unix on an Intel 8088, 8086
Dale Henderson
Hi
I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
Thanks
--
Dale Henderson <mailto:nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>
"Imaginary universes are so much more beautiful than this stupidly-
constructed 'real' one..." -- G. H. Hardy
gippah
Dale Henderson wrote:
> I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
Bill Marcum
In message <m2205t5...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu (Dale Henderson) wrote:
>
>Hi
>
>I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
>way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
>on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
>
networking capability, but not PPP. There is also a tiny version of Linux
for the 8086 called ELKS (http://www.linux.org.uk/Linux8086.html), but it
is a work in progress whereas Minix is a more complete system.
You might find that the best use for the XT is simply to use it as a terminal,
running an old shareware DOS program such as Procomm or Telix.
--
Bill Marcum bmarcum at iglou dot com
"I'm looking at PAGES AND PAGES of stuff even the Franklin Mint couldn't
give away for free." -- K. Mennie
Bussiga Boran
In article <m2205t5...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu (Dale Henderson) writes:
> I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
MINIX should do it if it's a 8086 not 8088.
--
/Boran
*********************************************************************
Windows is not the answer, Windows is the question, the answer is no.
*********************************************************************
Kees J Bot
In article <5omujn$4...@aragorn.mdh.se>,
Bussiga Boran <bo...@dat95abs.campus.mdh.se> wrote:
>In article <m2205t5...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
> nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu (Dale Henderson) writes:
>> I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
>> way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
>> on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
>
>MINIX should do it if it's a 8086 not 8088.
Despite my best efforts I have been unable to recognize a 8088 as such
from software, so Minix will think it is a 8086 and simply work.
Does anyone have working 8088 detection code lying around that I can
use? It would be nice if Minix could properly fail on a 8088 as it is
supposed to.
:-)
To Dale: Minix doesn't have PPP, alas. :-(
--
Kees J. Bot, Systems Programmer, Dept. Math&CS, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Minix: http://www.cs.vu.nl/ftp/minix/ ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/minix/
Minix-vmd: http://Minix-vmd.cs.vu.nl/ ftp://Minix-vmd.cs.vu.nl/
James Youngman
bo...@dat95abs.campus.mdh.se (Bussiga Boran) writes:
> MINIX should do it if it's a 8086 not 8088.
IIRC they are the same from this point of view (I think the only
difference is the data bus width).
James Youngman
kjb=731...@cs.vu.nl (Kees J Bot) writes:
> Despite my best efforts I have been unable to recognize a 8088 as such
> from software, so Minix will think it is a 8086 and simply work.
>
> Does anyone have working 8088 detection code lying around that I can
> use? It would be nice if Minix could properly fail on a 8088 as it is
> supposed to.
Instruction prefetch queue length
8088 4 bytes
8086 6 bytes
So to distinguish these, write a bit of self-modifying code (this must
run with interrupts off). More details at
http://grafi.ii.pw.edu.pl/gbm/x86/16bit.html.
No code provided :-(
[this means my earlier statement is incorrect; it is possible to tell
the difference in code]
Kenneth R. Crudup
In article <so0oo5...@mega.am.cs.vu.nl>,
kjb=731...@cs.vu.nl (Kees J Bot) says:
>Does anyone have working 8088 detection code lying around that I can
>use? It would be nice if Minix could properly fail on a 8088 as it is
>supposed to. :-)
You know, I was about to ask *What?*, 'till I saw that smiley!
-Kenny
--
Kenneth R. Crudup, Unix & OS/2 Software Consultant, Scott County Consulting
ke...@panix.com CI$: 75032,3044 +1 617 524 5929/4949 Home/Office
16 Plainfield St, Boston, MA 02130-3633 +1 617 983 9410 Fax
OS/2 box: pkenny.tiac.net Realize the magic of Merlin! OS/2 4.0 is here NOW!
David Binkowski
gippah wrote:
>
> Dale Henderson wrote:
> > I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> > way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> > on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
>
Christ. What's the point without 386 memory management and protection
features. Do you really think it'll be worth while. You can find
386 motherboards and CPU's out there for a song and dance, literally.
