I ressemble this ABC news title.. Err.. ahhh "Resent?"



  • Continuing the discussion from How "Home Brew" Email Servers Work, if you're 87 years old:

    but the home brew server used during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state is likely no bigger than a desktop computer.

    Whaaa! For the incredibly demanding task of serving up emails?! UNBELIEVABLE!
    [/quote]

    I'm 71+ and could figure it out.. I think.. Actually I did set one in Linux running on a 286 box back in the old days and with very little speed or memory.

    Today.. That's what gmail is for.. LOL

    Shy



  • 71+? Well in that case I'm 16+.



  • @superjer said:

    71+? Well in that case I'm 16+

    If you're anything like my three granddaughters, you can run rings around me while playing two games on an XBox and tweeting how fast you are. Chuckles



  • @ShyWriter said:

    Actually I did set one in Linux running on a 286 box back in the old days and with very little speed or memory.

    Uh, Linux needs a 386+ processor. Unless you were wearing an onion on your belt while walking through the snow uphill BOTH WAYS. I'll get of your lawn and chase the teenagers off mine now...



  • @Zemm said:

    Uh, Linux needs a 386+ processor. Unless you were wearing an onion on your belt while walking through the snow uphill BOTH WAYS. I'll get of your lawn and chase the teenagers off mine now...

    My bad.. the memory isn't what it used to be.. I stand corrected. NOT See next post.. :p

    BUT, I did walk 5 miles to school both ways in the snow in shorts - we were poor too. :smile:



  • @Zemm said:

    Uh, Linux needs a 386+ processor. Unless you were wearing an onion on your belt while walking through the snow uphill BOTH WAYS. I'll get of your lawn and chase the teenagers off mine now...

    What's the OLDEST computer you have installed linux on? [Archive ...
    ubuntuforums.org › ... › Ubuntu Community Discussions › The Cafe

    Jan 24, 2008 - 100+ posts - ‎100+ authors
    I ran feather Linux on a 133mhz laptop with a 1.5GB hard drive (thought that was a ..... 286 (yes, 286) w/ 4MB ram and a 20 MG HD and 1 floppy

    Guess my memory wasn't faulty after all.. :P

    GOGGLE = Linux on 286 laptop



    1. Linux needs a 386 or better. It cannot run on 286.

    2. 286 processors never got up to 133 MHz, so your random post on the Internet is just as wrong as could be expected. 386 processors got up to 40 MHz and 486 to 120 MHz (AMD versions IIRC). 133 MHz was a very popular Pentium.



  • Oh SNAP! Geezer fight!



  • @Lawrence said:

    1) Linux needs a 386 or better. It cannot run on 286.

    1. 286 processors never got up to 133 MHz, so your random post on the Internet is just as wrong as could be expected. 386 processors got up to 40 MHz and 486 to 120 MHz (AMD versions IIRC). 133 MHz was a very popular Pentium.

    Protected mode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Wikipedia
    The Intel 8086, the predecessor to the 286, was originally designed with a 20-bit ... systems which run on the x86 architecture, such as Microsoft Windows, Linux, and ... AT-compatible hardware, but will work on any 80286 CPU in any system)

    Bell Telephone Company engineer's once stated that one could NEVER, ever run a modem speed greater than 300 baud on plain old, twisted pair, copper line. Last modem I used was a 56K on twisted pair, copper line.

    We must agree to disagree as this old geezer hasn't time for prolonged "I said; you said".
    That said, my friend,
    Cheers; and G'Night..



  • @ShyWriter said:

    We must agree to disagree as this old geezer hasn't time for prolonged "I said; you said".

    Good, that means you'll leave me with the last word :smile:

    http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=366682



  • @Zemm said:

    Uh, Linux needs a 386+ processor

    'Proper' Linux on an 8-bit microcontroller

    This is cheating a bit because it's running in an emulator to provide an MMU etc..

    I've used uCLinux on a micro without an MMU but it probably wouldn't pass most peoples definition of 'Linux'.


  • SockDev

    @Lawrence said:

    Good, that means you'll leave me with the last word

    Yes, the latest ubuntu release will no longer run on a 286, but that doesn't mean that you can't run linux on a 286.

    You might have to compile it from scratch these days, but you can do it.

    Modern distributions of linux cannot be run on a 286, Linux CAN run on a 286


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    Linux CAN run on a 286

    When did that get added? The original versions couldn't; it's big advance over Minix was that it rejected running on systems without a proper MMU.


  • SockDev

    it got added when somone decided to program a virtual MMU so they could run linux on a 286.

    look, i said you could do it, not that it was a good idea.

    :-P



  • @ShyWriter said:

    OLDEST computer you have installed linux on?

    I had Slackware on a 386DX40 with 8MB RAM and 100MB hard drive. From memory it was zip slack 4.2.



  • @ShyWriter said:

    Bell Telephone Company engineer's once stated that one could NEVER, ever run a modem speed greater than 300 baud on plain old, twisted pair, copper line. Last modem I used was a 56K on twisted pair, copper line.

