Nice, but does any of these have Win95 app compatibility or MS-DOS games compatibility? Second question: Would you use any of these to provide some exclusive features not available in Win95, for example? Is there some gain or advantage in terms of software/hardware features for 486 or first Pentium?

cyberluke wrote on 2021-06-01, 10:13:

Nice, but does any of these have Win95 app compatibility or MS-DOS games compatibility? Second question: Would you use any of these to provide some exclusive features not available in Win95, for example? Is there some gain or advantage in terms of software/hardware features for 486 or first Pentium?

Who really cares? Some of these OSs a capable of doing for more than Dos or win9x could ever do..

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-01, 11:56:

cyberluke wrote on 2021-06-01, 10:13:

Nice, but does any of these have Win95 app compatibility or MS-DOS games compatibility? Second question: Would you use any of these to provide some exclusive features not available in Win95, for example? Is there some gain or advantage in terms of software/hardware features for 486 or first Pentium?

Who really cares? Some of these OSs a capable of doing for more than Dos or win9x could ever do..

Yes, that was your time to mention at least one capability 😁

Which OS's? Any of the unix ones have the main advantage that they are designed from the ground up as 32bit protected mode (of course that excludes some of the 16bit unix variants, such as Microsoft's own Xenix for the then-new 286), free of all the baggage of segmentation, memory management and all that other Dos/Win16/Win32 crud. Want to do scientific computing? Unix is where it is at (and where it always has been).

You can pretty much take something targeted at ANSI C and Posix, lift it, drop it on a modern Linux or BSD, recompile and it will more than likely run. Until you start targetting hardware and/or GUI libraries, the history and (relatively!) sane C library standardisation means that code can often be lifted from one platform and run with little to no modification on another; from Linux/x86 to Solaris/Sparc, for example.

All of them have more development tools than you can shake a stick at, as well as proper network interoperability with features like NFS and LDAP.

Of course if you want cross-compatibility with Dos or Windows 98, then you're not going to find it.

cyberluke wrote on 2021-06-01, 12:02:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-06-01, 11:56:

cyberluke wrote on 2021-06-01, 10:13:

Nice, but does any of these have Win95 app compatibility or MS-DOS games compatibility? Second question: Would you use any of these to provide some exclusive features not available in Win95, for example? Is there some gain or advantage in terms of software/hardware features for 486 or first Pentium?

Who really cares? Some of these OSs a capable of doing for more than Dos or win9x could ever do..

Yes, that was your time to mention at least one capability 😁

It wasn't a question worth answering really. 😉 This threat is for all OSs not just Micro$ofts offerings.

cyberluke wrote on 2021-06-01, 10:13:

Nice, but does any of these have Win95 app compatibility or MS-DOS games compatibility? Second question: Would you use any of these to provide some exclusive features not available in Win95, for example? Is there some gain or advantage in terms of software/hardware features for 486 or first Pentium?

These OSes are just for hobbyists purposes, I think.
They are fun to tinker with, but serve no real purpose anymore.
Okay, strictly speaking, they are so incredible old that their built-in network software is useful again.
To browse archived pages at archive.org, for example.
Newer www browsers have their issues with certain mid-90s websites,
so they can't be browsed in their raw form anymore (ie, without archive.org doing some conversion for modern browsers).
Some of these OSes, like old MenuetOS (32-Bit) or KolibriOS are able to run DOSBox, though.
So long story short, these OSes are totally niche and nerdy.
But in a good way. It's a stress relief to work with them at times.
And they likely are not in danger in getting any malware. 😉

I consider the aspect of learning some thing new and different priority. It's good for the grey matter.

Like solving a jigsaw puzzle.

Sometimes it's just a matter of re-living a past experience. For OS/2 Warp and late 90s early 2000s Linux, that is the case for me.

appiah4 wrote on 2021-06-02, 08:03:

Sometimes it's just a matter of re-living a past experience. For OS/2 Warp and late 90s early 2000s Linux, that is the case for me.

I tried OS/2 Warp 4 when it was released. My thoughts were pretty meh. But I just found something called ArcaOS which is OS/2 Warp based that will run on a Pentium pro or K6. I am thinking about trying it on some vintage hardware, PMMX, K6-II, PIII and early P4. It is compatible with DOS and Windows 3.1 natively. It also has support for modern hardware and networking. RAM requirements might be tricky for the lowest spec CPUs on which it can run because it needs 512MB. I have a SS7 board which can take 768MB. However there is a MicronICS W6-LI dual Pentium Pro board on eBay right now for around $300 which can take a maximum of 512MB. There's something for me to aspire to - a dual Pentium Pro system. Would only cost me about a grand to build 🤣 For some reason, I don't think twice about spending that much on a modern build but somehow it seems extravagant for a retro gaming PC and not as useful as a P200MMX, though if I ever get rich, I might build a PII Overdrive rig.

