What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

[dibl]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

The WRT54GL is a good one -- I wore mine out, apparently, and ended up replacing it with a TRENDnet TEW-633GR. Works equally well, for my little home installation.

[Snowhog]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

The WRT54GL is a good one -- I wore mine out, apparently, and ended up replacing it with a TRENDnet TEW-633GR. Works equally well, for my little home installation.

I ordered a WRT54GL from Amazon a few days back. It's OS is Linux, and, with the extra onboard memory, one can easily replace the firmware with some very good third-party firmware that allows you to get a lot more out of the router than Cisco allows.

Tomato Firmware is what I was 'suggested' as a good alternative.

[lmilano]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

Wow, am I the only one here who just doesn't run windows? I don't seem to need it, no one in my house seemst to need it, we are a happy family

[sithlord48]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

i have a WRT54G v8 they took out the extra ram so most firmware replacements are not possible with this model , if you plan to use such firm ware becarefull sometime in a HW revision they break compatibility

[GreyGeek]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

Wow, am I the only one here who just doesn't run windows? I don't seem to need it, no one in my house seemst to need it, we are a happy family

I don't run Windows. Between 1/1/2000 and 4/2004 I didn't even have it installed on any of my machines. But, in 2004, an Ag engineering friend of mine asked me to write a fly-by-wire controller for the new kind of ag tractor he was inventing. The tool for the job runs only on Windows. He (and I) finished that project about a year ago, but I keep Windows around in case he needs some modifications

In the last year the only time I've run Windows is to update it, and for a part of a day last week when I worked out a way for the guy who replaced me at work to run GPL Qt under MSVCExpress 2008 because the QtCreator using the MinGW compiler under Windows has too many issues in the production environment..

[Telengard]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

Wow, am I the only one here who just doesn't run windows? I don't seem to need it, no one in my house seemst to need it, we are a happy family

No, I am pretty sure GreyGeek is the same as you.

The problem with having used Windows for so many years is that you never know what you'll miss after you stop using it. For example, a great deal of Windows software uses proprietary formats for data, and sometimes the free software alternatives have problems with those formats. There are also some well written Windows programs which will never have Linux versions, such as ImgBurn. There usually are Linux programs which do the same thing, but they are not the same as our old, comfortable, reliable programs. Sometimes it is so hard enough to learn a new program that many people will simply give up.

At this point I think I've outgrown all those excuses, but I am still keeping Windows XP on a VM just in case. Since I never used Vista and Win 7, they can go to hell. Microsoft has gotten enough of my money and caused me enough agony over the years.

[sithlord48]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

i don't run windows. at all , on any of my machines... (my phone runs windows mobile & i can't change it yet....)
no VM of xp. i use wine to run a few programs, imgburn being one of them, and games making up the rest.

[Ole Juul]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

At this point I think I've outgrown all those excuses, but I am still keeping Windows XP on a VM just in case. Since I never used Vista and Win 7, they can go to hell. Microsoft has gotten enough of my money and caused me enough agony over the years.

It looks like you've invested a lot of time into MS-Win - and you still made it. I can can see that there are others here in the same boat. It actually takes some guts to move on like that.

I've been lucky in that all my computing has been optional (read amateur). When Win-3.1 came out I "wised up" to Microsoft's shenanigans and retreated back into DOS until Linux came along. I admit that I still run MS-DOS a lot, but I'm not giving them any more money. I could change to DR-DOS or PTS-DOS, but there's not really much point now.

Just to pull this vaguely back on the topic of hardware one of the fun things with DOS is that now I can throw as much hardware at it as it can take, without spending a penny. My current SuperDOS machine is a P1 with 128Mb of ram and it's lightning fast like nothing we ever saw back in the day. It's actually a whole lot of fun.

[GreyGeek]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

......
one of the fun things with DOS is that now I can throw as much hardware at it as it can take, without spending a penny. My current SuperDOS machine is a P1 with 128Mb of ram and it's lightning fast like nothing we ever saw back in the day. It's actually a whole lot of fun.

So, what do you do with a DOS box? Email? Browse the web. Write documents? Share what and with whom?

[Ole Juul]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

......
one of the fun things with DOS is that now I can throw as much hardware at it as it can take, without spending a penny. My current SuperDOS machine is a P1 with 128Mb of ram and it's lightning fast like nothing we ever saw back in the day. It's actually a whole lot of fun.

So, what do you do with a DOS box? Email? Browse the web. Write documents? Share what and with whom?

