2011/4/11, Eric Auer:
> Finally about two other Zbigniew topics: You should not use 2 GB
> FAT16 partitions, those still have very large clusters. Better use
> FAT32 partitions of "only a few GB at most" if you want to have a
> system with small clusters. Of course the FAT might be bigger then.
O
2011/4/11, Jack :
>> The second point that you fail to grasp is that it costs too much
>> money to maintain backwards compatibility with outdated standards
>> past a certain point ...
>
> Tell that to the automobile and other industries in this country [..]
Maybe you don't realize, how much right
2011/4/11, Jack :
> With which I absolutely agree. But it seems only I wonder how
> much farther ahead Windows/Linux might be, if their kernels and
> drivers [as a MINIMUM!] HAD in fact been done in assembly code!
No, not just you - but I agree, that nowadays it's rather rarely considered:
#v+
2011/4/11, Michael B. Brutman :
Oh, I forgot to address this one:
> Most of us like this progress. While I do enjoy tinkering with my old
> hardware, it's not usable for things that most people need to do today.
No, you're wrong; it's not usable for bloated software of today, not
for the things
2011/4/11, Michael B. Brutman :
> Do you like cheap storage or 512 byte sectors?
Depends. You know: the storage itself may be somewhat cheaper - but
because of its incompatibility, it can force me to replace part of my
hardware, or to spend a lot of time for additional work of
(re)configuration/
2011/4/10, Jack :
> Your "Forth's Dilemma" is not any sort of "rant" but really
> a statement of fact. I know, since I have "BEEN there and
> DONE that!", as we in the U.S.A. might say.
Well, actually it's not mine - but I've found it interesting, and (as
I wrote) your opinion brought it back t
2011/4/10, Jack:
> Or, in fact, could this maybe [... just MAYBE!] be another case
> of the Wintel Consortium software BRATS being UNABLE to achieve
> their targets, using only their college-professors' and bosses'
> much-beloved "C", and it is actually THOSE brats who are asking
> for such "help"
2011/3/13, Mateusz Viste:
> Maybe. But it's still nice to lower the temperature of the chip, to make it
> last longer, and not warm up components that are around it. Plus, it's
> always
> a little more electricity saved. Running FDAPM costs nothing, and provides
> cool advantages. There's no reaso
2011/3/13, Robert Riebisch:
> It's very unlikely that a 386SX will overheat ever.
Yes, I'm aware, that it probably won't overheat - still: by keeping
CPU cool, we'll let it live longer. If it breaks - no chance to
replace.
I can recall similar problem many years ago, with broken 286/12 (not
sure,
2011/3/12, Eric Auer:
>> I'm wondering, whether this misfeature has been fixed in FreeDOS?
>
> Yes! The good news is that newer FreeDOS kernels even have a simple
> version built into the kernel itself. [..]
Good news! Well, I should have googling for "FreeDOS idle CPU",
instead of "DOS idle CPU"
I read, that the source of CPU (over)heating problems under original
MS/PC-DOS was the fact, that its "waiting for key"-loop (or however it
is called) didn't set CPU idle, when user (or application) was idle.
For example: when the computer has been left with the cursor blinking
in the command line.
11 matches
Mail list logo
