I heard in todays techdorks episode about packages for Synchronet or SyncTERM. >I'm going to try putting together a .SlackBuild for SyncTERM and if I can do it
I'll upload it to slackbuilds.org.
I heard in todays techdorks episode about packages for Synchronet or SyncTERM. >I'm going to try putting together a .SlackBuild for SyncTERM and if I can do it
I'll upload it to slackbuilds.org.
Did they mention if there are builds of Syncterm for other distros?
I heard in todays techdorks episode about packages for Synchronet or
SyncTERM. I'm going to try putting together a .SlackBuild for SyncTERM
and if I can do it I'll upload it to slackbuilds.org.
Did they mention if there are builds of Syncterm for other distros?
We don't really have distro-specific builds of SyncTERM (or Synchronet) now.
I do a daily build of syncterm for 32-bit linux, tested on ubuntu...
Where is it available?
I do a daily build of syncterm for 32-bit linux, tested on ubuntu...
Is there a compelling reason to run 32-bit Linux these days, rather than 64-bit Linux? From what I had heard, I thought even DOS doors could run in DOSEMU on a 64-bit Linux?
I would say only if you have a 32-bit box that you don't plan to do
anything else with but run a BBS on (like I do, <GRIN>).
Is there a compelling reason to run 32-bit Linux these days, rather than 64-bit
Linux? From what I had heard, I thought even DOS doors could run in DOSEMU on >a 64-bit Linux?
Is there a compelling reason to run 32-bit Linux these days, rather
than 64-bit Linux? From what I had heard, I thought even DOS doors
could run in DOSEMU on a 64-bit Linux?
I would say only if you have a 32-bit box that you don't plan to do anything else with but run a BBS on (like I do, <GRIN>).
Is there a compelling reason to run 32-bit Linux these days, rather
than 64-bit Linux? From what I had heard, I thought even DOS doors
could run in DOSEMU on a 64-bit Linux?
Yes, on 32-bit only hardware ;)
Can you run the 32bit package on 64bit?
From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet
Can you run the 32bit package on 64bit?
Thanks,
Stan
I would say only if you have a 32-bit box that you don't plan to do anything else with but run a BBS on (like I do, <GRIN>).
My BBS Box is also 32 bit, got it on Ebay for $13 so far it's been solid.
Dumas Walker wrote to DENN <=-
A neighbor left this box at the curb. I figured it might be a good
parts box. Turns out it was a fully functioning machine. Only thing I can figure is that maybe WinXP got a virus, or they bought a new one
and had no use for this one.
They sold surplus machines for companies that were upgrading, downsizing, going out of business, etc. I am not sure if they are in business any more or not.
That happened to me years ago, found a mostly functional PC left out for trash on the side of the road. Rescued it, got it going with Linux and it did service as a server for a few years. :)
Looks like retrobox.com is parked and for sale. Bummer, sounded good. I've been looking for a new low-end desktop for my BBS, wanted to try somewhere else other than newegg.
Looks like retrobox.com is parked and for sale. Bummer, sounded good. I've been looking for a new low-end desktop for my BBS, wanted to try somewhere else other than newegg.
Have you looked at Tiger Direct to see what the have?
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I haven't found any road PCs, but pride myself on the fact that I
hadn't bought a computer for my BBS in 15 years of operation. I'd
gotten cast-offs from the companies I'd worked at - not suitable for corporate work any more, but perfectly fine for the BBS.
I've been looking for a low-end machine myself. I used to have hardware everywhere - but nowadays I have my Surface and that is just about it. Everything else is either in the cloud or online. Now that I want to get back more into the hobbyist mode I'm finding it can be crazy expensive for some of this so-called retro hardware (or even small form factor Windows 7 era hardware).
Have you looked at Tiger Direct to see what the have?
www.tigerdirect.com
Have you looked at Tiger Direct to see what the have?
Looking now. Thanks for the tip!
Yeah, for the BBS running 32 bit Windows 7, a Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM and 160 GB of disk is just perfect. I'd go even lower, but it seems like that spec is a sweet spot. Any slower-older and they get more expensive.
tigerdirect was my goto website for building a computer, but they are now owned by another company yet again and it shows.
Re: Syncterm packages
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dmxrob on Sun Apr 15 2018 04:42 pm
Yeah, for the BBS running 32 bit Windows 7, a Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM and 160 GB of disk is just perfect. I'd go even lower, but it seems like that spec is a sweet spot. Any slower-older and they get more expensive.
