Guest ms Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 I have an old P166 with W95 on it. Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? ms
Guest John Dulak Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? ms wrote: > I have an old P166 with W95 on it. > > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? > > ms Ms: DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that uses the Intel architecture. John -- \\\||/// ------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o---------------- ----------------------------()-------------------------- '' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. '' John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6
Guest ms Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? John Dulak <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07: > ms wrote: >> I have an old P166 with W95 on it. >> >> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? >> >> ms > > Ms: > > DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that > uses the Intel architecture. > > John > Thanks ms
Guest philo Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... > ms wrote: > > I have an old P166 with W95 on it. > > > > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? > > > > ms > > Ms: > > DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that > uses the Intel architecture. > > John > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT !
Guest John Dulak Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? philo wrote: > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... >> ms wrote: >>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it. >>> >>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? >>> >>> ms >> Ms: >> >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that >> uses the Intel architecture. >> >> John >> >> > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > > philo: I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working machine ;-). John -- \\\||/// ------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o---------------- ----------------------------()-------------------------- '' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. '' John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6
Guest ms Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:e14PeIN7HHA.4584 @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... >> ms wrote: >> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it. >> > >> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? >> > >> > ms >> >> Ms: >> >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that >> uses the Intel architecture. >> >> John >> >> > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > > Yes, I ran it on my Xt long ago. ms
Guest philo Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message news:YPkCi.852$3R5.469@trnddc05... > philo wrote: > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... > >> ms wrote: > >>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it. > >>> > >>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? > >>> > >>> ms > >> Ms: > >> > >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that > >> uses the Intel architecture. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > > > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > > > > > > philo: > > I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see > 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably > rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working > machine ;-). > > I fool with the old machines from time to time... and IBM's XT will run any version of Dos just fine. I also have one of those Compaq "sewing machines" that is very touchy in that it will only run (IIRC)dos2.2 and nothing else.
Guest philo Posted September 1, 2007 Posted September 1, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "ms" <ms@invalid.com> wrote in message news:5ju6e5F19p8mU1@mid.individual.net... > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:e14PeIN7HHA.4584 > @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > > > > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... > >> ms wrote: > >> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it. > >> > > >> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? > >> > > >> > ms > >> > >> Ms: > >> > >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that > >> uses the Intel architecture. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > > > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > > > > > Yes, I ran it on my Xt long ago. > Even though my XT is up in the attic now , I really pushed things to see what I could do with it. I actually installed the dos, GUI-based browser, Arachne on it and was able to put it on-line... though a GUI browser was really not usable in any practical sense. It could run windows1, 2 or 3.0 and I was amazed that I actually could install win3.1 on the machine. But as soon as I touched the mouse...it ran out of memory and crashed!