The Quick answer:
Write a lot, text file management, FTP, Telnet, SSH.

The "sorry I asked" answer:
I like to write, and to me that involves a lot of small files that may, or may not, end up being part of larger ones. DOS is very efficient for file management. It is also great for an amateur to customize because the batch language is so simple and friendly for beginners. My whole machine runs off hundreds of batch files which after 20 years, I can now write in my sleep. I don't (and won't) use a mouse, but I have cut/paste and very many other features from the CLI. I also have a rocket fast, skid proof, cursor which I've never seen a utility for in another OS. I've long since dumped the Microsoft utilities and I only use the basic 3 OS files, (about 140k) to which I add a handful of little utilities which I've gathered up over the years. Most basic *nix commands work in DOS. A 1.44 floppy holds much more than I need to be happy.

Along with the text files comes FTP which works like a hot damn in DOS - mostly because it's so quick to set up short commands to operate it. For a web page I can update the server with a single command. I also move files around to/from the other Linux boxen in the house. Things like ping and traceroute are also easier for me in DOS. For example, when my internet connection goes down I run a script (batch file) which tells me what part of the chain is down.

While I'm on a DOS machine I also use Telnet or SSH which makes all the Linux boxen available to me as if I was sitting at them. It's just an ANSI terminal. I use a KVM between my main Linux and DOS boxes, so it generally doesn't matter what machine I do this from.

Currently, I'm doing my email on the web, but that has to come to an end soon. I'll be going back to doing it mostly on a DOS box where all I need is a POP3 and SMTP transport utility of which there are a number of very small and good ones - the rest is just file management. I don't like a single e-mail program I've seen in either DOS or Linux. The storage of small files (messages) is actually quite efficient using 8k clusters which is what I get in 16 bit DOS on a 1/2 GB partition.

Web browsing is possible using a version of lynx but there's not really any point because I use Dillo in Linux. I sometimes run FTP, HTTP, and miscellaneous other servers but that's just for fun because Linux shine at those things. Basically, Linux to me is for sound, photo, print layout, and browsing.

I know a lot of what I do in DOS can be done in Linux, but it requires a lot of learning. To set up a CLI machine where every single file is put in it's place by me is simply out of my league.
The whole DOS user manual takes up only one small book and is readable by non-technical users. DOS is basically a simplified, single user version of unix for people like me with limited abilities.

I guess this turned into a bit of a dissertation! I have this thing about how OSs have moved out of the users control, and I like to have control over my computer since it's mine.

[Snowhog]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

I guess this turned into a bit of a dissertation! I have this thing about how OSs have moved out of the users control, and I like to have control over my computer since it's mine.

Couldn't have said clearer than that!

[Telengard]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

Mods, I humbly request a the thread be split at Ole Juul's reply #112. If it isn't inconvenient for you I mean. TIA.

It looks like you've invested a lot of time into MS-Win - and you still made it. I can can see that there are others here in the same boat. It actually takes some guts to move on like that.

It didn't take guts, just fierce determination borne from years of frustration caused by buggy drivers (Win 98), spyware, viruses, unexplainable data loss, registry constipation and corruption, non-existent security (IE 6 and Active-X), oppressively restrictive software licenses, incompatible proprietary data formats, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. Being a Windows user for over a decade left me a paranoid wreck, waiting for the next system failure or malware attack, and I became sorely embittered against the monolithic corporate entity which profited from all of it. Linux may not be perfect, but thank God for the freedom to choose!

I've been lucky in that all my computing has been optional (read amateur). When Win-3.1 came out I "wised up" to Microsoft's shenanigans and retreated back into DOS until Linux came along. I admit that I still run MS-DOS a lot, but I'm not giving them any more money. I could change to DR-DOS or PTS-DOS, but there's not really much point now.

Ever heard of NewDeal? My first PC came with that instead of Windows 3.1. It was years later when I finally discovered DOS. DOS was great for games, and some of those games (Doom II, Quake, Warcraft) are still the best. Now I use DOSBox to play them. The DOSBox team has done a great job, and it is easier to setup and play those games in DOSBox than it ever was in MS-DOS.

DOS is very efficient for file management.

If you can learn to live within the eightdotthree restrictions, sure. FAT-16 is very efficient on partitions smaller than a CD-ROM.

It is also great for an amateur to customize because the batch language is so simple and friendly for beginners.

