New DOS computers

[N5PVL]

FYI:

Dell now sells several computers (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs) that come with DOS. ( FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/) )

So, if your old DOS ham radio machine is about to finally bite the big one, why not replace it with a new, modern DOS computer?

I have played with FreeDOS before, it works great and does the internet thing too. It is interesting, as many of the old DOS programs are now public domain.

There is some new DOS programming going on, mostly for embedded systems. I wrote a DOS program a few years ago that worked with an embedded PC to replace the function of a specialized piece of equipment that cost over ten times as much.

I wrote the application in QBASIC. It was so small that you could see it all without scrolling but I compiled it anyway as there was no BASIC interpreter in the embedded PC. - It used a different flavor of DOS called ROMDOS. Reliability was also a factor.

Anyway, line up for your new DOS computers, folks! What's old is new!

[kl7aj]

This is a great idea. We have some (actually a LOT) of DOS machines on this Air Force contract I work on. Some of these machines have NEVER been rebooted.

Eric

[AG3Y]

Love to hear it , Charles! The old DOS version of PK-232 terminal programs always worked ( and LOOKED, for that matter ) better than the Windoze version!

I still have a little "computer on a card" here that is loaded with DOS 3.3, and runs very well, thank you very much. I even have a VGA card that will fit in the backplane and allow me to use the new monitors!

Now, if only I could find those old PK-232s ! I DO have an Amtor TU, anybody want to try that mode? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

73, Jim

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Oct. 31 2007,13:42)]Love to hear it , Charles! # The old DOS version of PK-232 terminal programs always worked ( and LOOKED, for that matter ) better than the Windoze version! #

I still have a little "computer on a card" here that is loaded with DOS 3.3, and runs very well, thank you very much. #I even have a VGA card that will fit in the backplane and allow me to use the new monitors! #

Now, if only I could find those old PK-232s ! # I DO have an Amtor TU, #anybody want to try that mode? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

73, Jim
I loved AMTOR. Such a shame to see it fall into disuse.

Eric

[AG3Y]

I did too, Eric. Full handshaking. You could tell in an instant how well your signal was holding up as you watched the text being echoed to the screen as the "acks" were received from the other station! Even FEC mode is quite effective! I used to turn down the power until the "PO" meter would hardly be moving, and still be 100% copy by the other station. When I told him how little power I was radiating, he would hardly believe me. Not until HE reduced his power to the same level. It wasn't unusual to get 100% copy at normal thruput with both stations running QRP levels ( 5 watts )

73, Jim

[N5PVL]

I remember doing AMTOR long before I ever got a DOS computer with a Commodore-64, a special interface and an early PK-232. I remember doing surgery on my TS-430 so that it would have AMTOR-friendly AGC.

My best DX contact was in AMTOR mode, using that setup. - A nice 45-minute QSO with an amateur working in Djerbouti, in east Africa. ( #I live near the southern tip of Texas. )

The only problem I had with AMTOR was that it seemed to me that it was hard on the equipment. The T/R relay gets a real workout, and some of the other components as well.

Back on topic, I notice that you get a good discount for not having to bundle up VISTA with your new DOS computer.

I use a 400MHz Celeron with Win98SE for a lot of my ham radio stuff. It has no internet connection, it's just hooked up to radios. - When that computer goes belly-up, I'll know what to do... A "DOS" Dell will be my new Win98SE machine!

[KC9JIQ]

Quote[/b] ]So, if your old DOS ham radio machine is about to finally bite the big one, why not replace it with a new, modern DOS computer?

Does the new machines have ISA slots?(to use your expensive contesting card) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[AG3Y]

Yea, Charles, I could never figure out why the turnaround between transmit and receive was so short. You would think that they could have designed the mode so it would output a sentence or so before getting an "ack" or "nack" from the slave station. But that is one of the reasons it fell out of favor. Can you imagine one of those older boatanchors "kerchunking" T/R through a QSO ? It would be enough to drive you nuts ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Still a great mode, though.

73, Jim

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Oct. 31 2007,14:29)]Yea, Charles, I could never figure out why the turnaround between transmit and receive was so short. #You would think that they could have #designed the mode so it would output a sentence or so before getting an "ack" or "nack" from the slave station. #But that is one of the reasons it fell out of favor. #Can you imagine one of those older boatanchors "kerchunking" #T/R through a QSO ? #It would be enough to drive you nuts ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Still a great mode, though. #

73, Jim
I used an old Johnson T/R switch and separates for AMTOR. It was nice n quiet.

eric

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Oct. 31 2007,16:29)]Yea, Charles, I could never figure out why the turnaround between transmit and receive was so short. #You would think that they could have #designed the mode so it would output a sentence or so before getting an "ack" or "nack" from the slave station. #But that is one of the reasons it fell out of favor. #Can you imagine one of those older boatanchors "kerchunking" #T/R through a QSO ? #It would be enough to drive you nuts ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Still a great mode, though. #

73, Jim
If I remember correctly, it was AMTOR operation that had me giving away my Yaesu FT101-ZD that had served so well for morse code, and replacing it with the solid-state Kenwood TS-430.

I don't know if I was really hurting the Yaesu any, but it sure seemed like it. - I got tired of the 'wince factor' involved and that made the decision for me.

