Re: [midatlanticretro] OS/2 on a Toshiba lapmonster
- madodel wrote:
> Sridhar Ayengar wrote:I've run Warp 4 on a 386DX-33 w/4MB. It's painfully slow, but it runs.
>> Jim Scheef wrote:
>> I'm not Mark, but I've run OS/2 a lot, so I thought I might be able to
>> take a swing at this.
>>> What version of OS/2 might you recommend for my "new" Toshiba T6600C
>>> lapmonster (cira 1993)? It has 8M RAM. I have yet to run a diagnostics
>>> program on it so I don't know what the video chip is. It has a built-in
>>> Adaptec SCSI interface that runs the CD-ROM, which might affect reading
>>> a setup CD. Also, I installed an NE-2000 network card, so it would be
>>> nice if that worked as well. Any thoughts?
>> Anything newer than Warp 3 would probably do just fine. There's a bunch
>> of new capabilities that would make Warp 4 very convenient. One is that
>> it's very easy to install a late-model web browser.
>> Peace... Sridhar
> Is this a 486 or 386? Warp 4 required a 486/33 minimum. And a Pentium/75
> for VoiceType. Also Warp 4 requires a minimum of 12MB, and 16MB would be
> better. Warp3 is leaner and I seem to recall installing it in as little as
> 6 MB of RAM, but more is better, as anything less then 12MB I think used a
> lot of disk caching so it ran slow. Both versions of Warp required a 3.5"
I don't think it's a case of minimum requirements, but more of a case
of "minimum requirements".
> floppy to do the initial install boot. I think Warp 3 should recognize anI can tell you without hesitation that Warp 3 is leaner than 2.1. I was
> Adaptec SCSI but you can find a complete 3.5" diskette version, but I
> think that was 20+ diskettes to swap out. Its been almost 15 years since
> I installed Warp3 and all the copies I have are at the Museum now. I'm not
> sure if OS/2 2.1 will work with the Adaptec/CDROM combo. I think I have a
> copy of OS/2 Unleashed, 2.1 here unless I took that to InfoAge as well. If
> I can find it I will look to see if it mentions a SCSI CDROM. That release
> had both CDROM and floppy disk versions also. I'm pretty sure I have a
> couple copies of 2.1 all diskette version at InfoAge.
actually pleasantly surprised when I bought my first copy of Warp 3 and
found that out. Warp 3 was faster than 2.1 on nearly every machine I
tried it on.
> I don't think it's a case of minimum requirements, but more ofThis sentence reads to me as absurdly obtuse, Absurdly Obtuse.
> a case of "minimum requirements".
Care to try a second phrasing for us dense people?
My painfully slow experience was Java ?1.1 on a 486/33.
Something like 90 seconds to process a mouseclick. This was
actually trying something below the stated minimum requirements.
> I can tell you without hesitation that Warp 3 is leaner than 2.1. I wasVery interesting,
> actually pleasantly surprised when I bought my first copy of Warp 3 and
> found that out. Warp 3 was faster than 2.1 on nearly every machine I
> tried it on.
- John Allain wrote:
>> I don't think it's a case of minimum requirements, but more ofI didn't think anyone remembered that one. 8-)
>> a case of "minimum requirements".
> This sentence reads to me as absurdly obtuse, Absurdly Obtuse.
> Care to try a second phrasing for us dense people?What I meant was that is it wasn't actually a minimum requirement. It
was a bullshit requirement to cater to some marketroid's subjective
impression of what "acceptably fast" means.
- Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> John Allain wrote:Perhaps, but I tried running Voice Type on a 486DX33 and it didn't work at
>>> I don't think it's a case of minimum requirements, but more of
>>> a case of "minimum requirements".
>> This sentence reads to me as absurdly obtuse, Absurdly Obtuse.
> I didn't think anyone remembered that one. 8-)
>> Care to try a second phrasing for us dense people?
> What I meant was that is it wasn't actually a minimum requirement. It
> was a bullshit requirement to cater to some marketroid's subjective
> impression of what "acceptably fast" means.
> Peace... Sridhar
all, so for VT I think even a Pentium 75 was probably just barely usable.
The Warp4 box says 486DX33 minimum for installation, and like I said it was
RAM for both Warp3 and Warp4 that made it usable, and was one of the major
reasons for its demise since RAM was always at a premium in those days.
OS/2's memory requirements were always at the high end of what was standard
back then. And the more the better it ran. Now I have 2 GB and rarely get
even close to using it all, and then only when I run XP from a VirtualPC
under OS/2. So maybe it would install on a 386, but if its not really
usable what is the point?
From the eComStation Desktop of: Mark Dodel
Warpstock 2007 - Where?, http://www.warpstock.org
Warpstock Europe - http://www.warpstock.net
For a choice in the future of personal computing, Join VOICE -
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic State itself. That in it's essence, is Fascism - ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private
power." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the Monopoly