I would say MS-DOS is completely unusable without batch files. It is far too simple a language for my needs though. To get anything done you have to have all kinds of add-on utilities to expand on the extremely rudimentary functionality provided. BASH really puts it to shame in a lot of ways. I don't know how I ever got along without command substitution for example.

Web browsing is possible using a version of lynx but there's not really any point because I use Dillo in Linux.

There is also Arachne, but the damn thing crashed every time I used it.

The whole DOS user manual takes up only one small book and is readable by non-technical users. DOS is basically a simplified, single user version of unix for people like me with limited abilities.

Except that DOS doesn't even come close to the functionality of a modern Unix-like system. DOS is frozen in time, trapped in its 1970s roots because it can never grow beyond the capabilities of the software written for it. There have been efforts to enhance DOS with large filesystems and full 32-bit functionality, but any little thing you change is likely to cause incompatibility with legacy software.

I have this thing about how OSs have moved out of the users control, and I like to have control over my computer since it's mine.

Linux has finally given me control, to whatever extent I choose to take it. I can run Linux with or without a GUI, and I can freely choose to install or not any other parts I want. Best of all, I am finally free of Microsoft's user-choking licenses. IMHO, Linux + GNU is the solution I wanted all along.

If you seriously want to keep using DOS on your machines into the future, then I suggest you get involved with FreeDOS. It works like MS-DOS, but it is free software.

FreeDOS is open source software; you can view and edit our source code. Most FreeDOS programs are distributed under the GNU General Public License ("GNU GPL"). Because we are open source / Free software, FreeDOS would not exist were it not for all the people who contribute to it. Even if you don't write code, you can help out the FreeDOS Project by submitting comments and bug reports.

As for me, I am content to let DOSBox serve all my DOS needs. It does so quite well.

[Ole Juul]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

Telengard: Mods, I humbly request a the thread be split at Ole Juul's reply #112. If it isn't inconvenient for you I mean. TIA.

Sorry if I led things waayyy off topic.
Oh well, I guess I've done it now....

Ever heard of NewDeal? My first PC came with that instead of Windows 3.1. It was years later when I finally discovered DOS. DOS was great for games, and some of those games (Doom II, Quake, Warcraft) are still the best.

Yes, I had a NewDeal demo CD when it came out. It's not really my style. To me it has the same problem as 3.1 in that it takes control of the screen and is only semi configurable. I've never played games so I don't know how that part works.

Now I use DOSBox to play them. The DOSBox team has done a great job, and it is easier to setup and play those games in DOSBox than it ever was in MS-DOS.

I've heard it mentioned a lot of times, I should have a look at that.

Regarding my statement: "DOS is very efficient for file management."

If you can learn to live within the eightdotthree restrictions, sure. FAT-16 is very efficient on partitions smaller than a CD-ROM.

Actually I go beyond eightdotthree - although I thoroughly enjoy that structure. I've always included the file size and full path name in my view of the file. To me a file name is actually the file "identity" which in 16 bit DOS is 128 bits. It's all in how you choose to look at it. I think that remembering file sizes is a bit like the way GUI people recognize icons. I run my directories quite deep, so perhaps too, I equate position with identity.
Nevertheless, the efficiency I was referring to was not really related to cluster size and file systems, but rather the user interface. I have it set up to match my own needs - complete with little sounds to indicate what has or has not been done. As mentioned earlier, I run the whole shebang on batch files. I see that you agree that there is no other way to do it.

I would say MS-DOS is completely unusable without batch files. It is far too simple a language for my needs though. To get anything done you have to have all kinds of add-on utilities to expand on the extremely rudimentary functionality provided. BASH really puts it to shame in a lot of ways. I don't know how I ever got along without command substitution for example.

I certainly would never set up a DOS box without command substitution! To me, that would be downright disingenuous. I know there are some people who "install" DOS, and just put a whole mess on a disk and call it an installation. That, IMHO, is wrong. One should install a kernel, set up a clear and sensible file structure, then put in the needed utilities and write a series of batch files to suit ones typing style and the work to be done. I pay particular attention to the poetry of the mnemonics and the personal ergonomics of the key strokes. I have a slightly gimped left hand so that's where the personalized keystrokes come in.
I don't know what you mean by "add-on utilities". Yes, the utilities that MS provides are mostly (but not all) garbage, but you are supposed to collect your own! I guess it's a matter of experience, but at this point I can put together a unique DOS machine in a few minutes. The complexity of most other OSs wouldn't allow someone of my (probably low) intelligence to do that - even after years of experience.
Yes, BASH is vastly better, but it's very hard to learn. I am working on it. In the meanwhile I like to enjoy myself. Also, I need to be able to put a whole OS and functional programs on a floppy because I often use minimal machines. The reasons for that are probably best left to a blog posting. VBG!