Why not just get one of those for Linux.
Not even Linux can transform an XT into a GOOD system.
--
I
I
O==========@=========================================-
I
I
WWW: http://www.inil.com/users/os2rules
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Windows NT 4 | Windows 95 |
| (Build: 1381 -- SP 3) | (4.00.950a -- SP 1) | HAL9000
| 3,060 Meg NTFS / 3 | 1,020 Meg VFAT / 1 |~~~~~~~~~
|==================================================|
| Slackware Linux 3.00 | Windows 95 |
| (kernel v2.00.27 | (4.00.950b -- SP 2) | MERLIN
| 840 Meg ext2 / 2 | 1,600 Meg FAT32 /1 |~~~~~~~~~
|--------------------------------------------------|
Len Jacobsen
David Binkowski (os2r...@inil.com) wrote:
: > Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
: Christ. What's the point without 386 memory management and protection
: features. Do you really think it'll be worth while. You can find
: 386 motherboards and CPU's out there for a song and dance, literally.
: Why not just get one of those for Linux.
I think it is worth it. Beyond what you may think, many places still do
use old 80/88's and 286's. I worked at a school for the last few years,
and up untill last year, we had 286's running as print servers, and now
those 286's are someplace else acting as either print servers or
terminals. Places that cant afford new computers are givin hand-me-downs,
and those hand-me-downs do include pre-386 computers, and I for one would
rather deal with Linux on them then deal with DOS.
Besides, the question is not 'is it going to be worthwhile', the question
is 'can I do it'. Its the challenge, not the functionality.
: Not even Linux can transform an XT into a GOOD system.
If it can serve its intent, it is good enough for me.
peace ... laterz ...
len.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= leja...@ryche.cc.ndsu.nodak.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Len Jacobsen I want peace on earth and good will towards men.
Hardware Tech. - Whistler
Sys. Admin. We're the U.S. Governement, we don't do that sort of thing.
Beer Consumer. - N.S.A. Agent
-=-=-=-=-= I am the new way to go ... I am the way of the Future =-=-=-=-=-
James Youngman
David Binkowski <os2r...@inil.com> writes:
> gippah wrote:
> >
> > Dale Henderson wrote:
> > > I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> > > way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> > > on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
> >
> > Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
>
> Christ. What's the point without 386 memory management and protection
> features. Do you really think it'll be worth while. You can find
> 386 motherboards and CPU's out there for a song and dance, literally.
> Why not just get one of those for Linux.
>
> Not even Linux can transform an XT into a GOOD system.
We're not really talking about XT's exactly. It's more about embedded
systems; 80188s and so on.
David Young
Bill Marcum (go_spam_...@iglou1.iglou.com) wrote:
: In message <m2205t5...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
: nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu (Dale Henderson) wrote:
: >
: >Hi
: >
: >I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
: >way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
: >on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
: You can install Minix on an XT (ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/minix). Minix has some
: networking capability, but not PPP. There is also a tiny version of Linux
: for the 8086 called ELKS (http://www.linux.org.uk/Linux8086.html), but it
: is a work in progress whereas Minix is a more complete system.
: You might find that the best use for the XT is simply to use it as a terminal,
: running an old shareware DOS program such as Procomm or Telix.
: --
: Bill Marcum bmarcum at iglou dot com
: "I'm looking at PAGES AND PAGES of stuff even the Franklin Mint couldn't
: give away for free." -- K. Mennie
There used to be a commercially marketed version of unix called Xenix
that ran on XTs also.
Dave Young
you...@mail.auburn.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live long and maintain marketable job skills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Berkley
CHECK OUT MINIX, IT IS PROBABLY WHAT YOU WANT (it will even
run in 640k).
--
Don Berkley <ber...@ibm.net>
David Binkowski <os2r...@inil.com> wrote in article
<33B1D7...@inil.com>...
> gippah wrote:
> >
> > Dale Henderson wrote:
> > > I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> > > way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> > > on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
> >
> > Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
>
> Christ. What's the point without 386 memory management and protection
> features. Do you really think it'll be worth while. You can find
> 386 motherboards and CPU's out there for a song and dance, literally.
