Post #114,197
8/18/03 2:41:32 PM
|
Use Grub MAN... Only way to fly.
It is the Shizzit.
I outlined how to do it [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=97405|HERE]
You can jive with it right? Just follow the Grub install portion.
Then do:
apt-get remove --purge lilo
once you get it running.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
You blink thrice warned that I can but think of the eyebrows of Richard Nixon covering a hostess of furry twinkies.
|
Post #114,200
8/18/03 2:52:03 PM
|
What he said.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,205
8/18/03 3:57:58 PM
|
Wrong
It's a pre-OS, which makes it as elegant as a rusty, dull pitchfork.
It is also ugly and mean.
Elegance has a place, and by failing to recognize it, you help the enemies of quality.
-drl
|
Post #114,207
8/18/03 4:43:20 PM
|
It Works For Me[tm]
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #114,208
8/18/03 4:59:00 PM
|
One look at all the msblast emails...
...and I'd even take crusty and old over that crap anytime.
Bonus is...it isn't.
Its actually getting painfully simple to handle most everyday tasks. Dare I say just as easy if not easier than Nifty Doorways.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #114,240
8/18/03 8:46:59 PM
|
You rang?
[link|http://ubersoft.net/index.html| Nifty] responds.
(Wouldn't it have been Loverly had.. there been the slightest net-connection to the er Power Thing, amidst the flood of bogus M$-spawn.. alas, No Joy. This time.)
|
Post #114,223
8/18/03 6:59:20 PM
|
Don't give me that.
You lauded the virtues of Windows 95.
Elegance? You've heard of it.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,268
8/19/03 1:11:46 AM
|
Re: Don't give me that.
Windows 9x was an extremely elegant solution to an impossible problem - compatibility with Windows 3.x code, which required particular and extremely specific memory models based on DOS, while still being able to execute 32 bit code fully protected. The magic was in exploiting to the full extent the VM86 mode of the 386 and beyond - something even OS/2 was late to use.
Of course you can never understand the meaning of this statement, having never been around during the days of 640k, expanded memory etc. etc.
Windows memory management was a miracle. That is why Windows is everywhere today.
-drl
|
Post #114,274
8/19/03 2:41:46 AM
|
Ha!
Of course, you can never understand that I WAS around then.
Windows 95 is a crufty, kludgey pile of shite. It only ran 32 bit code fully protected if no 16-bit code was running; it had a user interface that was thoroughly smashed from a HCI point of view; it didn't run 16-bit code as well as OS/2, nor 32-bit code as well as NT; it was fragile and non-deterministic, frequently eating itself alive; and for the time it had entirely unreasonable hardware requirements.
I think you've got some funny ideas about "elegant". DesqView was elegant. Borland Sprint was elegant. Exim is elegant.
Windows 95 was about as elegant as a drunk, incontinent elephant in a tutu.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #114,277
8/19/03 3:09:50 AM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #114276 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114276|ICLRPD]
--\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #114,275
8/19/03 3:08:05 AM
|
Care to estimate how much of that magic
was originated by Quarterdeck? My memory is fuzzy on the details now, but IIRC this was YAN lawsuit that, if settled, certainly was under NDA. One thing I remember better is - the er 'granularity' available via QEMM far exceeded the crude Redmond product, on into the first 95 release.. Nobody ever doubts the efficiency of their thievery (except those who don't remember what was stolen).
Quarterdeck's 'task switcher' was stable and those I knew who used it (for business) preferred this solution with DOS to 3.1x and its infermities. Hmmm, didn't Brian Livingston ascend into guru status by posting one W3.11 .ini value which dramatically reduced the default's Crash Quotient?
Have you any information to the contrary re 95 memory management? Certainly you know more about its guts than I - I only mean to remind where M$ stole (this particular piece of) their 'success': and remember another intelligent company maimed via Beast-absorption of their work.
(I used several QEMM versions prior to Win, then for keeping 3.x walking with less of a limp. Many hours of trials, notes, retries.). They developed some clever means for fine-tuning, testing virtual locations of video, etc - with the option of restricting video display to text.. and making that 640K barrier resemble near 804K (?)
Ancient history now, I guess - soon few will remember the precise stepping stones of the descent into homogenized mediocrity.