Guest Dan Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? Sweet! My oldest computer is in New York City where I grew up and it is currently in storage. I used it about a year ago and it still works. It is an IBM PCjr and the first big game I played on it was King's Quest 1 on a 5.25 inch black floppy disk. It has an internal speaker with a 3 sounds at once configuration. It also has two cartridge areas where I can insert a BASIC cartridge and used to create old BASIC programs that would play sounds and flash different colors on the screen. It has an EGA (Extended Graphics Adapter) Display with a fairly small monitor. I think it is about 12.5 inches. My other computers are a 486 with Windows 3.1 which is a great gaming machine since it has many games loaded onto it and has a Roland MT-32 music card that plays awesome music in my old computer games like Quest For Glory (originally Hero's Quest by Sierra). I also have my current computer which is a dual-boot of 98SE and XP Pro. which is currently locked down via a BIOS password due to security reasons. Now I am using a Windows Vista Home Premium laptop which is okay but is not as good as 98SE or XP Pro. since it seems to like to do things automatically for you. I will have to tinker with the settings to turn that feature off. Thanks for your feedback, philo and letting me know that you like old computers as well as me. <smiles> "philo" wrote: > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > news:YPkCi.852$3R5.469@trnddc05... > > philo wrote: > > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > > > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... > > >> ms wrote: > > >>> I have an old P166 with W95 on it. > > >>> > > >>> Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? > > >>> > > >>> ms > > >> Ms: > > >> > > >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that > > >> uses the Intel architecture. > > >> > > >> John > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > > > > > > > > > > philo: > > > > I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see > > 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably > > rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working > > machine ;-). > > > > > > I fool with the old machines from time to time... > and IBM's XT will run any version of Dos just fine. > > I also have one of those Compaq "sewing machines" that is very touchy in > that it will only run (IIRC)dos2.2 and nothing else. > > > >
Guest philo Posted September 2, 2007 Posted September 2, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A7DDDE0E-A792-4458-895A-C7412B59FABC@microsoft.com... > Sweet! My oldest computer is in New York City where I grew up and it is > currently in storage. I used it about a year ago and it still works. It is > an IBM PCjr and the first big game I played on it was King's Quest 1 on a > 5.25 inch black floppy disk. It has an internal speaker with a 3 sounds at > once configuration. It also has two cartridge areas where I can insert a > BASIC cartridge and used to create old BASIC programs that would play sounds > and flash different colors on the screen. It has an EGA (Extended Graphics > Adapter) Display with a fairly small monitor. I think it is about 12.5 > inches. My other computers are a 486 with Windows 3.1 which is a great > gaming machine since it has many games loaded onto it and has a Roland MT-32 > music card that plays awesome music in my old computer games like Quest For > Glory (originally Hero's Quest by Sierra). I also have my current computer > which is a dual-boot of 98SE and XP Pro. which is currently locked down via a > BIOS password due to security reasons. Now I am using a Windows Vista Home > Premium laptop which is okay but is not as good as 98SE or XP Pro. since it > seems to like to do things automatically for you. I will have to tinker with > the settings to turn that feature off. Thanks for your feedback, philo and > letting me know that you like old computers as well as me. <smiles> > Yes here is where I hang out sometimes http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/helpline/ Although I'm an old timer and took a few Fortan IV classes back in the 60's... I hated punch cards so much I swore I'd never touch a computer again. Although I did own a TI-99 back in 1982 or so...I soon grew tired of it and again never touched one again until 1999 when my girlfriend gave me her old Packard Bell P-1...(75mhz 8 megs of ram and a 15" monitor ..$1600 new) I soon got hooked for good... but then had to go back to see what I had missed. I soon picked up an XT and also a Zenith Data systems 386 plus an IBM ps/2 486 Though I started with win95... I was soon "going back" and learning dos and win3x. Also decided to upgrade the packard bell and within 6 months had it upgraded and dual booting win98 and RedHat Linux 5.2 I told everyone that I had finally entered the 20th century... but they pointed out that it was now the 21st century <G> !!! (of course I did not bother to point out that we'd really have to wait until 2001) I ended up getting another Zenith Data system machine... this time it was a 286 and I (somewhere) got an ISA memory expansion board and upgraded it to 16 megs of RAM... the full amount of memory a 286 can address. Twenty years ago...that much memory would have been beyond the range of anyone but Bill Gates!!! Another excercise in getting the most out of the least was my win95 install on a 386 with only a 40 meg HD! Of course I had to install it onto a larger drive... then trim it down to a minimum and finally xcopy it to the 40 meg drive! I suppose I should also mention my amd-550 built into one of those real nice Gateway-2000 486 towers. It uses removable drives and I've got caddies with about 20 old operating systems including OS/2 and NT3.1 etc! Yep I'm nuts allright :)
Guest Ingeborg Posted September 3, 2007 Posted September 3, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? John Dulak wrote: > philo wrote: >> >> Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! >> > > > I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see > 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably > rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working > machine ;-). > An XT has an 8088 processor. I don't think MS-DOS can run on an 8080, since it doesn't provide the segment:offset addressing.
Guest Dan Posted September 4, 2007 Posted September 4, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? <Snip> How did you like OS/2? I never had a chance to use it.