There is also Arachne, but the damn thing crashed every time I used it.

I used Arachne throughout it's whole functional life. It's great! You can find old posts from me on the Arachne mailing list. Unfortunately, it came to the end of it's rope. That's when Linux started really playing an important role for me.

In response to my statement: "The whole DOS user manual takes up only one small book and is readable by non-technical users. DOS is basically a simplified, single user version of unix for people like me with limited abilities."

Except that DOS doesn't even come close to the functionality of a modern Unix-like system. DOS is frozen in time, trapped in its 1970s roots because it can never grow beyond the capabilities of the software written for it.

That's called "stable"! I notice that many POS systems still use it. Although I suspect they have another back end for networking and other tasks. I remind you that many of the tasks that were relevant in the 1970s are still useful today. Things haven't changed that much.

There have been efforts to enhance DOS with large filesystems and full 32-bit functionality, but any little thing you change is likely to cause incompatibility with legacy software.

It's not that hard, besides PTS, Novell, and others have fully developed 32bit DOSses with full network stacks. I'm OK with my old, stable, 16 bit system and my own simple network stack that I know how to use and customize. Simtel, Garbo, and others are still there for me and the many, many, thousands of utilities and programs can be picked off the net just like using apt-get. I also have thousands of utilities available from machines on my home network so I'm set for life anyway.
I agree, "DOS doesn't even come close to the functionality of a modern Unix-like system", but it doesn't need to. It does what it does, and that is very useful indeed!

Linux has finally given me control, to whatever extent I choose to take it. I can run Linux with or without a GUI, and I can freely choose to install or not any other parts I want. Best of all, I am finally free of Microsoft's user-choking licenses. IMHO, Linux + GNU is the solution I wanted all along.

Actually, you and I are on the same page there. I just don't have the skill and energy to fully implement the strategy. Despite the difficulties I have with the way things are going, I trust FOSS. Nothing is perfect, I can't control that, but I can avoid evil.

If you seriously want to keep using DOS on your machines into the future, then I suggest you get involved with FreeDOS. It works like MS-DOS, but it is free software.

I was involved on the original FreeDOS mailing list. I'm sure I have a copy of the original alpha command.com here. In fact, I could probably dig up an e-mail from Jim Hall. So, yes, I am quite familiar with it. IBM should also be mentioned as a source of DOS, although obviously not open source. There's a lot of choice - and some is current. There's even people developing software for DOS as we speak. I'm waiting for a brand new, leaner, meaner, Telnet to roll off the press soon.

The issue of which DOS to use is not a very big one for me. All I use is the two kernel files and the command interpreter. The rest is my own choice. Like I mentioned above, taking the selection chosen by the original distributor makes a messy system and I strongly recommend against it for so many reasons that I could write a book on it. I am very odd, I know, but I can't tolerate a file tree that is not exactly according to my own plan. I think it is part of my autism, but my DOS system does not have any files that I did not put (and choose to put) in it's specific place. Any program that crosses that line gets dumped immediately, and with DOS I have that luxury.

As for me, I am content to let DOSBox serve all my DOS needs. It does so quite well.

I understand. We have different needs. For example, one machine which I love because of it's small size and amber plasma screen, has a broken MFM drive. The surface of the disks is faulty and any possible replacement will have the same problem. That leaves me with one 720K diskette drive for my OS, programs, and data. (I use this for inventory collection in the basement.) With DOS I can do that. My kernel plus interpreter adds up to 66Kb. I know Linux can do many things like that too, but that is way over my head at this point in my computer education. In fact, I doubt that I'll ever get there.

In the meanwhile, I trust my FOSS friends to do the right thing so I can use their freely given software without having to worry about ethics. I can't control it like DOS, but when I want more sophisticated computing I've turned to Linux. There really is no other viable choice. So here I am with one foot in each world.

[Telengard]

Re: What CPU and video for a new computer? (It's here!)

It will be fun to run some tests with the Phoronix test suite and compare systems (mostly bite the dust in my case, LOL)

I installed the package from the Jaunty repositories, but there were a bunch of errors reported while configuring the packages. The program seems to run, but I don't think the results reflect reality.