Mail Archives: opendos/2000/10/24/23:53:50
Pat,
As usual I found your post to be well-informed: informative on some
things I don't know about, and mostly accurate on the things I do know.
But there are some minor points on which I differ. The parts of your
long post on which I am not commenting are ones with which I either
agree, had nothing to add, or did not already know. :)
On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 08:35:48AM -0600, Patrick Moran wrote:
> [snip]
> speed may not be correct. There is a lot of information about this on the
> internet for overclocking 486 systems. Pentiums with certain chipsets can
> also be overclocked. AMD chips are usually much better for overclocking.
>
> [snip]
> quotes) and similar searches. Toms hardware site is a good one to check, I
> don't have the URL but believe it is tomshardware.com. The overclocking one
> should lead you to several sites including 486/5x86, P-1, P-11, 686, 586,
> K-5, K-6, P-III, K-7, etc.
You're right about http://www.tomshardware.com/ -- it's a great resource
on many hardware issues, especially overclocking. But I specifically
recall reading there that *Intel* is by far the best bet for
overclocking. Tom and associates say that one reason the AMD's are
cheaper is because they're already a bit overclocked.
I personally wouldn't mess around with overclocking anything, but
especially not AMD.
> security.) NT also has better security than does 95/98/ME. However, if you
> want real security, go with Linux
I'm not so sure about this. I wholeheartedly recommend Linux over any MS
OS, but is it really more secure? Sure, in some ways, but I know I could
easily get root access on any Linux box (if I had physical access, that
is.) I'd have to work a bit harder to get Administrator control on NT.
Not ever having had to do that I'm really not informed. I do know that
it can be done, though. But with Linux you need only a boot/root disk
and a text editor.
Security has so many different meanings that it's hard to say what's
"more secure" than something else. But of course the security of Win9x
(ME too) is an sad joke. Those are just toys in the world of network-
enabled operating systems.
As far as free Unix clones go, I've heard that FreeBSD tends to be more
secure. I can't say from experience. But as slow as Linux is gaining in
acceptance and support, the *BSD's are even slower. Linux is where most
of the action in Free Software is.
> If you know nothing about Linux or are afraid of Linux, but would like to
> check it out, try DOSLinux. It is mainly for the internet and does not
My own entry route into Linux was Slackware's own ZipSlack. I still
think it's an excellent way to begin a Slackware installation, because
it gives you a well-selected, fully functional Linux system. It installs
(unzips) onto a FAT filesystem (-16 or -32, does not matter.)
Another good choice is Slackware-derived LoopLinux. It's preferable for
use on FAT-16 because rather than using many small files, it's all in
one BIG file which mounts as a loopback device (a pseudo-disk) in Linux.
One file not including the DOS loadlin.exe loader and the Linux kernel,
that is. That amounts to much less cluster usage than ZipSlack or other
UMSDOS-based Linux distros. It's also easy to expand by creating more
loopback filesystems. (You can do that with any Linux system, not just
LoopLinux. For more flexibility in managing filesystems for future
growth, I myself use a loopback file for my /usr partition.)
> include compilers, many script languages and much of the complicated aspects
> of Linux. If you have a good understanding of DOS you can use this. It also
A person well-versed in DOS has nothing to fear from Linux. It will take
some time to get up to speed (and to get used to the Unix ways of doing
things), but you can match your DOS productivity in very little time.
The bash shell is orders of magnitude above the best DOS command
interpreter I've ever seen.
I recommend "mc", the Midnight Commander, a visual file manager which is
a good aid for learning your way around. (With current versions of
ZipSlack you have to install ap1/mc.tgz and d1/ncurses.tgz first.)
> [snip]
> requirements are for his latest version, but you must have at least a 386sx
> and 2MB RAM to run Linux. Most likely his latest version requires 4MB RAM
> and 8 MB for x-windows, unless something has changed. This has been the
> requirements need for Slackware distribution for many years. But I would
> highly recommend 16MB and to get by without any swapfile or swap partiton
> 32MB should do it for a single computer. You can get by with 24MB, but one
You can run on 4MB, but it's painful. It's very difficult to *install*
on only 4MB, but that's not an issue with a DOS- or Windows-based setup.
(ZipSlack requires a 32-bit unzip utility such as WinZip. I don't know
if it can be done in DOS, even DPMI.)
IME even a 386 with only 8MB can be a useful Linux workstation. It's
amazing how much can be done in Linux even without X. I understand from
Glenn McCorkle here that Arachne for DOS can give you a graphical Web
browser under DOSEMU (and the Linux version is coming someday.) X and
things under it like Netscape would quickly choke anything less than
32MB, though.
An FPU (387/487) is also very helpful for Linux. I was fortunate that my
Linux 386 was a high-end one (DX-33 w/FPU). I can't say for sure that a
386SX or one without FPU would have done as well. Linux will emulate the
FPU if it's not there, but of course that's slower and uses memory.
> There are even WINDOZE emulators available, but I have not checked to see
> how far the free ones have developed. There are commercial version which
WINE (http://www.winehq.org/) is the standard and is considered ready
for many uses. WINE Is Not an Emulator anymore; it's now a complete
Windows-compatible platform.
I personally haven't tried it. I've heard that the Corel Office and
DRAW! suites for "Linux" actually are WINE-based (IOW, they didn't port
any code at all; just tweaked it for WINE.)
What may be a better option for most users who need to run Windows for
some reason is VMWare or the Free Software clones of it. You can boot
Windows (or any other OS) inside a virtual machine under Linux. I've
heard some subjective comments from users who believe that their Windows
performance is better under VMWare than native Windows. (I don't dare
try it on my P166, which sometimes has its hands full running X & KDE.)
Regards,
Rob McGee, "/dev/rob0"
St Joseph, Tennessee, USA
- Raw text -