Guest Dan Posted September 4, 2007 Posted September 4, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? I also thought DOS started to be supported in the 286 line of computers. "Ingeborg" wrote: > John Dulak wrote: > > > philo wrote: > >> > >> Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > >> > > > > > > I knew SOME version of DOS would run on an 8080 but never having see > > 6.2 do it I thought I would play it safe. Besides 8080s are probably > > rare enough to be worth more as a museum piece than as a working > > machine ;-). > > > > An XT has an 8088 processor. I don't think MS-DOS can run on an 8080, since > it doesn't provide the segment:offset addressing. >
Guest Ingeborg Posted September 4, 2007 Posted September 4, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? =?Utf-8?B?RGFu?= wrote: > > "Ingeborg" wrote: > >> >> An XT has an 8088 processor. I don't think MS-DOS can run on an 8080, >> since it doesn't provide the segment:offset addressing. >> > I also thought DOS started to be supported in the 286 line of > computers. Some history is needed, I think. 1974 First you had the 8080. This processor has an 8 bit databus, and a 16 bit address bus.It could address 64 kB. It should be feeded by -5V, +5V, +12V. 1975 Then came the 8085. This one is identical to the 8080, but it only needed +5V. 1978 The 8086. A 16 bit processor. 16 bit databus, 20 bit addressbus. Internally 2*16 bits are used for addressing, but some funny bitshifting translated this in 20 bits addressing, capable for 1MB. This processor is the oldest one which can host MS-DOS. The older ones cannot due to the lack of the bitshifting trick. 1979 The 8088. This one was build in the original IBM PC, for which MS-DOS is written. It is program compatible with the 8086, but it has an 8 bit databus, which made cheaper motherboards. It also made this one slower than the 8086. 1982 80186 and 80186. Mostly identical to the 8086 and 8088, but some peripherals were integrated. (DMA controller, PIC, timers). 1982 80286. 16 bits databus and 24 bit addressbus, capable for 16 MB. MS-DOS could only use 1 MB, though. (Well actually, by using HMA it could use 1 MB + 64kB - 1byte). 1986 80386. This one had a 32 bit databus and could work with a 32 bit addressbus, and so was able to address 4GB. (Not really, it didn't have 32 physical address lines, but it could do 32 bit flat addressing). Until the 64 bit processors arrived (2003) nothing serious changed in the younger processors. Summary: MS-DOS is written for the 8088, but could also run on the older 8086, due to build-in compatibility. The 286, three years younger, is fully downcompatible, and is thus able to run dos. All 'Intel- compatible' processors nowadays are still downcompatible to the 8086, and are able to run dos.
Guest Dan Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Software Security Concerns Software Security Concerns <snipped for length concerns> Thank you. I know my IBM PCjr has BASIC since it has a BASIC cartridge. [so this old computer actually supports DOS and would that only be IBM DOS or both IBM DOS and MS-DOS? ---- question for you --- rest mainly data] <aside -- does anyone know if 98 Guy still testing Windows 2000 patches and using them on his 98 Second Edition machine --- I stopped doing that a long time ago and he was always the leader in that area> I remember the two companies were really competing against each other for a while especially before Windows 3.1. I read about how Microsoft had two lines of source code and one was the NT (New Technology -- early Microsoft engineers joked it was Not There due to the lack of a maintenance operating system like DOS --- I read about this in a book about Microsoft's history and Chris Quirke, MVP has frequently talked about this topic in this newsgroup) I was pleased to see how he had posts from mine previously about the problems with XP Professional and vulnerabilities due to the amount of services thus providing a greater hacking potential and because of the problems of remote access and insecurity in that area. Please see more at: http://cquirke.blogspot.com/ and especially http://www.spywarepoint.com/forums/t26963-p7-microsoft-zero-day-security-holes-being-exploited.html also see: http://secunia.com/ and compare security of XP Professional to 98 Second Edition http://secunia.com/product/13/ ----- Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 32 Secunia advisories Unpatched 9% (3 of 32 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical http://secunia.com/product/22/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 188 Secunia advisories Unpatched 15% (29 of 188 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP Professional, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical <Less Critical in 98SE compared to Highly Critical in XP --- hmm --- let's see which one to choose --- note the blantlenly sarcastic tone> and now for home version of xp too --- this will hurt the xp fans if they ever bother looking in this newsgroup http://secunia.com/product/16/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 172 Secunia advisories Unpatched 16% (27 of 172 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical Now let us compare browsers ---- shall we: version 5.01 of MIE http://secunia.com/product/9/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 72 Secunia advisories Unpatched 8% (6 of 72 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical version of Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 http://secunia.com/product/10/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 70 Secunia advisories Unpatched 9% (6 of 70 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical Now version MIE 6.x http://secunia.com/product/11/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link View Here (Link to external site) Affected By 118 Secunia