32-bit Debian 11 installed fine on my Celery 800, 256meg of ram equipped NEC PowerMate in low memory mode no problems at all. One reboot.

Edit: Forgot the link sorry https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/pthv … ne_debian_crew/

For those who is curious... With a couple of patches, I managed to start Kolibri on 486DX2@40MHz with 20 Mb RAM. In theory, it should work just fine with 8 Mb RAM, but this won't leave much space for software. Most of the software works, about half of the software is actually useable, but unless you have VESA 2.0 video card, it's going to be much less useable than it could (without VESA 2, OS renders everything in 24bpp, and converts the colours to 4bpp programmatically, for each pixel, on each frame).

The forum post with patches and bootable image (Russian, sorry): https://board.kolibrios.org/viewtopic.php?f=1 … &p=77793#p77793

nkali wrote on 2021-12-29, 21:13:

For those who is curious... With a couple of patches, I managed to start Kolibri on 486DX2@40MHz with 20 Mb RAM. In theory, it should work just fine with 8 Mb RAM, but this won't leave much space for software. Most of the software works, about half of the software is actually useable, but unless you have VESA 2.0 video card, it's going to be much less useable than it could (without VESA 2, OS renders everything in 24bpp, and converts the colours to 4bpp programmatically, for each pixel, on each frame).

The forum post with patches and bootable image (Russian, sorry): https://board.kolibrios.org/viewtopic.php?f=1 … &p=77793#p77793

photo_2021-12-29 20.30.03.jpeg

Nice work, thanks!

Does anybody know... how to install Olipilot on a fresh windows 95? 😒

Does anyone know how to get DooM running in TempleOS?

appiah4 wrote on 2020-05-04, 05:23:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-03, 17:27:

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-04-24, 17:23:

GNOME 2 is what MATE started with. As a codebase, they were the same at the beginning but are no longer the same. As a project, of course, MATE is not in any way GNOME.

Go have a look at the credits on an installation then...

Nobody denied that it was forked from GNOME, that is very different from being GNOME itself or even being GNOME based.

being forked from something is literally being based on it

maxtherabbit wrote on 2022-03-13, 14:03:

being forked from something is literally being based on it

Nah, not necessarily. A little depends on meaning.

BSD originally borrowed code from AT&T UNIX, but any vestigial relationship is long gone subsequent to the 1994 settlement between USL and BSDI. You can't really say it's AT&T UNIX based let alone based on UNIXWARE.

Concerning GNOME, some environments started as graphical reworks (albeit extensive) of GNOME Shell. Budgie and Cinammon, for instance. I'm not sure about the current relationship between GNOME and Cinammon, but Budgie is still tracking upstream GNOME dependencies. There was discussion of this in relation to changes GNOME is making for theming with Budgie talking about a complete fork being necessary. Until this takes place, Budgie still depends heavily on software maintained and provided by the GNOME project and is definitely based on GNOME. MATE is not like that, so saying it's GNOME based is more of a stretch.

I really didn't want to get into this argument but I see it the way @gdjacobs does.. If you stretch it so far you may as well say Windows 11 is basically based on OS/2.

appiah4 wrote on 2022-04-01, 07:00:

I really didn't want to get into this argument but I see it the way @gdjacobs does.. If you stretch it so far you may as well say Windows 11 is basically based on OS/2.

Or DOS.

gdjacobs wrote on 2022-04-03, 16:42:

appiah4 wrote on 2022-04-01, 07:00:

I really didn't want to get into this argument but I see it the way @gdjacobs does.. If you stretch it so far you may as well say Windows 11 is basically based on OS/2.

Or DOS.

What is "based on DOS" in Windows 11?

Azarien wrote on 2022-08-07, 17:10:

gdjacobs wrote on 2022-04-03, 16:42:

appiah4 wrote on 2022-04-01, 07:00:

I really didn't want to get into this argument but I see it the way @gdjacobs does.. If you stretch it so far you may as well say Windows 11 is basically based on OS/2.

Or DOS.

What is "based on DOS" in Windows 11?

Nothing these days, they were just spitballing the stupid argument from earlier in the thread, shit even the DOS command window in Win11 isn't actually DOS or anything close to it but one might believe it is.