Ashton
|
Post #114,303
8/19/03 10:19:13 AM
|
Re: Care to estimate how much of that magic
The magic was not in tasking (although the way Windows 9x juggles 16 and 32 bit code is quite amazing, and not directly comparable to OS/2 and NT) - Windows 3.x was no better than other coop-tasking OSen - and we all remember UAEs and GPFs. The magic was in efficient paging and extremely optimized graphics. To this day, if you get into a regime in which UNIX is swapping a lot, you might as well kill everything in sight and start over after getting some more RAM. OS/2 2.x is rightly praised for having done the best kernel job for real preemp-tasking on a low-resource machine - large parts of the kernel were coded in machine language - even so, it absolutely required at least 4 to 8 megs of RAM to run smoothly and was far happier with 16 - which in the day (early 90s) was a LOT of money. Windows 3.x would run realistically in only 2 megs, and at 8, was in a comfort zone. 16 was more than needed for most business apps.
I love to bash MS for the stupid shit they pull, but not everyone there is an idiot. And, I've seen just as much shitty Linux software that is on the same disgustingly low level as MS's worst efforts.
-drl
|
Post #114,308
8/19/03 10:47:51 AM
|
The paging sucked.
I ran a memory-intensive Access 2.0 program in both Win 95 and OS/2 on the same 8 Meg machine. Unusable on 95. Very usable on OS/2. In fact, in OS/2 I could go off and do other things while Access was chugging along. In 95 I was lucky to see the mouse cursor move. Occasionally.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #114,333
8/19/03 1:54:50 PM
|
Access 2.0 was a resource hog
Win-OS2 ran it, but was a Virtual Machine in OS/2 so it only used up WIN-OS2 resources and left the OS/2 ones free. Nice having a Virtual Machine in the OS, I recall it could boot any version of DOS under the Virtual Machine. IBM was going to work on Windows 95 compatability, but scrapped it. A pity, I think OS/2 would have done better if it could have run Windows 95 code. Later on came the ODIN library, and I have yet to try that.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #114,396
8/19/03 5:49:48 PM
|
Yes, it's true
By the time 32 bit apps for Windows were showing up, the bloat was on the upward leg of the exponential curve - but of course, by then memory was getting really cheap and having less than 64 was no excuse.
OS/2 had far better DOS performance in all releases - after they took the clue from MS and exploited the VM86 mode.
-drl
|
Post #114,407
8/19/03 6:16:19 PM
|
Um, OS/2 2.0 had a far better DOS box than Win95
You could run (almost) any DOS app on OS/2's DOS box. People even booted CPM/86 in it.
Mostly 32-bit Win95 came out in the fall of 1995. Mostly 32-bit OS/2 2.0 came out in the spring of 1992. Who's following who?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #114,430
8/19/03 10:26:35 PM
|
That's the one..
..with VM86 capability.
OS/2 1.x was made for the 286 and was miserable at DOS apps. Windows 3.x showed the way by using the 386 properly.
-drl
|
Post #114,447
8/19/03 11:37:18 PM
|
It's still not making much sense. (new thread)
Created as new thread #114446 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114446|It's still not making much sense.]
|
Post #114,332
8/19/03 1:48:08 PM
|
QEMM
I used to own it, I have the disks somewhere in storage. I used to buy Quarterdeck software at a discount because I joined their club once. But then Symantec bought them out and the discount club was no more. I couldn't even upgrade from my Procomm Plus 32 4.51 to the latest Procomm, and QEMM, I am not sure if they make it anymore.
IIRC DR-DOS aka OpenDOS also had some memory manager that was better than what MS had, it was able to load DOS TSRs into Extended Memory instead of just Upper DOS block memory. I always hated that, having to reserve address blocks of memory and hoping you didn't have a SCSI adapter or something taking up 64K or so of upper memory. I remember having to exclude the address that IBm Token Ring cards used in EMM386 and Windows 3.X to avoid lockups.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #114,427
8/19/03 9:57:19 PM
|
Sounds like you're talking about Warp, not Windows
OS/2 was much much better at that than Win95 was.
I ran Descent under WinOS/2 once, and got decent performance on a P100. Under 95, it sucked. If I ran Descent under a dos box in Warp (not WinOS/2) it was even better. Adding KaliOS/2 to the mix to permit playing over tcpip networks, and comparing network performance vs. Kali95 only widened the gap further.
IMhO (and I played a _lot_ of Descent), OS/2 is the absolute best Descent platform there is... best of all, it still works well, three hardware generations later. Under Win98 it's not controllable, and it won't ever RUN under NT based systems...
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