advisories Unpatched 18% (21 of 118 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Moderately critical The "great" MIE 7 -- at least it has 256 bit encryption in Windows Vista like Mozilla Firefox provides for even 98 Second Edition users http://secunia.com/product/12366/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link View Here (Link to external site) Affected By 18 Secunia advisories Unpatched 56% (10 of 18 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Highly critical <highly critical again for Internet Explorer 7 --- shocking to me at least> only going to provide web-link for latest Mozilla Firefox due to length concerns of thread: http://secunia.com/product/12434/ Vendor Mozilla Organization Product Link View Here (Link to external site) Affected By 14 Secunia advisories Unpatched 43% (6 of 14 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Mozilla Firefox 2.0.x, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical Now let us tie this all up soon and here is Opera which I do not like because the interface annoys me but it seems to be secure: http://secunia.com/product/10615/ Vendor Opera Software Product Link View Here (Link to external site) Affected By 9 Secunia advisories Unpatched 0% (0 of 9 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched There are no unpatched Secunia advisories affecting this product, when all vendor patches are applied. <Still because Opera Web Browser has such a small market share -- I wonder how many hackers have tried really hard to break in because of its small market share> Oh Yeah -- almost forgot -- Windows Vista It seems like all the volunteer beta testing really helped harden this new Microsoft operating system http://secunia.com/product/13223/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link View Here (Link to external site) Affected By 12 Secunia advisories Unpatched 8% (1 of 12 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows Vista, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Not critical The detailed analysis of the one unpatched vulnerability in Vista http://secunia.com/advisories/24245/ finally NT data which to Microsoft's credit is fairly secure like 98 Second Edition: http://secunia.com/product/15/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 39 Secunia advisories Unpatched 15% (6 of 39 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical http://secunia.com/product/19/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 56 Secunia advisories Unpatched 11% (6 of 56 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Server, Terminal Server Edition, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical http://secunia.com/product/18/ Vendor Microsoft Product Link N/A Affected By 57 Secunia advisories Unpatched 11% (6 of 57 Secunia advisories) Most Critical Unpatched The most severe unpatched Secunia advisory affecting Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Server, with all vendor patches applied, is rated Less critical As for me all these reasons is a fantastic reason to have a dumb computer terminal that is not hooked up to the web. For me that is a 486 with a cool Roland MT-32 music card and lots of old DOS games and some Windows 3.1 games on it. I also am able to use DOS 5.x nicely. Thanks for listening and have a great day http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp <I am not responsible for anyone clicking these web links and they are just provided as a courtesy to the web user who wants to see them. Personally, I do not care if you look at them or you don't look at them. Have a nice day!> Dan Weiser
Guest Dan Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? Thanks for sharing, philo. "philo" wrote: > > "ms" <ms@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:5ju6e5F19p8mU1@mid.individual.net... > > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in news:e14PeIN7HHA.4584 > > @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl: > > > > > > > > "John Dulak" <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote in message > > > news:lVfCi.292$eD5.203@trnddc07... > > >> ms wrote: > > >> > I have an old P166 with W95 on it. > > >> > > > >> > Can I format, then install and run DOS 6.2 on a Pentium computer? > > >> > > > >> > ms > > >> > > >> Ms: > > >> > > >> DOS will run on a 286, 386, 486, Pentium or almost any processor that > > >> uses the Intel architecture. > > >> > > >> John > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Hey msdos 6.22 even runs on an IBM XT ! > > > > > > > > Yes, I ran it on my Xt long ago. > > > > > Even though my XT is up in the attic now , I really pushed things to see > what I could do with it. > I actually installed the dos, GUI-based browser, Arachne on it and was able > to put it on-line... > though a GUI browser was really not usable in any practical sense. > > It could run windows1, 2 or 3.0 > and I was amazed that I actually could install win3.1 on the machine. > > But as soon as I touched the mouse...it ran out of memory and crashed! > > >
Guest Ingeborg Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Re: Software Security Concerns Re: Software Security Concerns =?Utf-8?B?RGFu?= wrote: > I know my IBM PCjr has BASIC since it has a BASIC cartridge. > So this old computer actually supports DOS and would that only be IBM > DOS or both IBM DOS and MS-DOS? According to Wikipedia a PCjr has a 8088 processor, and a compatible bios, and was designed to run IBM PC-DOS 2.1. So it should be able to run MS-DOS. (There is no difference between IBM-DOS and MS-DOS, until version 6.0). But since it has only 64 or 128 kB memory, many dos applications will not be able to run on it. It also has a non-standard graphics card, so graphical programs are unlikely to run either. You can give it a try if your PCjr has a floppydrive and you are able to create a bootable 360kB 5.12" disk.
