Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [midatlanticretro] OS/2 on a Toshiba lapmonster

Expand Messages
  • Sridhar Ayengar
    ... I ve run Warp 4 on a 386DX-33 w/4MB. It s painfully slow, but it runs. I don t think it s a case of minimum requirements, but more of a case of minimum
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      madodel wrote:
      > Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
      >> Jim Scheef wrote:
      >>> Mark,
      >> 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've run Warp 4 on a 386DX-33 w/4MB. It's painfully slow, but it runs.
      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 an
      > 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.

      I can tell you without hesitation that Warp 3 is leaner than 2.1. I was
      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.

      Peace... Sridhar
    • John Allain
      ... This sentence reads to me as absurdly obtuse, Absurdly Obtuse. Care to try a second phrasing for us dense people? My painfully slow experience
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > 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.
        Care to try a second phrasing for us dense people?

        <classiccmp>
        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.
        </classiccmp>

        > I can tell you without hesitation that Warp 3 is leaner than 2.1. I was
        > 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.

        Very interesting,

        John A.
      • Sridhar Ayengar
        ... I didn t think anyone remembered that one. 8-) ... What I meant was that is it wasn t actually a minimum requirement. It was a bullshit requirement to
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          John Allain wrote:
          >> 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
        • madodel
          ... Perhaps, but I tried running Voice Type on a 486DX33 and it didn t work at all, so for VT I think even a Pentium 75 was probably just barely usable. The
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
            > John Allain wrote:
            >>> 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
            >

            Perhaps, but I tried running Voice Type on a 486DX33 and it didn't work at
            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?

            Mark


            --

            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 -
            http://www.os2voice.org

            "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
            Investigation, 1938
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.