My goal was to spend $50 or less, and over lunch today I just happened to be on ebay when up popped a refurbished HP SFF i5 PC @ 3.1ghz, 4GB RAM and 500GB hard drive. Even inlcuded a copy of Win 7 x64 for $59, shipping included. So I jumped on it.
Is there anything to be aware of running a 64-bit copy of Win 7 vs. 32-bit? I believe there may be some change in WIndows that needs to be triggered to get 32-bit doors to run, etc.
My goal was to spend $50 or less, and over lunch today I just happened to be on ebay when up popped a refurbished HP SFF i5 PC @ 3.1ghz, 4GB RAM and 500GB hard drive. Even inlcuded a copy of Win 7 x64 for $59, shipping included. So I jumped on it.
Is there anything to be aware of running a 64-bit copy of Win 7 vs. 32-bit? I believe there may be some change in WIndows that needs to be triggered to get 32-bit doors to run, etc.
Is there anything to be aware of running a 64-bit copy of Win 7 vs. 32-bit? I believe there may be some change in WIndows that needs to be triggered to get 32-bit doors to run, etc.
Looks like retrobox.com is parked and for sale. Bummer, sounded good. I've been
looking for a new low-end desktop for my BBS, wanted to try somewhere else >other than newegg.
Windows 7 is not supported anymore for security updates... which is if you as H>me important as you connect it to the internet.
Windows 7 is not supported anymore for security updates... which is if you ask me important as you connect it to the internet.
had changed a lot. The surplus equipment had got much more expensive, for starters.
I think you mean XP. Windows 7 is supported under basic support until 2020 - don't have the term in front of me
Both my Mom and I have Windows 7 32-bit on our computers, and we still
get updates at least twice a month.
Sorry, the date is 14 januari 2020, then the security updates will stop. H>Mainstream support (non security patches) are stopped on 13 januari 2015 (if H>you have SP1 otherwise even earlier).
As long as you use older hardware it's no problem but if you want to use newe H>hardware it's possible it's not supported and/or working on Windows 7.
I see you use 32 bit versions. Some newer applications only come out in 64 bi H>editions.
Sorry, the date is 14 januari 2020, then the security updates will stop. Mainstream support (non security patches) are stopped on 13 januari 2015 (if you have SP1 otherwise even earlier).
QEMM I remember that i used that al the time for my bbs back in the day before thwe internet.
MRO wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I don't have a copy of MS-DOS or PC-DOS around, only FreeDOS.
you can download it.
but why bother.
I don't have a copy of MS-DOS or PC-DOS around, only FreeDOS.Yes, I know, and unless one has a need for a genuine copy of MS-DOS for some reason, I agree.
you can download it.
Denn wrote to Dmxrob <=-.
and I bet they don't have to worry about virus's much.
Might still be ping pong or stoned around. :D
Sometimes I boot up a dos vm just to relive the past, then I come back to reality:)
I don't have a copy of MS-DOS or PC-DOS around, only FreeDOS.
Dmxrob wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Seems like only yesterday I was booting up to the then new MS-DOS 2.11
on my Tandy 1000HX
Seems like only yesterday I was booting up to the then new MS-DOS 2.11 on my Tandy 1000HX
Yeah remember those CONFIS.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files? My first kind of mul MR>on the Tandy CoCo III. See before windows ever came out..
One former female Sysop had no idea what the CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT files were for. I wondered why she was even running a BBS.
Daryl Stout wrote to MOON RAKER <=-
One former female Sysop had no idea what the CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT files were for. I wondered why she was even running a BBS.
Moon Raker wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I think my good version of dos the one I remember was 6.22 I don't remember before that for dos anyway.
Yeah remember those CONFIS.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files? My first kind
of multitask enviroment was 0S-9
on the Tandy CoCo III. See before windows ever came out..
6.22 was one of the well liked DOS versions, stood up pretty well in its day.
I first used DOS 2.0 and 2.1. I did see DOS 1.0 once, but never
really used it. That was before DOS had directories and file handles, both of which it inherited from Unix.
One former female Sysop had no idea what the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files were for. I wondered why she was even running a BBS.