I like PSK31 as a ragchew mode, but I'm drifting over to PSK64 nowdays... I like it even though I type slowly, because it gets the macro stuff squirted over so fast. Even so, PSK63 is still pretty darned narrow at twice PSK31's width.

I have an old DOS computer here that runs MSDOS 6.22... I think I'll convert it over to FREEDOS and play around with it a little, maybe even fix it up with a 56kb dialup modem for some experiments with the new DOS-based web browser and eMail programs.

[KD8COO]

FreeDOS has worked well for me for a couple applications.

I still write the occasional utility/small app for DOS as well. It's the lowest common denominator here... XP (32-bit anyways) still runs DOS apps, as does Linux (with dosemu), as well as my ol' 8088!

[k3wrv]

Free Dos also works really well under Linux- Google for dosemu. Very few setup issues under FC-1. But I'm a DrDOS fan - true multitasking!

[KD8COO]

Quote[/b] (k3wrv @ Oct. 31 2007,16:36)]But I'm a DrDOS fan - true multitasking!
Ah yes, the DOS multitasking methods... :-) I was a HUGE fan of DESQview myself, never a DRDOS user. Used DV ntil the HD failed in my 8088... Hard to multitask much of anything with just a floppy drive. Still works fine for single apps though...

[k4avl]

A lot of times when you buy a barebones system with so called "no operating system", it will have Free DOS or similar. Same goes for some used or refurbished computers.
Beats paying for Windows, and of course you can put Linux on it and also run DOS apps as mentioned above (dosemu or dosbox under linux).
I have an old copy of MS Quick Basic to compile some DOS apps, and they even work under XP in the cmd window, kind of a good simple all-purpose platform to work with, and you can create executables to give to others, as long as you also send the 2 libraries (brun20.exe and brun20.lib).
If you use Linux, a great language to take a look at is Python.
It operates as a script, and executes on the fly from the text file of commands you create, no compilation needed. It's almost a no-brainer to learn, very intuitive if you know basic, C or similar languages. Plus you can couple it with Tkinter or WXwidgets to create easy GUI programs (that takes a bit more practice.)
But even this latter stuff (python and its GUI addons) also have windows ports, so you can truly come up with some cross-platform stuff if you approach it correctly. Lots of fun, never enough time, alas.

[WA9SVD]

Will FreeDOS support Windoze 3.11 too?

[k4avl]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=freedos+windows+3.1&btnG=Google+Search

I believe it does now, according to the above.
That's cool. I actually still do have all the old floppies though for installing 3.1 or 3.11

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (k4avl @ Oct. 31 2007,18:21)]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=freedos+windows+3.1&btnG=Google+Search

I believe it does now, according to the above.
That's cool. I actually still do have all the old floppies though for installing 3.1 or 3.11
The irony of it all is that DOS applications and Win3.11 REALLY fly with a nice dual-core Athlon, but the hardware and video drivers aren't available. AutoCad 9 REALLY works nice, but who wants to use it ar 640x480 resolution, when the monitor and video card will do 1600x1200?

I backed up my Win3.11 disks to CD. It installs in less than 2 minutes... So much for bloated Vista!

[KG6YTZ]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Oct. 31 2007,13:29)]There is some new DOS programming going on, mostly for embedded systems. I wrote a DOS program a few years ago that worked with an embedded PC to replace the function of a specialized piece of equipment that cost over ten times as much.
Much coolness. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #Ever since I got my first PC in 1990, virtually* all of my programming has been for DOS [mainly because I simply haven't learned how to code for Windows].

* A tiny portion of it has been in SALT - "Script Applications Language for Telix," a popular terminal program during the 1990's - and for dBase III.

My most recent pet project, info at this link here (http://members.aol.com/xfire905/bcprog.htm), is a code generator for Bearcat 101 scanners. #I've also done some work on a couple of utilities for the Bearcat BC245XLT, including what is essentially an ASCII-graphic UI/controller for that scanner, but I don't know if/when I'll ever get around to getting that one finished and released.

I ran Win3.11 until around 1999, as I recall. #I upgraded to Win95 then because I wanted to install a USB CF card reader, and Win3 has no idea what USB is. #My first PC, a portable ["luggable"] XT clone with a 9" green mono CRT, has MS-DOS 6.22 loaded on its 40MB MFM hard drive. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif It has a whole 640K of RAM, too.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KG6YTZ @ Oct. 31 2007,20:43)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Oct. 31 2007,13:29)]There is some new DOS programming going on, mostly for embedded systems. I wrote a DOS program a few years ago that worked with an embedded PC to replace the function of a specialized piece of equipment that cost over ten times as much.
Much coolness. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Ever since I got my first PC in 1990, virtually* all of my programming has been for DOS [mainly because I simply haven't learned how to code for Windows].

* A tiny portion of it has been in SALT - "Script Applications Language for Telix," a popular terminal program during the 1990's - and for dBase III.

My most recent pet project, info at this link here (http://members.aol.com/xfire905/bcprog.htm), is a code generator for Bearcat 101 scanners. I've also done some work on a couple of utilities for the Bearcat BC245XLT, including what is essentially an ASCII-graphic UI/controller for that scanner, but I don't know if/when I'll ever get around to getting that one finished and released.

