Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:19:31 -0500 From: Rob McGee To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Subject: Overclocking, Linux issues: was Re: About Micro$quash... Message-ID: <20001024231931.B25960@opus.collug.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <000801c03dea$cc31ef00$a28a1004@dbcooper>; from pmoran22@yahoo.com Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk 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