One wonders how she managed to run it, though of course, could have had some TL>else do the tech stuff. I remember endless hours tweaking CONFIG.SYS (often TL>with the help of QEMM) to get the most out of my systems, loading the right TL>drivers (FOSSIL, etc) and generally getting the system readi in those two TL>files, before passing control to the BBS.BAT that ran the show. :-)
Oh and that was after all the hardware hacking - like getting IRQs sorted, TL>which in some cases meand cutting tracks and rejumpering by soldering a wire TL>bridge on add in serial cards, because they didn't always have IRQ jumpers f TL>COM3 and COM4. Assigning IRQs became a bit of a black art after soundcards TL>came along and gobbled a couple up. :)
... Yesterday was the deadline for all complaints.
One former female Sysop had no idea what the CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT files were for. I wondered why she was even running a BBS.
Daryl Stout wrote to TONY LANGDON <=-
Yeah, I remember all the tweaking with QEMM as well. Of course, it
does no good on a current Windows system (it was mainly designed for
DOS), but Quarterdeck Software went out of business long ago.
Along that line, TeleGraphix, which pioneered RIP Graphics, went out
of business long ago as well. One former area Sysop thought "RIP was
what you did to a f@rt". <G>
Electronics was never my forte'. I can tell you that maybe not even
an amp of electricity will do you in...and thanks to Violet, I can tell you the colors on a resistor. <G>
... Yesterday was the deadline for all complaints.
Darn...missed it again!!
Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I remember there being a lawsuit against Microsoft from Stacker
regarding the drive compression software Microsoft was using. I think MS-DOS 6.00 included Microsoft's drive compression tool (DoubleSpace?), 6.2 had an improved DoubleSpace which was removed in 6.21, and then
6.22 added DriveSpace, which was Microsoft's new drive compression software.
I first used DOS 2.0 and 2.1. I did see DOS 1.0 once, but never
really used it. That was before DOS had directories and file handles, both of which it inherited from Unix.
It's hard to imagine an operating system not having directories..
The first MS-DOS I remember using was 3.31 (I think branded by another company). I remember hearing MS-DOS 4 was buggy; I went from 3.31 to
5.0. I thought the support for multiple configurations in CONFIG.SYS
and AUTOEXEC.BAT in MS-DOS 5.0 (or was it 6.0?) was pretty cool; I
could set up another boot configuration that way to help run a game or other program.
Dmxrob wrote to Daryl Stout <=-
DEVICE=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS
DEVICE=c:\QEMM\QEMM386.sys
Those two lines alone were a big part of the 90s for me ;-)
I remember there being a lawsuit against Microsoft from Stacker regarding the drive compression software Microsoft was using. I think MS-DOS 6.00 included Microsoft's drive compression tool (DoubleSpace?), 6.2 had an improved DoubleSpace which was removed in 6.21, and then 6.22 added DriveSpace, which was Microsoft's new drive compression software.
No, I never used OS-9, though I had heard of it. My first multitasking enviroment was Desqview, closely followed by Windows 3.1x and then OS/2. :)
Digital Man wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Here's a little de-bunking of the "ANSI bomb" paranoia:
So long as you were using a regular terminal program (e.g. Procom Plus, Telix, Telemate, etc.) and you only viewed the ANSIs on the BBS (didn't download them and "type" them in a DOS console) - you were completely safe. Those terminal programs didn't use DOS console I/O (what we would call "standard I/O" today) and therefore didn't need or use a console driver (e.g. ANSI.SYS) and thus were immune from any weird features
they might support (like key redefinitions).
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Kids these days won't know what it's like to spend hours tweaking QEMM trying to get a couple of more KB in your DOS window -- I rsan my BBS under Desqview for a time and had a bear of a time being able to make a local node work without killing the dial-up node's response. I think
this was on a 386SX/16 with 4 MB of RAM...
Dmxrob wrote to Daryl Stout <=-
DEVICE=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS
DEVICE=c:\QEMM\QEMM386.sys
Those two lines alone were a big part of the 90s for me ;-)
Actually, I switched to one of the "safe" ANSI drivers during the BBS years, just in case I caught an ANSI bomb that remapped the keyboard in a nasty way.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Nightfox <=-
Back then, optimizing a BBS was a labor of love, I remember tweaking to get a couple of megs of disk space and a couple of KB of RAM and being quite happy with myself for it.
Yeah remember those CONFIS.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files? My first kind of mul MR>on the Tandy CoCo III. See before windows ever came out..