    My ADSL goes 10 Mbit/s on plain old, not even twisted pair, copper line.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ShyWriter said:

    What's the OLDEST computer you have installed linux on?

    386SX16 with 2MB of RAM and a 20MB disk, MCC Interim Distribution.

    The fun part was making the traditional VGA graphics hardware and monitor support 800×600 mode (monochrome; there wasn't enough video memory to do better than that at an acceptable speed). The graphics hardware was happy enough, but the monitor did not like it one bit, showing some very funny glitches at the side of the display. Still, it was hugely better than what we could persuade Windows (3.1) to do on the same hardware; yes, it was colour (4 bits per pixel, indexed-palette) but it was only 640×480. The extra space was worth putting up with mono for.



  • @dkf said:

    The fun part was making the traditional VGA graphics hardware and monitor support 800×600 mode (monochrome; there wasn't enough video memory to do better than that at an acceptable speed).

    I seem to remember doing 800x600 in 16 colours and even 1024x768 in 4 colours by tweaking XFree86 config, but there were some issues with alignment of the video output. Trident VGA card ftw!

    My most successful Linux machine from around the turn of the century was a 486 DX2 66 with 16MB RAM that I got given to me. I actually had a thin net network between the 386 (dos/windows 3.11) and another 486 (w95). And a null modem connection to my 486 SX laptop with PPP bridging. The DX2 shared my 33k modem connection using ipmasq. I think I even had Apache running on that box for playing with CGI scripts.

    I was a member of the SurvPC mailing list so was right into getting the most out of "outdated" technology. Then in 2000 I got a job (still a student) and new hobbies so could afford better hardware :smile: .


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Zemm said:

    I seem to remember doing 800x600 in 16 colours and even 1024x768 in 4 colours by tweaking XFree86 config, but there were some issues with alignment of the video output. Trident VGA card ftw!

    You must've had a lot more video memory. I was dealing with classic VGA, which only had 64kB of pixel-capable video memory (which was all mapped at 0xA0000 in DOS; the text mode stuff was at 0xB0000 and routed through a different part of the hardware). 800×600 in monochrome was about the most that could be eked out (you could squeeze slightly more out, but only just). The display itself was the limiting factor though. The horizontal flyback period and frequency were pretty much fixed, which meant you had strict limits on what could really be done. :smile:

    The machines made really quite reasonable Xservers; they sure beat trailing into the department in an evening to use the workstations there.



  • Most, if not all, improvements in modem speeds - certainly before digital telephone exchanges became the norm; were the result of improved design / components / circuit technology etc. The issue was not so much the speed, as filtering out the noise so that higher speeds could be used more reliably. So yeah. A telephone cable that was originally install some 100 years ago, can now support ADSL Broadband (at some speed) where previously it was barely possible to hear somebody shouting "down the line". Mind you, there are still places in the UK where this is still the case. Mobile phones has been an incredible negative influence on hardware infrastructure development. (Note to pedants: Fibre backbones et al accepted. I am mostly refereeing to those parts of the UK where there is no finacial, industrial or society reason to do "stuff" - which is most of rural UK where celebrities dont live)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @loose said:

    which is most of rural UK where celebrities dont live

    “Rural UK” Ho ho! No such place. Or do you mean the places the train goes past when I can't get a reliable signal?



  • I was once told, when I lived in the area, that the only reason Newmarket had a railway station (that trains actually stopped at) was so that all the toffs and nobs and royalty could "go to the races". Not necessarily for the comfort, but for the sheer snobbishness of it


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Maybe originally, but I think it's large enough now to justify having trains stop there, given that the line is there in the first place. Heck, they stop out at March, and that's the ass end of nowhere's armpit.



  • @dkf said:

    Heck, they stop out at March, and that's the ass end of nowhere's armpit.

    I am so tempted to stop and chat about this charming area of the UK, but I don't want the rest of the Forum members to feel left out :)



  • Don't worry, you lost the rest of us while still within hearing distance of the bells of St. Mary.



  • Imagine the American mid-west (which I understand to be) flat, featureless and sparsely populated with a tendency to dry up during the winter. Now imagine, say, Florida with all it's muggy, humid swamps and tepid water. Combine the two, and you have something that resembles the Fens, the area around March in Cambridgeshire, England. Where, rumour has it that the natives have webbed feet, etc etc.



  • Oh, you mean the place where king John lost his treasure?

    ...or where the Famous Five go off to camp?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    I think most of the mid-west is better than that. It's not dead flat. It's pretty close in places, but it isn't as flat as the Fens. In fact, I can't think of anywhere in North America which is like the Fens; they've got swamps, but they're warm, and the Fens definitely aren't that. What they've got a lot in common with (apart from a few other areas of England) is Holland and northern Germany. (Maybe northern Poland too; I'm not sure.) If it wasn't for the fact that Doggerland sank after the last ice age, it would be thousands of miles of the same miserable swamp.