> Why not just get one of those for Linux.
>
> Not even Linux can transform an XT into a GOOD system.
>
Follower of the Clawed Albino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <33AEC6A5...@spyvspy.com>,
gippah <gip...@spyvspy.com> carved on the cave wall:
> Dale Henderson wrote:
> > I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> > way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> > on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
>
> Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
Actually, several folks; the project is called ELKS, and it's meant to be
an embedded Linux kernel subset. They're also planning ports to systems
SMALLER than the 8086/8088 (Zilog Z80 has been mentioned, and someone
also has mentioned a plan for eventual port to 6502 and maybe even PDP-11).
They've gotten it to the point they can start developing apps for it,
but it still needs an awful lot of work. (It'll be a while before ELKS
is ready for prime-time.)
There presently isn't a newsgroup for it (anyone up for co-proposing comp.
os.linux.elks? :) but a mailinglist for ELKS does exist; mail to majordomo@
vger.rutgers.edu with the message in the body "subscribe linux-8086".
As for other *nix clones, several others do exist besides ELKS. Minix is
probably the most developed of the net-available *nixes, but as of yet a
PPP driver is unavailable (there is work being done on this though; much
of the trouble is that Minix's networking is nonstandard and heavily
Ethernet-card-based). Other freely available *nixes for systems >=80286
are either in similar or lesser development stages than ELKS (Hunix, for
example) or have other serious handicaps (Proolix, which does not as of
yet have a native C compiler or any apps developed for it, although kernel
is stable).
There are some commercial alternatives available; older versions of
Coherent, PC/IX and Xenix supported 8086/8088/80286 machines. I've no
idea as to whether they contain PPP support; most of these are, as I
understand it, based pretty much on V7 Unix. (ELKS, Hunix, and Proolix
are aimed at being POSIX-compliant as possible, and Minix has recently
been mostly POSIXified)
I have heard (though cannot confirm) that QNX can be configured to
support 8086's. (It likely wouldn't suprise me, though; the entire demo
system for 386's can be fit on a 3 1/2" disk, and the site does mention
that QNX can be ported to embedded systems.)
HTH...the old 8086's can be fun toys to do "tiny yet useful" OS's on, and
you could probably port most of 'em to the palmtops like the HP 100LX and
such.
- --
- -Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency! Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund
<http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund> * Boycott Internet
Spam! <http://spam.abuse.net/spam> * Ban Spam Now! <http://www.cauce.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM7V0TT0Jz30h6bOhAQHxPwP9GzVAxhIGhf7iUai0/B4/X+FJ/wTOLEwv
NE2VPhV2J+wkSwJwh4sUYWzGMFfD0IRFtMMGcOiJIW9/vyLWcPg1gRKc3S9QR3+e
9vholLFIu5L8+4TP7uBzFa4XMcmzm+GDOxMO1ec/MUTdv1s1Jt5IM5YJoBdG8KL1
xlo1KQTVQPg=
=Wjsn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Follower of the Clawed Albino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <33B1D7...@inil.com>,
David Binkowski <os2r...@inil.com> carved on the cave wall:
> gippah wrote:
> >
> > Dale Henderson wrote:
> > > I'm about to receive a machine an IBM XT i think possibly a PC. Any
> > > way I would like to know if there is any way to install a unix system
> > > on the machine and maybe ppp or plip to network it with my Linux box.
> >
> > Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
>
> Christ. What's the point without 386 memory management and protection
> features. Do you really think it'll be worth while. You can find
> 386 motherboards and CPU's out there for a song and dance, literally.
> Why not just get one of those for Linux.