Here is some fun trivia for you... IBM still supports IBM PC-DOS. You would be surprised how many customers of theirs still have DOS based PCs.
Here is some fun trivia for you... IBM still supports IBM PC-DOS. You would be surprised how many customers of theirs still have DOS based PCs.
I wonder if they still provide OS/2 support? I was a telecom manager in a former life, and it seemed that every small business running an Avaya PBX had a beige box PC running OS/2 and Octel voicemail on it.
Usually, with 1 ATA drive, no redundant hardware, and no backup. :(
someone else do the tech stuff. I remember endless hours tweaking CONFIG.SYS (often with the help of QEMM) to get the most out of my systems, loading the right drivers (FOSSIL, etc) and generally getting the system readi in those two files, before passing control to the BBS.BAT that ran the show. :-)
Oh and that was after all the hardware hacking - like getting IRQs sorted, which in some cases meand cutting tracks and rejumpering by soldering a wire bridge on add in serial cards, because they didn't always have IRQ jumpers for COM3 and COM4. Assigning IRQs became a bit of a black art after soundcards came along and gobbled a couple up. :)
One former female Sysop had no idea what the CONFIG.SYS and
AUTOEXEC.BAT files were for. I wondered why she was even running a BBS.
DEVICE=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS
DEVICE=c:\QEMM\QEMM386.sys
Those two lines alone were a big part of the 90s for me ;-)
þdmxrobþ BBSing from St. Louis, MO since 1988
I remember there being a lawsuit against Microsoft from Stacker regarding the N>drive compression software Microsoft was using. I think MS-DOS 6.00 included N>Microsoft's drive compression tool (DoubleSpace?), 6.2 had an improved N>DoubleSpace which was removed in 6.21, and then 6.22 added DriveSpace, which N>was Microsoft's new drive compression software.
It's hard to imagine an operating system not having directories..
The first MS-DOS I remember using was 3.31 (I think branded by another N>company). I remember hearing MS-DOS 4 was buggy; I went from 3.31 to 5.0. I N>thought the support for multiple configurations in CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BA N>in MS-DOS 5.0 (or was it 6.0?) was pretty cool; I could set up another boot N>configuration that way to help run a game or other program.
Actually, I switched to one of the "safe" ANSI drivers during the BBS years, TL>just in case I caught an ANSI bomb that remapped the keyboard in a nasty way TL>)
Yes, QEMM is redundant, now that Windows or Linux are the main OS these days
I liked the concept of RIP, but it never took off here, and I never got to TL>experience it myself.
Haha, well, I was always a bit of a tinkerer. :)
... Yesterday was the deadline for all complaints.
Darn...missed it again!!
You lose. :P
I remember that as well, and I used Stacker for a time. I then used
the DriveSpace. Of course, that's not needed now.
I never saw DOS 4 myself...probably for the same reason no one saw
Windows 9 <G>.
Hawkeye wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
yeah, those were the days... exchanging with other sysops how much
basemem they had so you could see how well the tweaking was.
jumpers and bios settings... right drivers loaded... config.sys...
etc... nothing worked PnP, but when it worked... it stays working.
Even todays PC work with IRQs but you don't see them. In the old days there were first 8 and more later 16! Lol Some time ago I was troubleshooting and say IRQ22, I thought what? New systems can have 255
IRQs. And hardware conflicts are not that common so they make a good effort in this.
Daryl Stout wrote to TONY LANGDON <=-
At one time, PKWARE released a TSR called PKSFANSI -- to prevent ANSI bombs from remapping the keyboard. I think I still have that in my ANSI files area, but I'm not sure. However, I'm not sure if that's much of
an issue these days or not.
Daryl Stout wrote to TONY LANGDON <=-ays
Yes, QEMM is redundant, now that Windows or Linux are the main OS these
It sure worked good for me under DOS 5 and 6, though.
I've got a whole series of RIP graphics over here from OutWorld Arts. When I ran GT Power, I created menus for the BBS.
Haha, well, I was always a bit of a tinkerer. :)
You're a better man than I am, there.
Especially when it comes to slapping and sprinting away. :P
Yes, QEMM is redundant, now that Windows or Linux are the main OSays
these
It sure worked good for me under DOS 5 and 6, though.