    I don't like the Fens. I think that it's a great thing that they were drained, so at least they're just miserable (but productive!) fields instead of miserable (and unproductive) swamp.



  • That's the place :D



  • @dkf said:

    You must've had a lot more video memory.

    Yeah I had a whopping 512KB video memory. T9000 chipset from memory. Also from memory the card could support 1024x768 in 16 colours but I couldn't get the monitor to cooperate, I remember seeing the rolling duplicating image and quickly Ctrl-Alt-Backspacing to hopefully not kill anything. Somehow the 4-colour mode worked though, maybe the frequencies were more compatible or something. That resolution on a 14 inch CRT is quite painful so it wasn't permanent.

    At least my playing with Linux and these settings allowed to me get Windows 3.11 looking better on that machine (it was my mother's PC so all my stuff couldn't affect the rest of the family's stuff, so it wasn't 100% Linux). Previously it was classic VGA mode: I managed to seek out drivers and go higher resolution and/or colours. 512KB RAM meant 800x600 in 256 was possible! There wasn't any acceleration so one didn't need spare VRAM in those days.

    @dkf said:

    classic VGA, which only had 64kB of pixel-capable video memory

    But 640x480 is 307200, so at 16 colours (4 bits) one would need 150 KB just for the framebuffer. Sure you aren't thinking about a 320x200 in 256 colour mode? I never did low-level video programming - I mostly used DRAW commands in QBASIC at that time - so with 64KB "pixel-capable video memory (which was all mapped at 0xA0000 in DOS)" to access pixels in blocks at 640x480 would you then have to use a sliding window or pages or something?


    Filed under: I refuse to use KiB and its brethren.



  • You may be confusing your adapters? Looking up my dad's old qbasic book, which lists a bunch of screen modes:

    • Screen 1: 320*200 2 colours (CGA) or 4 colours (EGA/VGA) -> 8kb or 16kb
    • Screen 2: 640*200 monochrome (CGA/EGA/VGA) -> 16kb
    • Screen 3-6 special cards
    • Screen 7: 320*200 16 colours (EGA/VGA) -> 32kb
    • Screen 8: 640*200 16 colours (EGA/VGA) -> 64kb
    • Screen 9: 640*350 4 or 16 colours (EGA/VGA) -> 56kb/112kb
    • Screen 10: 640*350 4 gradients monochrome (EGA/VGA) -> 56kb
    • Screen 11: 640*480 monochrome (VGA) -> 38kb
    • Screen 12: 640*480 16 colours (VGA) -> 153kb
    • Screen 13: 320*200 26 colours (VGA) -> 64kb

    This list makes me suspect the adapter with only 64kb was EGA - I recall using multiple framebuffers at some point, though that may have been an SVGA card.



  • @PleegWat said:

    This list makes me suspect the adapter with only 64kb was EGA

    EGA still had 640x350 in 16 colours so that needed 110KB.

    From Wiki:

    The original IBM EGA card had 64k of onboard RAM and required a daughterboard to add an additional 64k (cards with 64k are limited to 4 colors when 640x350 mode is used). All third-party cards came with 128k already installed and some even 256k, allowing multiple graphics pages.

    So I wonder what happened with Screen 9 and not-upgraded IBM EGA? Colours probably just mapped so it would be a major mess!

    @PleegWat said:

    Screen 12: 640480 16 colours (VGA) -> 153kb
    Screen 13: 320
    200 256 colours (VGA) -> 64kb

    These were the two main SCREEN commands I used back then, depending on whether I wanted high resolution or more colours.

    @PleegWat said:

    You may be confusing your adapters?

    Well the discussion was about the oldest machine one has used Linux on. Mine was a 386DX40 with a video card that was sold as VGA but was actually more capable once I started probing it. That machine was bought by my mother when I was 11 in 1992 so none of us really knew anything. I first got Linux working on it in 1998, when someone at uni showed me the possibilities. (Now that I think about it, I would have figured out it had a better video card well before Linux because I had acquired drivers for WordPerfect 5.1 so could preview in better-than-VGA, as well as playing around with the Windows 3.x drivers. The drivers came on a 5.25" floppy and I had to get a friend to copy them to a 3.5" that would work on my machine. This all happened when I was in high school so before I had Internet at home)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Zemm said:

    But 640x480 is 307200

    You know what? I don't remember. :p I used a library that handled the low-level stuff (part of Turbo Pascal, when I first encountered it) allowing me to focus at the level of “draw a pixel”, “draw a line”, “fill a rectangle” and so on.

    I do remember that the CRT VDU was the limiting factor when doing 800×600. After a while, it started to make an unhappy high-pitched whine…



  • Goddamned. Who cares.



  • @Zemm said:

    1024x768 (…) That resolution on a 14 inch CRT is quite painful so it wasn't permanent.

    Seriously? As I recall the monitor on my first own PC (a 100 MHz 486) was that big and I was quite happy running it at 1024×768 under Windows 95. Maybe being nearsighted helps, though :)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Goddamned. Who cares.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.