I ran Win3.11 until around 1999, as I recall. I upgraded to Win95 then because I wanted to install a USB CF card reader, and Win3 has no idea what USB is. My first PC, a portable ["luggable"] XT clone with a 9" green mono CRT, has MS-DOS 6.22 loaded on its 40MB MFM hard drive. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif It has a whole 640K of RAM, too.
There's still life left in the "old" machines. I still use a NEC MultiSpeed EL with MS-DOS 3.3 for portable packet use (or a Poqet PC if I'm really desperate.) The NEC has dual 720k floppies, and an 8 MHz V-30. The thing is, the DOS packet software is faster, and more efficient than any Windoze version. It runs packet just as well as the newer programs. It's sort of silly to think you need a Win98 or higher machine to run packet. (I've even used an Apple ][+ for packet in the recent past. Works fine.)

[KG6YTZ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 31 2007,22:09)]There's still life left in the "old" machines. #I still use a NEC MultiSpeed EL with MS-DOS 3.3 for portable packet use (or a Poqet PC if I'm really desperate.) #The NEC has dual 720k floppies, and an 8 MHz V-30. #The thing is, the DOS packet software is faster, and more efficient than any Windoze version. #It runs packet just as well as the newer programs. #It's sort of silly to think you need a Win98 or higher machine to run packet. #(I've even used an Apple ][+ for packet in the recent past. #Works fine.)
OHyeah. #I've never worked packet, m'self, but I do know that "way back when," the Commodore VIC-20's and C-64's were very popular packet machines. #I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone, somewhere, actually ran packet on a Timex/Sinclair, probably using a Memotech RS-232 module.

My portable has an NEC V20 chip - 4.77 MHz clock, but those chips are something like 1.8x faster than a stock Intel, so it's equivalent to an 8088 running at about 8.59 MHz. #If I had the software and the TNC, I could dedicate the old beast to packet, and at least get some use out of it again. #Or, I could look into firing up that old Kaypro 2X, given to me in 1994 [?], apparently functional but not used since I got it, for lack of the CP/M OS disks. That ol' doorstop is a 4 MHz Z80 with 64K RAM. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KC4RAN]

Oh geez, I had totally forgotten about SALT scripts...

[KG6YTZ]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Oct. 31 2007,23:33)]Oh geez, I had totally forgotten about SALT scripts...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Kind of a pain-in-the-backside language, wasn't it? A lot like C. I never did master it, but at least I was able to write very short automated logon scripts for my dialer entries.

Before I settled on WWIV for my BBS, I experimented with a Telix script called HOST43, which turned Telix into a simple BBS. The author of that thing was far better at SALT programming than I ever was, that's for sure... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N2RJ]

You can keep DOS, I'd rather be running Linux or BSD.

[wa8rti]

Years ago I wrote a BASIC program to find prime numbers. (math teacher quirk). It took the computer (a Commador 64) all night to find and print all the primes less than 10000. #I would love to be able to run the program on a computer with a gHz speed clock. I would like to see how long it would take for it to find #and print a list of all the primes under 1,000,000. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AG3Y]

I would love to see some of those old DOS programs that worked with fractals running on a 3ghz machine! Talk about something taking all night to generate! You could watch a fractal figure forming, one element at a time ( if you had lots of PATIENCE! ) on a 8088 machine, even if it was equipped with a math co-processor !

Ah, the good old days !

73, Jim

[ab1ga]

Plus the slower machines gave us the ability to think about the analysis results we just got before the new ones were ready!

[kc2orw]

Maybe they can produce an updated version of CP/M http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I think you would be better off with a copy of Linux it can run DOS programs and has a really good command line shell. Why waste time with DOS...

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 01 2007,09:22)]I would love to see some of those old DOS programs that worked with fractals running on a 3ghz machine! Talk about something taking all night to generate! You could watch a fractal figure forming, one element at a time ( if you had lots of PATIENCE! ) on a 8088 machine, even if it was equipped with a math co-processor !

Ah, the good old days !

73, Jim
Even if you could get it to run, it would be horribly inefficient. Yes, it would run fast, but not as fast as if it was compiled for and ran on a modern OS.

Worst case is you'd be running in compatibility mode which would sacrifice features of modern processors and chipsets.

The only good reason to do what you describe would be nostalgia, and nostalgia alone.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Nov. 01 2007,10:02)]Maybe they can produce an updated version of CP/M http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I think you would be better off with a copy of Linux it can run DOS programs and has a really good command line shell. Why waste time with DOS...
Better yet, I want a new computer that I program with switches. Forget all that VDU stuff.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Nov. 01 2007,11:02)]Maybe they can produce an updated version of CP/M http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I think you would be better off with a copy of Linux it can run DOS programs and has a really good command line shell. Why waste time with DOS...
"They" did.

CP/M 86 (the 16 bit version of CP/M) was updated to Digital Research DOS -- DR DOS. You can still find free (and legal) downloads of it out on the web.