Well, I can list some reasons straight off:
1) Believe it or not, there ARE people who *still* use XT's on a daily
basis. I happen to be one of them. :) Others do it because they
are too poor to afford a new computer, they don't feel like upgrading
every five seconds when Intel puts out the Septium VIII chip, because
they are in a country where computers above an 80286 aren't common
(that was true of Russia, for instance, till somewhat recently), or
just to be contrary. Also, some folks plain LIKE old computers. :)
(Oh...and FWIW, don't tell me to upgrade unless you're prepared to
donate at least 8 megs of RAM or fourty dollars. I am building a
486 DX4/100, for fun, but I'll still be keeping the XT about. Maybe
once Minix gets a PPP driver or ELKS becomes stable network-wise I'll
put the thing up as the world's smallest Internet-connected system
just to be a wiseacre. :)
2) IBM XT's aren't the only places you can use an 8086 chip. Several
embedded applications use the chips to control stuff, and you could
easily burn a small ELKS kernel into ROM. No disk required. :)
3) There are an awful lot of people using small palmtops like the HP 100LX
and HP 200LX, which are in essence pocket 8086's. People are actually
causing a minor renaissance in development and archiving of programs that
will run on an 8086 (up to and including old shareware and new PPP
drivers--including a new DOS port of Linux pppd that DOES run on an XT).
Lots of people would take a certain amount of charm in carrying about
a pocket Linux box. :)
4) A lot of it is to Prove That It Can Be Done. There is something to be
said for working with less and making it work. (I take a certain amount
of perverse pleasure in proving persons wrong who claim it is impossible
to run PPP applications on an 8086. I do it, and it works VERY well.)
Explaining this would be like explaining mountain climbing to a couch
potato :), but some of us do like to try to do minimalist systems that
prove one doesn't NEED 16 MB of RAM and 3 gigs of disk space and 200
MHz to do a functional system. No, of course it won't be as pretty as
"big Linux" on a Pentium II with 128 MB RAM and 10 GB of disk and an
ISDN. But it will prove that *it can be done*, and it may well be that
it can be done gracefully to boot. (As a prime example of this, I'd
mention Lynx--doesn't do pics, but still one of the FINEST browsers
out there--or Arachne, which runs happily on a 286 and in some instances
*outperforms* Netscape and MSIE, and does most of what they do (including
graphics), or even the DOS port of pppd which OUTPERFORMS Winsuck. :)
> Not even Linux can transform an XT into a GOOD system.
And pray tell, what is your definition of a "good system"?
Nobody (well, save for myself and I'm being perverse :) is talking about
running a web server on an 8086, much less the next AltaVista. There are
persons who genuinely *want* a workable version of a *nix on the 8086,
though, and what with notebook computers now it probably has some actual
use potential (imagine Linux in your pocket...now TELL me that doesn't
have some appeal :).
Besides, some of us like to torture old computers. And I'm still waiting
for my eight meg in 72-pin SIMMS, thanks :)
(You know, I really, deeply, truly do hope ELKS can eventually be ported
to the Zilog Z80. I'd *love* to see this guy made a monkey out of by
someone running Linux on a Sinclair Spectrum :)
- --
- -Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency! Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund
<http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund> * Boycott Internet
Spam! <http://spam.abuse.net/spam> * Ban Spam Now! <http://www.cauce.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM7V6PT0Jz30h6bOhAQH9mAP/c6vUtqmofJROvoixuXd6tIo2Aw/tm301
6HSRd7o4rhtlSVDgKc0covQcEtUScJXOyy/V/7SY+pTXuNDCexoXEWlnccX/0ULG
ZMmh7DIBOWrk+SsuiKrmu8NOmHesuk3+K8g7RiSAwvC6Ah3F9HbULPDmvmGzhSfZ
1irHkIWLczA=
=ZMyP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dale Henderson
>>>>> "Claud" == Follower of the Clawed Albino <afn2...@pop3.afn.org> writes:
Claud> Actually, several folks; the project is called ELKS, and
Claud> it's meant to be an embedded Linux kernel subset. They're
Claud> also planning ports to systems SMALLER than the 8086/8088
Claud> (Zilog Z80 has been mentioned, and someone also has
Claud> mentioned a plan for eventual port to 6502 and maybe even
Claud> PDP-11).
Actually there is a Unix clone called lunix for the C64 which
runs a 6510 processor on 64k of RAM! The system will apparenly network.
