Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (
More info?)
bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
> bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:
>
> Rather than post four replies, I'm writing a blanket answer
> to those kind enough to post on this.
>
>
> johnw_94...@yahoo.com sed:
>
>> There are still many that use DOS and avoid Windows.
>> Perhaps you can contact the HP 200LX user list, as they
>> still use DOS and are proud of it, or perhaps contact a DOS
>> newsgroup.
>
> The numerous DOS groups I've checked are silent on it, but I
> did not know about the HP. Thanks, I'll look into it.
>
>
>> There are many that remain using DOS. Frankly I'd like to
>> be one of them, but cannot as I have way too much software
>> and data in Windows that will not work in DOS.
>
> Do you actually mean software, or hardware that doesn't have
> DOS drivers? If it's the latter, USB and CR-RW drivers for
> DOS do exist.
>
>
>> The best DOS is pre Windows 95,running version 6.22.
>
> There's freeDOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS, PTS-DOS and others that still
> exist which are newer and better than MS-DOS 6.22; I'm running
> Lose98 over freeDOS. Whether IBM will continue to sell and
> support PC-DOS after selling their PC division to a Chinese
> company, I don't know.
Very likely. Further, Microsoft themselves recommend that one use the DOS
kernel that one gets when creating a bootable disk from XP--they say that
it's smaller and more efficient than the one in 6.22. This is quite
likely--the same is true for IBM DOS 2000 I understand--one of the
developers tells me that IBM recoded most of it in optimized assembler
while Microsoft used C--either Microsoft used a better optimizer on the
later version or did the same thing themselves.
> -----
>
> Justin Pearson sed:
>
>> One solution (not the one you might want) is to install
>> linux on your laptop and use pilot-xfer. Don't be put off
>> buy the large and processor hungry linux installations
>> around. There are a few installations for small low-powered
>> machines.
>
> I know of a few (MuLinux, Mini, etc.) and BasicLinux (which is
> Slackware derived) looks the most stable and easy to install.
> Installing programs into BasicLinux is another matter.
>
> I knew about Pilot Xfer, but there's a problem: I'm completely
> inept at Linux. VAXes and VMS are no problem, but with Linux
> I'm helpless. Thanks for saying this anyway, I should try
> to learn it again.
I'd be surprised if Linux would run on your machine--the hardware
requirements are about the same as for Windows 95. There is a 16-bit port
but it is very limited and there doesn't appear to have been any work done
on it in several years, so one may assume that the project is dead.
> -----
>
> J. Clarke sed:
>
>> There's information at <
http://palmboxer.sourceforge.net/>
>> with links to a Quick Start and other documentation.
>
> I knew of other PC/PDA pages, but not this one. Of course
> it's on sourceforge and I didn't look. 9_9 Much appreciated.
>
>
>> How old is your laptop though--it must be truly ancient to
>> not be able to handle _any_ Palm-compatible version of
>> Windows.
>
> It is. But it has a serial port and a hard drive, that's all
> I'm concerned about.
>
> I hate how companies deliberately force consumers to buy new machines
> instead of ensuring backward compatibility. In the
> mid-20th century, cars were built to last, now they don't last
> five years.
Huh? What ever gave you _that_ impression? The cars you get today are for
the most part much more durable than the ones that were available in the
'50s and '60s. It's not unusual to see a car today run 250,000 miles or
more using an engine with the same block that gave only 100,000 or so in
the late '50s or early '60s.
The notion that old cars lasted longer is pure nostalgia. If you maintain
them impeccably and fix things when they break and overhaul the engine and
transmission and differential and replace bearings when required, yeah, a
car from the '50s, or '40s, or '30s, or '20s can still be driveable, but
it's not because they were somehow more reliable than modern cars, it's
because somebody busted his butt to keep them running far beyond the point
where it made economic sense to do so.
> In the 1980s, everything was backward compatible
> on PCs; now you're forced to "upgrade" every three months.
Who's forcing you to upgrade every three months? The only "upgrades" I've
done in the past 2 years or so were adding more disk capacity in my primary
server, adding a couple of tuner boards to a machine that I use as an
entertainment center, and a couple of gigabit boards that I got just
because I wanted to learn about gigabit. It _is_ a good idea to update
your virus signature files regularly if download a lot of executable files
of unknown provenance or have kids who bring disks from school, and if you
use broadband and don't have a hardware firewall it's important to keep
your OS patches up to date, but those are the only things I can think of
that one would do every three months as a matter of routine.
> Have a look at what this guy did. Connectivity at its finest:
>
>
http://www.galexi.com/alex/pilot100.html
Cute.
>
>
> -----
>
> Frater Mus sed:
>
>>> (To anyone who says buying a new laptop is the solution,
>>> I'll tell you how to send me the money.)
>>
>>I hear ya, brother.
>
> Thank you and the others for paying attention and making an
> effort. Few things are as annoying in life as those who talk
> without thinking that the blatantly obvious was tried first.
> (Not just on this topic, but in anything. Ever looked for an
> unusual title in used bookshops and have some moron tell you
> "Go to Borders" after you've already been there?)
>
> The speed of the replies is also appreciated.
>
>
> Bob Dog
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)