[KD8COO]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 31 2007,19:33)][quote=k4avl,Oct. 31 2007,18:21]The irony of it all is that DOS applications and Win3.11 REALLY fly with a nice dual-core Athlon, but the hardware and video drivers aren't available. #AutoCad 9 REALLY works nice, but who wants to use it ar 640x480 resolution, when the monitor and video card will do 1600x1200?
Don't modern video cards still have the VESA BIOS? I was running 1024x768 on the graphical apps I wrote on my old 8088 (1MB, 16-bit VGA card, sitting in an 8-bit slot) way back in the day... Higher modes were supported too, but all I had was a 15" monitor (which I thought was HUGE at the time!).

[k4kyv]

Why bother with a johnny-come-lately OS like DOS? Go back to Babbage's steam powered mechanical computer designed in the 1850s. Theoretically it should have worked as well as some of the early electronic computers like the Univac. But it was only partially completed. The British Government cut off funding when it was maybe half built. Babbage's machines used punch cards like early computers. He got the idea from mechanical looms in the weaving/textile industry, which used punch cards to control the patterns that were weaved.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Nov. 01 2007,13:06)]Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 01 2007,09:22)]I would love to see some of those old DOS programs that worked with fractals running on a 3ghz machine! #Talk about something taking all night to generate! # You could watch a fractal figure forming, one element at a time ( if you had lots of PATIENCE! ) on a 8088 machine, even if it was equipped with a math co-processor !

Ah, the good old days !

73, Jim
Even if you could get it to run, it would be horribly inefficient. #Yes, it would run fast, but not as fast as if it was compiled for and ran on a modern OS.

Worst case is you'd be running in compatibility mode which would sacrifice features of modern processors and chipsets.

The only good reason to do what you describe would be nostalgia, and nostalgia alone.
I'm really not sure about that. If , as PVL describes, these computers are coming without a Windoze OS, and you load it with DOS up to 6.2X, it would not be running in a DOS window, but in the old operating system directly, would it not ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Then the difference would be that the CPU would be running native MSDOS at a very advanced speed ( 3 Ghz as opposed to 4.77 Mhz ), and there would be no compatibility mode issues to deal with at all.

Right? Wrong? How about someone with a bit more experience in computers and OS from the last year or so chipping in. My computer training ended about 5 years ago!

73, Jim

[ab1ga]

Process improvements in chip manufacturing allowed designers to put much more functionality on a single die, sometimes accessible only through extended instruction sets.

If the compiler, etc. are too old they didn't know about the new features and cannot use them today. Old programs are denied the speed improvements because they don't utilize the newer instruction sets.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ Oct. 31 2007,14:36)]This is a great idea. #We have some (actually a LOT) of DOS machines on this Air Force contract I work on. #Some of these machines have NEVER been rebooted.

Eric
No doubt for fear if they WERE rebooted, World War III would commence! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AG3Y]

I have an astronomy program here that is absolutely fantastic! Stellarium, by name. Most realistic sky program I have seen available on the net. When it boots, you see a DOS window open and then apparently close. The program runs in some advanced VGA mode, but it is interesting to me that at least a portion of the program calls upon DOS commands to configure itself! DOS is definately not dead, by any stretch of the imagination!

73, Jim

[KL1ZB]

But no ISA slots

EDIT: and if those are like all the other current Dells no BIOS support for 5.25 floppy drives, and USB 5.25 Floppy Drives are not an easy thing to find.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KD8COO @ Nov. 01 2007,14:44)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 31 2007,19:33)][quote=k4avl,Oct. 31 2007,18:21]The irony of it all is that DOS applications and Win3.11 REALLY fly with a nice dual-core Athlon, but the hardware and video drivers aren't available. AutoCad 9 REALLY works nice, but who wants to use it ar 640x480 resolution, when the monitor and video card will do 1600x1200?
Don't modern video cards still have the VESA BIOS? I was running 1024x768 on the graphical apps I wrote on my old 8088 (1MB, 16-bit VGA card, sitting in an 8-bit slot) way back in the day... Higher modes were supported too, but all I had was a 15" monitor (which I thought was HUGE at the time
Maybe so, but many (if not most) DOS programs (such as Lotus 123 v2, WordPerfect 5, and AutoCad 9) had specific drivers for EACH program, and specific for the chipset used; (I believe that was before the VESA Standard was implemented?)
So it WOULD be possible to write drivers for modern video cards, but they would have to be individually written for each program with each chipset.
That is one of the advantages that an OS such as even Windoze provides: the OS takes care of the video interface (including resolution and color depth, amoungst other things) and applications merely interface to the OS.
But I'm not a programmer, nor would I want to dedicate time to writing video drivers for such a project if I were, unless it were for a mental exercise.
But I sure wouldn't mind running AutoCad 9 in 24 bit color at 1600x1200 resolution. Then again, it's amazing that at one time, we were ecstatic when EGA was introduced, and cards such as the VEGA Deluxe had drivers to boost resolution to 640x350 in 16 colors! But even then, those drivers were only for certain programs, and only worked with one chipset.
It wasn't until the introduction of VGA that chipset drivers were developed that allowed the video card to provide a specific resolution "across the board."