For more info check out:
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/cbm/c64/os/lunix/
Dale Henderson
>>>>> "Follower" == Follower of the Clawed Albino <afn2...@pop3.afn.org> writes:
Follower> Nobody (well, save for myself and I'm being perverse :)
Follower> is talking about running a web server on an 8086, much
Follower> less the next AltaVista. There are persons who
Follower> genuinely *want* a workable version of a *nix on the
Follower> 8086, though, and what with notebook computers now it
Follower> probably has some actual use potential (imagine Linux in
Follower> your pocket...now TELL me that doesn't have some appeal
Follower> :).
Actually there is a department on campus that bought a P5-120
with >16Mb ram and I think 3gig hd just for a departmental Web
server.(and this behind a slow network!) Oh and ofc it has to run
Windows NT. This machine is now collecting dust. For noone will let me
touch it and let me put a good operating system on it. And I would
dearly love to set up an old xt as a web server just to show the
powers that be what is really required for this task. (But ofc w/o the
GUI :)
Terry R. McConnell
In article <m2205lj...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
Dale Henderson <nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>
> Actually there is a Unix clone called lunix for the C64 which
>runs a 6510 processor on 64k of RAM! The system will apparenly network.
>
>
>For more info check out:
>
>ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/cbm/c64/os/lunix/
>
Has anyone written an emulator for the C64 along the lines of linux's DOSEMU
progect? ( DOSEMU emulates the hardware environment expected by DOS -- an
actual copy of DOS runs on top of this. What I have in mind is to dump the
entire C64 Os from rom to a file, and then to execute this in the emulator.
If not done already it would be an interesting project. )
It would be a kick to run some old C64 apps on a pentium!
--
************************************************************************
Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/304B Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
trmc...@syr.edu http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc
************************************************************************
Dale Henderson
>>>>> "Terry" == Terry R McConnell <mcco...@hydra.syr.edu> writes:
Terry> In article <m2205lj...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
Terry> Dale Henderson <nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>> Actually there is a Unix clone called lunix for the C64 which
>> runs a 6510 processor on 64k of RAM! The system will apparenly
>> network.
>>
>>
>> For more info check out:
>>
>> ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/cbm/c64/os/lunix/
>>
Terry> Has anyone written an emulator for the C64 along the lines
Terry> of linux's DOSEMU progect? ( DOSEMU emulates the hardware
Terry> environment expected by DOS -- an actual copy of DOS runs
Terry> on top of this. What I have in mind is to dump the entire
Terry> C64 Os from rom to a file, and then to execute this in the
Terry> emulator. If not done already it would be an interesting
Terry> project. )
Actually there are several. One that I've used before is called
vice http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~fachat/vice/vice.html
Matthew Palmer
>Does anyone have working 8088 detection code lying around that I can
>use? It would be nice if Minix could properly fail on a 8088 as it is
>supposed to.
> :-)
:-) While it's a nice thought, I suppose, I was always under the impression
that the 8086 and 8088 were indistinguishable from the software's point of
view. But, as gut feelings don't stand crossexamination real well, I got
out my 'Microprocessors: volume 1' book, and found, on page 3-73, a section
entitled The 8088 Compared to the 8086, which states:
"Most internal functions are identical to the equivalent 8086 functions"
The 8088 handles the external bus the same way the 8086 does with the
distinction of handling only 8 bits at a time. Sixteen-bit operands are
fetched or written in two consecutive bus cycles."
and, as a final capper:
"Both processors will appear identical to the software engineer, with the
exception of execution time."
While people bag Intel quite a bit for stuffing things up, Their
documentation, after some 15 years of working on it is pretty accurate.
I would be interested in seeing working chip detection code which
distinguishes between the 8086 and 8088 without relying on timing, which can
be affected by a lot of other things.
Some hints to those wishing to take up this little piece of esoterica, a
further snippet from my Micro manual:
"Internally, there are three differences between the 8088 and the 8086. All
changes are related to the 8-bit bus interface.
