than normal time to find any scanners (found the all-in-one almost immediately) and then the one up here and things have
been fine since. (Just checked: still good.)

> KM> Yeah, I wound up using it because the person who got me started
> KM> on this stuff was a DRDOS enthusiast, but fact was it wasn't
> Something like when I got started with Linux. The utility I was using
> at the time for recording TV was MythDora, which is based on Fedora.
> ..Hmm: so why did I go Ubuntu instead of Fedora??
KM> There's no excuse for Ubuntu. <g>
Maybe the Desktop background caught my eye: a Felt Fedora - yawn! An Energetic Ermine -- hmm! <g> ...Probably more MythDora died (no longer supported) and Mythbuntu was the replacement. (I do recall looking at

That sounds like a less fanciful explanation. <g>

There are times when the direct path is taken!

other options but they appeared to be too complex, especially for the
other person here.) Mythbuntu was built on Ubuntu and so if seems
halfway logical to get more into Ubuntu.

Whereas I have a variety of OSs... in fact Fireball has
accumulated a stack of <counts> SIX hard drives with several
different Windows and one PCLOS. (I no longer multiboot, thanks
to issues variously with GRUB and with the current Windows
bootloader. Much safer to just swap HDs.)

Plus with manual vs. electronic switching the OS is 'pure', whereas with
the GRUB doing the selection there is the possibility of being altered
as the data passes through.

KM> Seriously, it makes Win10 seem agreeable...
I'm thinking it's just a personality conflict: no real problems here;

Heh.. in my book, Gnome3 is completely unusable. If I wanted a
cellphone interface, I'd use a bloody cellphone!!

Now that's a visual!! I pretty much go with the flow, primarily
because I don't know the 'programming details' and so half-figure the
people putting it all together for me mad ethat selection for a reason. Admittedly not always the right selection,

Also, compared to just about every other species of linux (except
possibly Mageia), Ubuntu is a hog. Not so critical on newish
hardware, but it's downright sluggish on an older box. Realized
why when I compared it directly to Mint... Mint is built from
Ubuntu, but runs MUCH faster, and... per actual count only loads
1/4th as many modules. Well, no wonder!!
So that's how I came to so very much dislike Ubuntu.

If 75% less modules to 'look through' then yes, would be faster. OTOH
what's missing? Probably nothing of usual importance but may be items
needed for compatibility with 'old stuff'. Just guessing. If so, seems
could look on-line for the necessary module -- which could be dangerous!
-- or look internally in an archival subdir and copy into the main one.
Now thinking that dependancies issue!

have been some minor issues but IMO they got resolved quickly. Now
maybe when looking at a more in-depth and technical mindset....

Or a complete lack of patience :)

"SERENITY NOW"!

https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/run-dos-application-in-linux/
He's wanting to run a 16-bit MS-DOS game. WINE won't work because
16-bit applications want to access the first 64K of kernel memory and
that's a security issue. DOSBox and DOSemu seem to be working.

Decided WINE and DOSbox both not worth the effort; easier to run VirtualBox and WinXP. In fact that is now how I deal with 16-bit
anything, and with Win-only apps I can't live without. And being
lazy, built it once then exported an OVA, so I have the same
WinXP in every VM.

But the clone on this system does this and the clone on that system does something else -- oh! it's those two Dells! <g>

This article may give you some other clues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15597155/porting-16-bit-dos-x86-asse mbly-to-32-bit-linux-x86-assembly

Assembly language is its own arcanity... this program is in
Pascal (author gave me the source code for my personal use... if
I could track him down again I'd ask about opensourcing it).

Decades ago I tried to self-teach myself assembly from a book or two.
Some 'but first' got in the way....

My search was "convert 16 bit DOS to Linux" ==> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=convert+16+bit+ DOS+to+Linux

Now my brain hurts. <g>

That was simple!

Probably the more technical hits will be what you need -- they're over
my head.

That's because they're hitting me over the head! <g>

You're taller!

<chuckle> Yeah! Like my little issue with getting the fiber optic
system going here: details in posts with Nancy in Chit Chat, basically I figured out why my computers weren't seeing the outside world: (a)
Ethernet cable was disconnected, and (b) needed another device (a router
-- I wasn't sure of the terminology so when talking to IT let them give
me their name for the device).

Ah, yes, the old "unplugged cable" gambit... <g>

But it's plugged in at the end we're asking about!

Over the years have done lots of troubleshooting by paying attention to details. Stuff doesn't run off 'magic'.

Wait, it doesn't??

Ugh-ugh: black boxes!

> KM> Geez, look what happens when you stir the ancient sludge in the
> KM> sewers of Ky's brain...
> So there was this article about how the Thames River was London's sewer
> and during droughts..... <g>
KM> ....they found Ubuntu CDs?? :D
Nah: Prodigy!

LOL, not AOL? :)

I suppose if it was there it would have been 'London on Line' rather
than 'America on Line'!

.. Shell to DOS...Come in DOS; do you Copy? Shell to DOS...

I hear water...

Flood! RUN!!!

¯ ®
¯ BarryMartin3@ ®
¯ @MyMetronet.NET ®
¯ ®
¯ (Humans know what ®
¯ to remove.) ®

... Both oars in the water, but on the same side of the boat.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47
þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA

--- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462
* Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1)