BTW: KL1ZB:

You mena, there are no 8" USB dfloppy drives? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KG6YTZ]

Incidentally, I should mention that, apparently, a group of German whiz-kids actually managed to produce a set of USB drivers for DOS. I haven't tried it, but I once watched KI6EQA use them to restore a laptop using a USB CDROM drive while booted to a command prompt.

Too bad there are no 8-bit [ISA] IDE cards... At least none that I've ever seen, anyway. It'd be a good way to upgrade the old luggable - I have some old drives in the "just under a gigabyte" range that'd be all I need for that machine, especially if it's just being used as a dedicated packet terminal. The best MFM drives I have are old [which goes without saying!] Seagate 40-meggers. [ST-251?]

G=C800:5 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif [Some of you will know what that means. Me, I'm surprised that I still remember it.]

[N5PVL]

Today I was digging around and found a DOS GUI for "high-end" machines.

Quote[/b] ]
SWORD, the System of Windows for the Organization of the Desktop, provides a Unix/NeXT-style program management and development environment, based on object hierarchies. Originally for MS-DOS, versions 2.10 and 2.11 can be considered finished products, in the sense that they are stable and the download packages contain all of the main and support files needed to run them. Version 2.30 is a major extension, still in development and currently available for testing. It incorporates new graphics libraries, and is designed for compatibility with FreeDOS, with Enhanced DR-DOS, and even with WinXP.

Realistic minimum hardware requirements: 80486, 4MB RAM, 9MB HD space. Recommended: Pentium 90MHz+, 16MB+ RAM, 20MB HD space for serious work. The 16-bit v2.10 compilation might run on an 80386 (not on an 80286), if it's not pushed too hard.

A few of SWORD'S features:
Resizeable windows
Dialog boxes
Button, process bar, lift, scrollbar etc.
Screen saver
Image viewer
Menus
Event management
EGA/VGA/VESA graphics

At the bottom of this page:

http://home.att.net/~short.stop/freesoft/desktops.htm

Lots of other interesting DOS software there.

[KL1ZB]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Oct. 31 2007,23:26)]BTW: #KL1ZB:

# #You mena, there are no 8" USB dfloppy drives? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
At my office we still use IBM XT's with DOS 3.3. Getting data off those systems is getting harder and harder. We used to just put 5.25 inch drives in the current systems to transfer data but most systems today will not support 5.25 inch floppy drives. We are using a program called FastLynx that uses serial to transfer data but those old systems can only transfer 19.2kbps at best via serial so its slow going.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 01 2007,18:15)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Nov. 01 2007,13:06)]Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 01 2007,09:22)]I would love to see some of those old DOS programs that worked with fractals running on a 3ghz machine! #Talk about something taking all night to generate! # You could watch a fractal figure forming, one element at a time ( if you had lots of PATIENCE! ) on a 8088 machine, even if it was equipped with a math co-processor !

Ah, the good old days !

73, Jim
Even if you could get it to run, it would be horribly inefficient. #Yes, it would run fast, but not as fast as if it was compiled for and ran on a modern OS.

Worst case is you'd be running in compatibility mode which would sacrifice features of modern processors and chipsets.

The only good reason to do what you describe would be nostalgia, and nostalgia alone.
I'm really not sure about that. #If , as PVL describes, these computers are coming without a Windoze OS, and you load it with DOS up to 6.2X, it would not be running in a DOS window, but in the old operating system directly, would it not ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif # Then the difference would be that the CPU would be running native MSDOS at a very advanced speed ( 3 Ghz as opposed to 4.77 Mhz ), and there would be no compatibility mode issues to deal with at all. #

Right? #Wrong? #How about someone with a bit more experience in computers and OS from the last year or so chipping in. #My computer training ended about 5 years ago!

73, Jim
I've been programming since long before DOS up to now using Vista.

Jim, you are correct. Take out the complicated memory managing, time-slicing OS, replace it with a simple interrupt driven single task OS like DOS, and you have the fastest machine possible on whatever hardware you're running.

I have a C program that I wrote many years ago for generating and displaying the Mandelbrot set. I probably even spelled his name wrong because it's been years since I saw or typed it!

I never used it on other than a Window machine because I didn't feel like dealing with the hardware for displaying it or the mouse interface I used for position and diving into the set.

What used to take days on an old 486 machine ran in minutes on my last 3 ghz machine. I've usually built and executed the program with every machine upgrade. I haven't done it since I went to a dual core machine because I would actually expect it to be slower: the individual cores are not as fast as my last (3 ghz) machine, and the code would only be executing in one core.

But anyway, you are correct; take any given box, and no matter what OS you put on it, none are going to perform faster than with DOS only on that box. Every cycle used by an OS that is not executing on behalf of the application program is a cycle that the application program, the whole point of computing, is not running. Number crunching algorithms don't need any OS help. Even today's most efficient OSs are executing a lot of code just to maintain status of the computing environment; much more so than DOS, which essentially does nothing on it's own but update the current time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Mike

[N4PRT]

I guess firing up the old XT beast is somewhat akin to operating boatanchors--buy considerably less so in my opinion. A twenty five year old rig and a new rig doing ssb chat on 75 are still pretty identical beasts. A twenty five year old computing platform and a 686 or X64 platform in a GUI???