* The queue length is 4 bytes in the 8088, whereas the 8086 queue contains 6
bytes, or 3 words. The queue was shortened to prevent overuse of the bus by
the BUI when prefetching instructions. This was required because of the
additional time necessary to fetch instructions 8 bits at a time.
* To further optimize the queue, the prefetching algorithm was changed. The
8088 BIU will fetch a new instruction to load into the queue each time there
is a 1 byte hole (space available) in the queue. The 8086 waits until a
2-byte space is available.
* The internal execution of the instruction set is affected by the 8-bit
interface. All 16-bit fetches and writes from/to memory take an additional
four clock cycles. The CPU is also limited by the speed of instruction
fetches. This latter problem only occurs when a series of simple operations
occur. When the more sophisticated instructions of the 8088 are being used,
the queue has time to fill and the execution proceeds as fast as the
execution unit will allow."
>To Dale: Minix doesn't have PPP, alas. :-(
Does anyone know what the status of the Minix project is? Is the mailing
list for this? I'd like to get involved, but I'm not keen on starting from
scratch, or even from the Linux code.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew Palmer | Technophile, programmer, and old style hacker.
mpa...@sia.net.au | E-mail me for my PGP key.
James Youngman
mpa...@sia.net.au (Matthew Palmer) writes:
> I would be interested in seeing working chip detection code which
> distinguishes between the 8086 and 8088 without relying on timing, which can
> be affected by a lot of other things.
The instruction prefetch queue was a different length on the two
machines so it is possible to tell the difference, using a piece of
self-modifying code.
James Youngman
Dale Henderson <nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu> writes:
> Actually there is a department on campus that bought a P5-120
> with >16Mb ram and I think 3gig hd just for a departmental Web
> server.(and this behind a slow network!) Oh and ofc it has to run
> Windows NT. This machine is now collecting dust. For noone will let me
> touch it and let me put a good operating system on it. And I would
> dearly love to set up an old xt as a web server just to show the
> powers that be what is really required for this task. (But ofc w/o the
> GUI :)
In 1994 I ran a Web server for a University department on a 10MHz
68000. The web server was written *in Perl*.
John Summerfield
In <33B1D7...@inil.com>, David Binkowski <os2r...@inil.com> writes:
]gippah wrote:
]Christ. What's the point without 386 memory management and protection
]features. Do you really think it'll be worth while. You can find
]386 motherboards and CPU's out there for a song and dance, literally.
]Why not just get one of those for Linux.
I used to run Concurrent CP/M-86 on a 640K NEC APC (8086: I upgraded the
CPU to a NEC V30). It ran several WordStar Professionals concurrently
very well (when I turned off keyboard polling) and even my PL/1
compiler.
As the then-available software was designed to run within 64K segments,
memory protection wasn't an issue.
WIN95 still hasn't caught up with much of what I could do then.
Cheers
John Summerfield
Perth, Western Australia
OS2 support, IBM ftp search, LAN configuration info
@ http://www.iinet.net.au/~summer/
John Summerfield
In <5otn09$a...@ultranews.duc.auburn.edu>, you...@mail.auburn.edu (David Young) writes:
]There used to be a commercially marketed version of unix called Xenix
]that ran on XTs also.
and, I think Coherent and I think IBM had an AIX then: tho perhaps that
required an AT.
William McBrine
In comp.os.minix Terry R. McConnell <mcco...@hydra.syr.edu> wrote:
: Has anyone written an emulator for the C64 along the lines of linux's
: DOSEMU progect?
Assuming you want it for Linux:
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/emulators/commodore
Elsewhere, there are C64 emulators for MSDOS, etc.
--
William McBrine | http://www.clark.net/pub/wmcbrine/html/
wmcb...@clark.net | Unsolicited commercial emailers will be annihilated
epa...@wagweb.com
On 1997-06-29 mcco...@hydra.syr.edu(TerryR.McConnell) said:
>Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,alt.os.linux,comp.os.minix
>In article <m2205lj...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu>,
>Dale Henderson <nil...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu> wrote:
>> Actually there is a Unix clone called lunix for the C64 which
>>runs a 6510 processor on 64k of RAM! The system will apparenly
>network. >
>>For more info check out:
>>ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/cbm/c64/os/lunix/
>Has anyone written an emulator for the C64 along the lines of
>linux's DOSEMU progect? ( DOSEMU emulates the hardware environment
>expected by DOS -- an actual copy of DOS runs on top of this. What
>I have in mind is to dump the entire C64 Os from rom to a file, and
>then to execute this in the emulator. If not done already it would
>be an interesting project. )
>It would be a kick to run some old C64 apps on a pentium!