Guest Dan Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Re: Software Security Concerns Re: Software Security Concerns Thank you. Since it is in N.Y.C. and I will return on holiday in December/January then I will try then. My dad, Ivan and I maxed out the amount of memory from the default 128 kb of memory to the maximum allowed in the machine of 640 kb's. I really appreciate your response, Ingeborg and come to think about it --- I think my dad did create a DOS 5.25 or owned a 5.25 inch black floppy disk --- I will have to check with him and in Manhatten when I return. "Ingeborg" wrote: > =?Utf-8?B?RGFu?= wrote: > > > I know my IBM PCjr has BASIC since it has a BASIC cartridge. > > So this old computer actually supports DOS and would that only be IBM > > DOS or both IBM DOS and MS-DOS? > > According to Wikipedia a PCjr has a 8088 processor, and a compatible bios, > and was designed to run IBM PC-DOS 2.1. So it should be able to run MS-DOS. > (There is no difference between IBM-DOS and MS-DOS, until version 6.0). But > since it has only 64 or 128 kB memory, many dos applications will not be > able to run on it. It also has a non-standard graphics card, so graphical > programs are unlikely to run either. > > You can give it a try if your PCjr has a floppydrive and you are able to > create a bootable 360kB 5.12" disk. >
Guest philo Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4B7E72BB-D7D3-4584-A23B-61C33D9E61B5@microsoft.com... > <Snip> > > How did you like OS/2? I never had a chance to use it. I really like OS/2 I have an installation of Warp3 and also the newer incarnation, Ecomstation. OS/2...has an extremely refined GUI...the best GUI I;ve ever seen, Crystal clear and well defined graphics and outstandingly clear fonts. It's somwhat similar to NT in that there is no "real" dos... and does have an emulated cmd window as does NT. Contained within OS/2 is also win3.1...so it's an odd hybrid. Also...at least in the older versions...you could put a dos floppy in the drive and boot over to any version of dos you wanted to use... though it would still be emulated. It's similar in some ways to Windows in that is uses a config.sys and autoexec.bat... but they are quite necessary for operation and very complex. The worst thing is that (unlike windows) if there is an error on one line you can easily end up with a non-bootable system. So it's really kind of an impractical OS...but I still like it a lot!
Guest philo Posted September 5, 2007 Posted September 5, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9FD75BD6-CD06-4D96-A44F-397C4FEFCE38@microsoft.com... > Thanks for sharing, philo. Sure thing... I'll save my story of win98 on a 386 for another day <G>
Guest Curt Christianson Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? *I'm* looking forward to that story. I ran 98SE on an 85 MHz Pentium Overdrive® (a P24T, to be exact). Really just a souped-up 486. 32MB RAM. It was actually my *favorite* setup of all. -- HTH, Curt Windows Support Center http://www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:up4cv9A8HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | | "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message | news:9FD75BD6-CD06-4D96-A44F-397C4FEFCE38@microsoft.com... | > Thanks for sharing, philo. | | | | Sure thing... | I'll save my story of win98 on a 386 for another day <G> | |
Guest philo Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uje5S2B8HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > *I'm* looking forward to that story. I ran 98SE on an 85 MHz Pentium > Overdrive® (a P24T, to be exact). Really just a souped-up 486. 32MB RAM. > It was actually my *favorite* setup of all. > > Ok, first off... Win98 cannot be installed on a 386...Just wanted to make that clear. But one can put a drive with Win98 already on it into a 386... I tried it after installing it on a P-1 then deleting as much of the H/W as I could in the control panel. But Win98 crashed. I eventually "cheated" and tried a Win98lite installation it used the win95 explorer shell...and after quite a bit of tweaking I actually did get Win98 to function on a 386 here is a screenshot http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/win98_386.jpg