Indeed, QEMM was a godsend. :)
jumpers and bios settings... right drivers loaded... config.sys...
etc... nothing worked PnP, but when it worked... it stays working.
Yes, it took a bit to get it all right, but then it just kept working. :)
Even todays PC work with IRQs but you don't see them. In the old
days there were first 8 and more later 16! Lol Some time ago I was
troubleshooting and say IRQ22, I thought what? New systems can have
255
Yes, they are still there. And yes there's been around 24 IRQs for at least 10 years - Linux admins could easily see that with cat /proc/interrupts (I think). :) I haven't seen the 255 interrupts yet, should check my current Linux desktop, though that machine is almost 10 years old anyway.
IRQs. And hardware conflicts are not that common so they make a good
effort in this.
Yes, very rare. I have seen hardware conflicts with relatively modern hardware, but it's a once in several years event now. I don't think I've seen a conflict since going over to the PCIe bus.
environment, giving full support is asking for problems. I'm sure if it comes to a lawsuit IBM will point out it's not running on their hardware or specs. Sure thing. If it works ok, but if it doesnt... you are on you own.
To: Tony Langdon:)
Re: Re: Syncterm packages
By: Tony Langdon to Hawkeye on Wed Apr 25 2018 07:38 am
jumpers and bios settings... right drivers loaded... config.sys...
etc... nothing worked PnP, but when it worked... it stays working.
Yes, it took a bit to get it all right, but then it just kept working.
I remember setting jumpers to configure IRQs and such on various cards I hadin
my PCs.. I was proud when I got things all working without IRQ conflicts.At
one time I wanted to make all 4 of my COM ports useful - From what Iremember,
COM1 and COM3 shared an IRQ, and COM2 and COM4 shared an IRQ, so I set themall
to have unique IRQs, while also configuring the IRQ on my Sound Blaster card (and possibly 1 or 2 other cards). I seem to remember that even if you gotall
the hardware working, there were certain games that wouldn't work withcertain
IRQs I set on my Sound Blaster card, so I had to do more tweaking tore-arrange
the IRQs and eventually got everything working.
Even todays PC work with IRQs but you don't see them. In the old
days there were first 8 and more later 16! Lol Some time ago I was
troubleshooting and say IRQ22, I thought what? New systems can have
255
Yes, they are still there. And yes there's been around 24 IRQs for at least 10 years - Linux admins could easily see that with cat /proc/interrupts (I think). :) I haven't seen the 255 interrupts yet, should check my current Linux desktop, though that machine is almost 10 years old anyway.
I didn't realize there were that many IRQs available these days.
IRQs. And hardware conflicts are not that common so they make a good
effort in this.
Yes, very rare. I have seen hardware conflicts with relatively modern hardware, but it's a once in several years event now. I don't think I've seen a conflict since going over to the PCIe bus.
I haven't seen any IRQ conflicts in a long time. I saw a few IRQ issues reported by Windows drivers back in the mid-late 90s but was usually able to resolve those by disabling/re-enabling the driver or using some Windows hardware wizard.
Nightfox
---
ţ Synchronet ţ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
--- Synchronet 3.17a-Win32 NewsLink 1.108
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net
Yes, it took a bit to get it all right, but then it just kept working. :)
Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I thought it was interesting that a 3rd-party memory manager worked
better than Microsoft's own memory manager for MS-DOS. I'd have
thought that an operating system's own memory manager should work as
good as possible. But I appreciated that there were things like QEMM available.
I also used DesqView (included with QEMM) for a time to enable a 2nd
node with my BBS back in the day so I could log on locally when there
was a user logged into my BBS. DesqView worked great. I've heard of a lot of DOS BBSes being run under OS/2 for the multitasking as well.
There was another DOS multitasker I had heard of
Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I remember setting jumpers to configure IRQs and such on various cards
I had in my PCs.. I was proud when I got things all working without
IRQ conflicts. At one time I wanted to make all 4 of my COM ports
useful - From what I remember, COM1 and COM3 shared an IRQ, and COM2
and COM4 shared an IRQ, so I set them all to have unique IRQs, while
also configuring the IRQ on my Sound Blaster card (and possibly 1 or 2 other cards). I seem to remember that even if you got all the hardware working, there were certain games that wouldn't work with certain IRQs
I set on my Sound Blaster card, so I had to do more tweaking to
re-arrange the IRQs and eventually got everything working.