Think that I will stick with my XP/HRD system with all the ancillary programs to do everything that has been stated here--and more. Things like VOAProp, audio signal processing both ways, spectral display, mapping, more digital modes than I can count, sortable logging, multi-rig control, antenna control, the list goes on and on.

All in a nice GUI multi-tasking environment--and no I have never had major issues with running any of these programs in a windows environment. Some folks still tinker with Amiga and other such machines and have great fun with it. So, tinker away.

But for a contemporary station that the operator wishes to maximize his or her options, computing nostalgia or linux nerdiness is not most functional course. I have done several demo simulations of HRD for clubs in my area on the laptop--my linux friends keep complaining about interface issues and gee that is a nice feature, sure like to have it... Each to their own though.

Cleaning out the garage for a shop conversion last week, I ran across my first computer, the venerable Compaq Portable Plus. No comment about what was paid for it in 1984. Still boots to DOS 6 point something, of what possible use it might be aside from a curiosity, I cannot imagine. Several boxes of old cards as well--felt some reservation when I threw out two Pioneer Multi-Change CD SCSI decks--running at a screaming 1X-4X.

Nope, don't miss the old days at all.

[KD5NCO]

Thanks Patrick

Saved me some typing.....My thoughts exactly...

My three home assembled "super computers" are running XP and not one BSOD for several years now... Significantly overclocked Barton cores from AMD. #

BTW most of you out there can thank guys like me---- we stuck with CYrix and AMD for years and it is only that competition that keeps Intel's prices in check...

Ah yes! Another nostalgia thread...OK # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

The Timex Sinclair ( that I built from a kit) was not my first computer---- a FADAC (Field Artillery Digital Automatic Computer ) was in 1972

My first Hard drive around '83 was a Seagate "Winchester" RLL (Run Length Limited) #5 Mb that cost a small fortune for my home built 4.77MHz 8088 w/764Kb of very slow ram. That HD was infinitely better then the Radio Shack cassette tape player/recorder attached to my ViC 20 or Commador 64.

Ya all remember those fine 300 baud acoustic coupled MOdeMs that cost twice as much a modern day Linksys broadband "N" flavored router/Modem/WiFi access point?

Today I have Quad Western Digital 10,000 RPM Raptors' "stripped" 'N "Mirrored" that whoop butt in through put and data security against any of the fastest SCSI arrays I used in the past (and they are cheaper, infinitely easier to configure, and simple to maintain)

BTW#1-- the Raptor drives (semi expensive from a $$ to Gigabyte point of view) are cheaper then that first 5Mb drive IIRC it was $530 plus tax

-- I still have the 18 DIP chips of the first 1 MB of 70NS memory I got at some CUG/PUG/MUG (I forget) convention in Norfolk Scope around 1987--- The chips cost me $475... (Today I can source a 1 GIG "stick" of DDR 400 for $19 or good quality overclock-able 2 Gig "sticks" for under $80)

Wax nostalgic all you want---drool all over the terabytes of free OSs and software... I have grown to appreciate the utility I get out of my machines now... I am happy to leave the Days/Weeks/Months of tinkering and fiddling to the past

However...for those of you for whom this is a gold mine of nostalgia and time filling bliss...more power to ya...really.... some of you need to be busyier...

Several of you spend entirely too much time on these web sites!

# Hey just an opinion folks http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif# unbind your nickers #grin hi hi

But Nomex on anyway----just cuz I know the characters here at the mighty Zed! # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

BTW#2-- this note written from in front of my new (thank you newegg) $189.99 (free shipping no taxes) 24inch wide screen flat pannel..... The 15" multi-sync View-sonic VGA monitor my wife got me for Xmas 1989 was $489.99, $31.75 sales tax, and $45 shipping

Ain't nostalgia fun.... #I really really need to shred these receipts # # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (ab1ga @ Nov. 01 2007,18:26)]Process improvements in chip manufacturing allowed designers to put much more functionality on a single die, sometimes accessible only through extended instruction sets.

If the compiler, etc. are too old they didn't know about the new features and cannot use them today. Old programs are denied the speed improvements because they don't utilize the newer instruction sets.
While "old" DOS programs written for, say an 8088 obviously would not be able to use new instruction set elements, the old instructions would still execute at the greater processor speed. So yes, many of the old programs WOULD execute faster, unless there were specific timing loops that were processor-speed independent.

[kc6toa]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Nov. 03 2007,03:32)]Jim, you are correct. Take out the complicated memory managing, time-slicing OS, replace it with a simple interrupt driven single task OS like DOS, and you have the fastest machine possible on whatever hardware you're running.
Yea, well computers are often required to do more than one thing at a time. This is where multitasking is required. Todays operating systems do their "time slicing" from a timer interrupt. A timer interrupt that does special stack manipulation so the return from interrupt returns to a different "main loop" from which it was running in before the interrupt. This is called preemptive multitasking. And if your concerned about this consuming too much resources, you can simply slow down the firing rate of the timer interrupt.
If anybody is interested in a "bare-bones" implementation of such a thing, check out FreeRTOS (http://freertos.org)


And whats with this freeDOS pre-installed on new computers, how dare you try to avoid the Microsoft tax (http://web.archive.org/web/20001119151600/http://www.microsoft.com/oem/nakedPC.htm)