Guest Curt Christianson Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? Philo, That's fantastic! LOL. -- HTH, Curt Windows Support Center http://www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:ufDjZ6E8HHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | | "Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:uje5S2B8HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | > *I'm* looking forward to that story. I ran 98SE on an 85 MHz Pentium | > Overdrive® (a P24T, to be exact). Really just a souped-up 486. 32MB RAM. | > It was actually my *favorite* setup of all. | > | > | | | Ok, first off... | Win98 cannot be installed on a 386...Just wanted to make that clear. | | But one can put a drive with Win98 already on it into a 386... | I tried it after installing it on a P-1 then deleting as much of the H/W as | I could in the control panel. | | But Win98 crashed. I eventually "cheated" and tried a Win98lite installation | it used the win95 explorer | shell...and after quite a bit of tweaking I actually did get Win98 to | function on a 386 | | here is a screenshot | | http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/win98_386.jpg | |
Guest philo Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? "Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%23BG6YdK8HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Philo, > > That's fantastic! LOL. > It was a lot of (useless) fun. BTW: The most useless thing I did was to use the DOS GUI Browser Arachne on a 286. Though Arachne is a great browser for a 386 and above...the results were pretty funny with the 286. It could load text-based web pages...Just for fun I did try a graphics-based web page. It took a full 15 minutes...only to give the dreaded red "X" <G>
Guest Curt Christianson Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: P166 to run DOS 6? Philo, I can only imagine, as I've never tried anything like *that*. The first experience I had with computers was somebody gave me an old Northgate box, with 4MB RAM, a 386 @??, and a 55MB HD. I had countless versions of DOS I could play with,(I loved v.6.22), and settled with WFW 3.11. It didn't have a modem, and I seriously wonder if it could do *anything* but pure text stuff on the Internet--if that.That was in 1996. I got an old Packard Bell for my birthday in 2000. It had *2* HD's totalling **1.6 GB**!! 16 MB RAM, plus 4MB RAM on the MB, so a total of 20MB. This is the one with the P24T, Pentium Overdrive® @ 85MHz (100 MHz depending on whose benchmark you used). Oh, a 28.8 modem, 2-button mouse, and 14" monitor and a "real" IBM keyboard. It came with W98SE. I *did* have that machine on the 'net from 2000-2006, starting with 1000 free hours thanks to AOL. Slow as molasses, but I was having a ball. Only thing I did was add more RAM, for a total of 32MB=4MB onboard= 36MB total. It helped some. I spent all that time in this and the other MS W98 related NG's. It was the NG's where I learned everything. It's one thing to read about something in a book, but try it hands-on, and you'll remember it. I got to know some MVP's, and many other folks. I remember you well. I had a very lean and tweaked 98 box. It was an underpowered machine running 98SE, but I made it work at it's limit, and I was very proud of what I could do on it. I'm now using a machine I "inherited" after my mom's upgrade, and this *came* with 98SE installed. But by the time I got it, it had XP Pro on it. So I'm trying to learn it. But, once again, I'm using a somewhat marginal machine for the OS, but I've got it tweaked to the max., and once again I'm very proud of how it performs. I turned off *all* the "eye-candy" (hated the pastels and "Fisher-Price" look). Once it boots up, it doesn't look like XP at all! I was an amateur radio operator for years, and that was expensive enough. I swore I'd NEVER get into computers at all. Besides, I don't really like computer games, I can balance my checkbook with a calc. or paper and pencil. Then comes the Internet and the WWW. I was hooked. I can spend hours in a library unless someone drags me out kicking and screaming. I love information, and to learn--anything. Once the WWW began to get popular, I was hooked. I've got a library at home!! So, here I am! -- HTH, Curt Windows Support Center http://www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Omh1Y5L8HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | | "Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:%23BG6YdK8HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | > Philo, | > | > That's fantastic! LOL. | > | | | It was a lot of (useless) fun. | | BTW: The most useless thing I did was to use the DOS GUI Browser Arachne on | a 286. | | Though Arachne is a great browser for a 386 and above...the results were | pretty funny with the 286. | | It could load text-based web pages...Just for fun I did try a graphics-based | web page. | | It took a full 15 minutes...only to give the dreaded red "X" <G> | |
Recommended Posts