I didn't realize there were that many IRQs available these days.
I haven't seen any IRQ conflicts in a long time. I saw a few IRQ
issues reported by Windows drivers back in the mid-late 90s but was usually able to resolve those by disabling/re-enabling the driver or
using some Windows hardware wizard.
The number of machines I have seen and worked on in the past few years that still have floppy drives with boot disks in them I couldn't even begin to add up. The sheer number of systems running out there we never see that is running software still from the 70s, 80s, 90s is astounding.
And if you have the $$$ the vendor will support you --- I have two friends who are "assigned" to a company for support of what we call obsolete software. Yet if the customer wants enhancement XYZ, they get it. After
Yep, I used Stacker a bit as well. I remember a couple times when my PC didn N>boot fully (I don't remember if it was an issue or if I bypassed the config.s N>and autoexec.bat) and of course I couldn't access my files because the Stacke N>driver hadn't loaded yet..
I never saw DOS 4 myself...probably for the same reason no one saw Windows 9 <G>.
In Germany, I suppose they would have had a problem in that it would have N>sounded like Windows NEIN!
I remember when the 386s came out and QEMM386 came out... using that video H>memory for some extra base memory so the BBS had more memory and run H>smoother... 30-50kb extra.. LOL
IBM technical support is available for PC DOS 6.3 until 30 april 1995
I was reading a thread somewhere online where someone said his company still relies on DOS-based software, which they now run in an emulator (such as DOSBox or something similar).
I remember when the 386s came out and QEMM386 came out...
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
We took his favorite install floppy and tweaked the files.
We heard him swearing in the lab, and heard "Perperperperformformformformingnging IRQIRQIRQ TETETETETEzzzzzzzzzzz" sounding like Max Headroom and almost died laughing.
I was reading a thread somewhere online where someone said his company still relies on DOS-based software, which they now run in an emulator (such as DOSBox or something similar).
I remember when the 386s came out and QEMM386 came out... using that video H>memory for some extra base memory so the BBS had more memory and run H>smoother... 30-50kb extra.. LOL
I really enjoyed that...brought back great memories.
Daryl
I had also heard that OS/2 was a popular choice for ATMs in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Dmxrob wrote to Nightfox <=-
Many, many POS systems still run on DOS.
Up until about 6 years ago (give or take) many Bank of America ATM's
still ran OS/2 as their interface behind the scenes from what I have
been told.
I had a report from a Mystic sysop (not Fido) here in Maryborough about two years ago that he came across an ATM doing a bios POST, then boot into WinXP. :)
Many, many POS systems still run on DOS.
Up until about 6 years ago (give or take) many Bank of America ATM's still ran OS/2 as their interface behind the scenes from what I have been told.
Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I had a report from a Mystic sysop (not Fido) here in Maryborough about two years ago that he came across an ATM doing a bios POST, then boot
into WinXP. :)
Yeah can't say I've watched an ATM boot, but I have seen blue screens of dearh on shopping centre displays. :D
Denn wrote to Dmxrob <=-.
and I bet they don't have to worry about virus's much.
Sometimes I boot up a dos vm just to relive the past, then I come back
to reality:)
Here is some fun trivia for you... IBM still supports IBM PC-DOS. You would be surprised how many customers of theirs still have DOS based PCs.
This is what is happening everywhere. I saw the price of some Tandy 1000's on >ebay are selling for more than what they cost new! Crazy.
Here is some fun trivia for you... IBM still supports IBM PC-DOS. You would be surprised how many customers of theirs still have DOS based PCs.
Those days were good. I used to bring tricks from the BBS world and early days of Linux to work. Back then, that sort of hands on knowledge was very useful to companies, before the advent of certifications and Chinese black boxes. The IT industry has changed a lot, and I've since moved on, with the Chinese boxes (routers, etc) and cloud services taking away all the fun stuff for small business, and me not being suited to or interested in the big end of town. :/
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Yeah, there was a cottage industry in setting up SMB (small/medium business) networks. I used to set up a Linux box with RAID, IMAP, LDAP, Apache and Samba, CPIO and a tape backup, and set up a simple server setup. Later, did the same thing with Windows Small Business Server.
Now, a Google Apps account or Office 365 subscription and you're done. Where's the fun in that? :)
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:36:55 |
| Calls: | 2,004 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,114 |
| Messages: | 942,271 |