[KG6YTZ]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Nov. 03 2007,15:37)]My first Hard drive around '83 was a Seagate "Winchester" RLL (Run Length Limited) #5 Mb that cost a small fortune
And, if that was anything like the "Winchester drive" units that Radio Shack was selling at the time, it was probably external and about the size of a typical first-generation AT desktop case, wasn't it? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I'll bet the platters were about ten inches across.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (kc6toa @ Nov. 03 2007,19:39)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Nov. 03 2007,03:32)]Jim, you are correct. Take out the complicated memory managing, time-slicing OS, replace it with a simple interrupt driven single task OS like DOS, and you have the fastest machine possible on whatever hardware you're running.
Yea, well computers are often required to do more than one thing at a time. #This is where multitasking is required. #Todays operating systems do their "time slicing" from a timer interrupt. # A timer interrupt that does special stack manipulation so the return from interrupt returns to a different "main loop" from which it was running in before the interrupt. #This is called preemptive multitasking. #And if your concerned about this consuming too much resources, you can simply slow down the firing rate of the timer interrupt.
If anybody is interested in a "bare-bones" implementation of such a thing, check out FreeRTOS (http://freertos.org)


And whats with this freeDOS pre-installed on new computers, how dare you try to avoid the Microsoft tax (http://web.archive.org/web/20001119151600/http://www.microsoft.com/oem/nakedPC.htm)
Uh, yes, I know. (I actually worked on production code back in the DOS days that preemptively multi-tasked DOS. We re-programmed the hardware clock for more frequent interrupts and performed time-sliced program loading and execution. Pre-emptive multitasking works on all interrupts, not just the clock. The clock is actually the minimum point to switch tasks. Much efficiency is introduced when you include things like disk interrupts, disk read/write commands, etc. No sense wasting the cycles while data is physically being read for one task; another task can be executing during that time. )

That was not the point being raised.

The question and suggestion was about running DOS and DOS programs on one of today's modern boxes. Someone suggested that it would not run as fast as software built for a modern OS, and my counter was that no software is going to run faster than software built for and executed under a simple, single task OS like DOS.

Mike

[wv6z]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 31 2007,06:26)]You can keep DOS, I'd rather be running Linux or BSD.
Ya gotta consider the fact we're talking ham radio here....... programs and equipment wise we are still stuck in 1980's technology Hell for some reason.

I'm still trying to figure out why the heck my new rig has a nine pin serial port connector on it instead of a USB...... WTF?!?! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (wv6z @ Nov. 04 2007,03:53)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Oct. 31 2007,06:26)]You can keep DOS, I'd rather be running Linux or BSD.
Ya gotta consider the fact we're talking ham radio here....... programs and equipment wise we are still stuck in 1980's technology Hell for some reason.

I'm still trying to figure out why the heck my new rig has a nine pin serial port connector on it instead of a USB...... WTF?!?! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Talk to the vendors! I have.

The response that I received from NRD was that they were supplying what they believe the market wanted. I responded back, asking if I was the only one who had ever asked them why they're still using RS-232, and did the fact of being questioned tell them something about the market? Never received another reply.

I wrote to Sony, asking why they didn't produce just a television monitor without all of the receiver and audio electronics for the consumer. They're reply was they were providing what the market wanted. I responded that they were ignoring all of the home entertainment systems that they marketed and sold. Did they think someone purchased one of their home entertainment system, 5.1 or 7.1 audio, connected it to their cable or satellite receivers, DVD players, etc, and then had any use for the television tuner or audio electronics? Never received another reply.

I'm sure there's a reason, but I don't understand either case.

Mike

[N0NB]

Even USB 2.0 will soon be antiquated. #It's nearly inexcusable for the current crop of modern radios to not have an integrated Ethernet port with a built-in web server for configuration (see the average home router/switch/AP). #This is turn-key off the shelf stuff for the manufacturers and can't be any more costly than a serial interface.

Of course, the reason a modern radio still sports a DB9 connector (see FT-450/950) is for legacy applications and the manufacturers know that they still must aim for the lowest common denominator in order to maximize sales.

It would really be a no-brainer for the manufacturers to employ a TCP/IP daemon that would listen to a configurable TCP port and accept rig control commands. #Writing a socket based client is almost trivial as every scripting language (TCL, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.) supports socket programming as do "real" programming languages.

Ethernet is ubiquitous. #But radio interfaces won't change until we hams demand the change. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KD8COO]

Funny, it really annoys me that it's so hard to find a new laptop with a serial port. Those USB to serial devices (actually, USB devices in general) seem to be a little less reliable than a true serial port. Why do I still use serial do you ask?

Well, if you think us hams are behind the times, you haven't been involved in manufacturing or microcontroller work recently! That's still mostly serial! USB devices are few and far between! The lifespan on the equipment is so much longer than you expect out of a desktop PC that you end up with a huge technology gap! Fine with me, plain old serial is easier to work with anyways and has a more than sufficient data rate for many apps.