>--
There is a C64 emulator for DOS/386. I think you can download a copy on
Compuserve. I looked at it... brought back memories.
Ed Padin, Systems Integration Consultant, NYC/USA
" Lead or get out of the way! "
Net-Tamer V 1.08 Palm Top - Registered
Derek Witt
Don Berkley wrote:
> CHECK OUT MINIX, IT IS PROBABLY WHAT YOU WANT (it will even
> run in 640k).
> > O==========@=========================================-
> > I
> > I
> >
> > WWW: http://www.inil.com/users/os2rules
> >
> > |--------------------------------------------------|
> > | Windows NT 4 | Windows 95 |
> > | (Build: 1381 -- SP 3) | (4.00.950a -- SP 1) | HAL9000
> > | 3,060 Meg NTFS / 3 | 1,020 Meg VFAT / 1 |~~~~~~~~~
> > |==================================================|
> > | Slackware Linux 3.00 | Windows 95 |
> > | (kernel v2.00.27 | (4.00.950b -- SP 2) | MERLIN
> > | 840 Meg ext2 / 2 | 1,600 Meg FAT32 /1 |~~~~~~~~~
> > |--------------------------------------------------|
> >
Hmm. I heard that I can install minix on an XT with 512 K of memory and
20 mb hd. A tight squeeze, but I think that can be done if I'm willing
to do without the source code. I even could dual-boot minix and dos on
this machine. :)
--
*************************************************************************
* Derek Witt * senior, computer science *
* 1524 Humboldt St BSMT * Kansas State University *
* Manhattan, KS 66502-4128 * - d...@cis.ksu.edu - *
* USA * Home Phone: +011 (913) 537-4708 *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." - Bill Gates / Borg *
*************************************************************************
Derek Witt
James Youngman wrote:
Yeah, the 8088 is so-named because it has a 8-bit data bus even it
could address 16-bit addresses. (or 1 Mb of memory). The 8086 is
so-named because it has a 16-bit data bus; it can move more data than
the 8088. This makes the 8086 somewhat faster than a 8088. As for the
pre-fetch queue, I don't know the exact specs for the chips. I would
think the 8086 pre-fetch queue is larger since the pre-fetch queue is
directly(?) connected to the data bus.
Angel Martin Alganza
Derek Witt wrote:
> Hmm. I heard that I can install minix on an XT with 512 K of memory
> and
> 20 mb hd. A tight squeeze, but I think that can be done if I'm willing
>
> to do without the source code. I even could dual-boot minix and dos on
>
> this machine. :)
I've lost all my hopes to be able to see Minix runing in my 286 with
640Kb RAM and 30 MB HD :( Good luck, and please, let me know if you
succedded, please.
Angel <alg...@mpi-seewiesen.mpg.de>
Martijn van Buul
Angel Martin Alganza (alg...@mpi-seewiesen.mpg.de) wrote:
: I've lost all my hopes to be able to see Minix runing in my 286 with
: 640Kb RAM and 30 MB HD :( Good luck, and please, let me know if you
: succedded, please.
I run Minix 2.0.0 on my 286, 640K and 20MB Harddisk. Agreed, diskspace
is quite limited, but I still have approx. 2 MB free space (When I
install the kernel source). The 640 K RAM is tighter than the 20 MB
actually (and with 30 MB, you've got plenty of space!).
:
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
Martijn ('PINO') van Buul, mart...@stack.nl
(Pino Is Not Onno!)