[N4PRT]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Nov. 03 2007,15:37)]BTW most of you out there can thank guys like me---- we stuck with CYrix and AMD for years and it is only that competition that keeps Intel's prices in check....My first Hard drive around '83 was a Seagate "Winchester" RLL (Run Length Limited) 5 Mb that cost a small fortune for my home built 4.77MHz 8088 w/764Kb of very slow ram...
Thanks for the chuckle, Fred! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I actually threw out the receipts during the garage cleanout last week. When I got the Compaq ($3200) it came with two 360Kb 5 1/4" drives, and a whopping 256Kb of memory. The OS of course ran off one of the floppies. Over the course of time, it received a 8087 co-processor, a new Panasonic V20 processor, 1Mb extended memory, etcetera. As it sits now, there is a 40Mb hard disk, and 3 1/4" floppy. Went through all of the MFM and RLL drives to get there.

Did the Cyrix route, and still specify AMD for all my boxes and client machines, including servers. Thank [insert deity of your choice] for Newegg! Remember the Evergreen upgrade boards that used a Cyrix chip to over-ride the main processor? Cyrix is still around making embedded applications.

Computerization of the shack is the new "sideband" of our times. By that I mean it is where the most of the experimentation is now taking place, similar to how rigs were extensively modified in the 50s and 60s. While I can empathize with the DOS crew about the convenience of writing simple routines in BASIC, what is required these days leaves my old BASIC and modern PHP skills in the dust. What a great avenue to bring a new young generation of hams on board!

The ham stereotype is that we are cheap and inveterate recyclers. Yup, a lot of truth here. It is interesting that in many of the shack photos posted out in the nethernet I see two or three computer monitors. Ummmm, coupled to two or three old computers... In my setup, one box (3600+/1Gb) is serving two spanned monitors. This allows plenty of visual workspace for multiple ham apps, plus browser and remote desktop to the server and other workstation in the office. Sometimes you just need to retire the old beasts and move onward.

The lack of user friendly or attractive GUI in Linux solutions has always puzzled me, especially considering the developer base that is active. But, this has always been a platform for the technically astute computer geek. We owe a tremendous vote of thanks to the likes of Mako Mori, Simon Brown, Dave Bernstein, and many others for developing and offering quality windows freeware available to our community.

Interfaces are catching up. It's all a matter of market forces--technology matching software development.

[N5PVL]

I was amazed to discover that DOS was not dead a few years ago, when working with a new embedded PC that ran on DOS. - Many of them do.

One aspect of computer-related experimentation that hams are really missing the boat on are the tiny PC-104 form factor embedded computers.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/uspacket/33-386sx.jpg

That is the motherboard, memory and processor. See the battery and the speaker? - You must haywire or buy a kit to hook up a monitor, keyboard, serial/ethernet/usb/video. - etc.

The PC-104 computers have stackable modules that provide support for video, serial ports, etc..

That's the fun part, getting it hooked up and talking to it. It cost me 29 bux NOS, it's a 33 Mhz 386-sx that requires no CPU fan. - Not even a heat-sink!

I worked over one of these 133 Mhz P1 embedded computers:

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/arwatch/uspacket/IMG_0023.jpg

Now it boots up from FLASH into ROMDOS and runs a three port Packet switch ( BPQ ) in a RAMDISK ( reduces the writes to flash ) with no moving or rotating parts. The board is 5 3/4 x 9", cost me fifteen bux.

It runs just fine with no keyboard or monitor attached, and has a sophisticated "watchdog" system built in to the motherboard. Note that this board has an empty PCI-bus slot and that it runs with a heat-sink. No fan is required. To get video for setup chores, just plug a VGA card into the PCI slot. There is also onboard support for VGA and a variety of LCD screens if you want to wire it up.

They work with laptop drives, obsolete laptop docking stations are great with them, they use very little power, are made to handle rough conditions, and most importantly...

They are showing up on the industrial salvage market in large lots at low, low prices !

Stop by at E-Bay or a salvage website and search for:
<ul>
PC104 computer
embedded computer
industrial computer
POS computer
touchscreen computer
[/list]
Lots of fun to play with, and there are dozens of interesting applications for a small, tough, cheap computer.

This is why Dell is offering computers with DOS, as well as with Linux. - There really is a market out there for fast, capable DOS computers to run the new flavors of DOS. - For the guys who write those embedded applications, and for DOS nuts too, I suppose!

Ham applications:

Packet node / BBS, Repeater controller, Balloon flights, R/C aircraft, SDR computer, homebrew radio "front end" on a touchscreen lcd, APRS+, and so on.

[KD8COO]

Quote[/b] (N4PRT @ Nov. 04 2007,08:16)]Did the Cyrix route, and still specify AMD for all my boxes and client machines, including servers. #Thank [insert deity of your choice] for Newegg! #Remember the Evergreen upgrade boards that used a Cyrix chip to over-ride the main processor? #Cyrix is still around making embedded applications.
Ugh. I don't miss the Evergreen upgrades or Cyrix chips at all. Those things were impossible to keep cool enough for reliable operation in 32-bit mode. Saw more than my fair share of them that would run 16-bit apps fine, but go all crashy in 32-bit mode...

Glad to see AMD finally has some decent chips now. I suffered through them for many years as well, finally giving up (temporarily) when the first round of Athlons came out. Now, with the Opteron, they've got one I can specify again.