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"Windows '95, by the makers of EDLIN"
Try visiting OuterSpace, mud.stack.nl 3333
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
Angel Martin Alganza
Martijn van Buul wrote:
> I run Minix 2.0.0 on my 286, 640K and 20MB Harddisk. Agreed, diskspace
>
> is quite limited, but I still have approx. 2 MB free space (When I
> install the kernel source). The 640 K RAM is tighter than the 20 MB
> actually (and with 30 MB, you've got plenty of space!).
Well, if I got it installed... but I guess I have to give up after a
couple of months of tries :( After I make partitions, while trying to
make a file system... my computer hangs and I can do nothing :(
Angel
William McBrine
In alt.os.linux John Summerfield <sum...@summerfield.network> wrote:
: As the then-available software was designed to run within 64K segments,
: memory protection wasn't an issue.
Memory protection is still relevant. In "real" mode -- the only mode
available to the 8086/8088 -- you can load each segment register with any
value at all; each program therefore has access to the whole 1024k address
space. Hence, you can multitask programs on an 8088 (as on any processor),
but you can't protect them from each other.
The 286 has a protected mode, though it still uses 64k segments. The main
difference is that each running process is only allowed to load certain
values into the segment registers.
Egor Egorov
Follower of the Clawed Albino <afn2...@pop3.afn.org> wrote:
FotCA> every five seconds when Intel puts out the Septium VIII chip, because
FotCA> they are in a country where computers above an 80286 aren't common
FotCA> (that was true of Russia, for instance, till somewhat recently), or
FotCA> just to be contrary. Also, some folks plain LIKE old computers. :)
Ukraine on the air. Ukraine is a country near Russia, was the second soviet
republic. While it's not true about 386+ no more, there is a lot of XT. and
I'd loke to see, where we can use it. :)
--
Egor Egorov, ComputerWorld/Kiev, eg...@fastware.kiev.ua
Nothing in this message relates in any way with ComputerWorld/Kiev or IDG.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMC/FA/CS dx s+:- a? C+++ UBLC*++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o+ K? w--- O!
!M V? PS! PE! Y? PGP++@ t@ 5@ X@ R++@ tv++@ b+++ DI? D++() G !e h* r? z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Egor Egorov
Follower of the Clawed Albino <afn2...@pop3.afn.org> wrote:
>> Apparently someone is working right now on porting linux to the 8088.
FotCA> Actually, several folks; the project is called ELKS, and it's meant to be
FotCA> an embedded Linux kernel subset. They're also planning ports to systems
FotCA> SMALLER than the 8086/8088 (Zilog Z80 has been mentioned, and someone
FotCA> also has mentioned a plan for eventual port to 6502 and maybe even PDP-11).
PDP-11 is not smaller than 8086 at all. :)
FotCA> example) or have other serious handicaps (Proolix, which does not as of
FotCA> yet have a native C compiler or any apps developed for it, although kernel
FotCA> is stable).
Proolix is not stable yet. :( And it's not unix at all. :)
FotCA> I have heard (though cannot confirm) that QNX can be configured to
FotCA> support 8086's. (It likely wouldn't suprise me, though; the entire demo
FotCA> system for 386's can be fit on a 3 1/2" disk, and the site does mention
FotCA> that QNX can be ported to embedded systems.)
Old QNX'ses worked on 8086.
FotCA> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matt Ackeret
In article <33BC8F83...@cis.ksu.edu>, Derek Witt <d...@cis.ksu.edu> wrote:
>Hmm. I heard that I can install minix on an XT with 512 K of memory and
>20 mb hd. A tight squeeze, but I think that can be done if I'm willing
So has there been a port of MINIX to the 6502 or 65816? (More specifically,
8 bit Apple IIs, or the GS?)
There's already a UNIX-like shell (called GNO) for the GS, but I'm still
curious. (especially if there's actually a C++ compiler for minix, or
a better C compiler than the existing one, Orca/C... obviously assuming someone
did backends for 65816))
--
mat...@apple.com
Jordan Husney
>
> HTH...the old 8086's can be fun toys to do "tiny yet useful" OS's on, and
> such.
>
I have GCC for the HP-48 calc, now all I am waiting for is the
Linux OS...
Jordan.