Was thinkingg about buying another thin client PC to run DOS on, started thinking and remembered that outwest.synchro.net runs on a HP 5740e thin client that can run DOS.
now I'm planning to move the Otwest BBS over to my Dell wyse 5060 thin client so I can use the hp 5740e as my DOS machine.
Or I could move the BBS to my Dell optiplex 790, <- my plex server.

... Vegetarians eats vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

---
■ Synchronet ■ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to All on Fri Nov 21 2025 09:32 am

Was thinkingg about buying another thin client PC to run DOS on, started thinking and remembered that outwest.synchro.net runs on a HP 5740e thin client that can run DOS.

Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put the 4GB ssd back in it and remove the 2.5 500 GB HD that I mounted on the outside of the case, (thin client has no room on the inside),
I will need to istall DOS and partition ssd.
Will do that during thanksgiving holiday.

... Toto, I don't think we're in DOS anymore...

---
■ Synchronet ■ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to All on Sun Nov 23 2025 04:47 pm

Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put the 4GB ssd back in it and remove the 2.5 500 GB HD that I mounted on the outside of the case, (thin client has no room on the inside), I will need to istall DOS and partition ssd. Will do that during thanksgiving holiday.

I'm wondering if DOS will be able to successfully boot from an SSD on that machine.. I seem to recall hearing about issues with old operating systems booting from certain newer types of drives. I've seen people using period-correct hardware for old operating systems, and sometimes if they want a fast boot drive, I've seen adapters that will let you use a CompactFlash card with an IDE interface - so you'd basically be using a flash drive but make it look like an old IDE drive.

Also, I remember DOS having a partition size limit too; you might not to make use of all of the 4GB with one partition with DOS. I think DOS might have a partition size limit of 2.1GB or something?

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Denn on Sun Nov 23 2025 04:24 pm

Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put the
4GB ssd back in it and remove the 2.5 500 GB HD that I mounted on

I'm wondering if DOS will be able to successfully boot from an SSD on that machine.. I seem to recall hearing about issues with old operating systems booting from certain newer types of drives. I've seen people using period-correct hardware for old operating systems, and sometimes if they want a fast boot drive, I've seen adapters that will let you use a CompactFlash card with an IDE interface - so you'd basically be using a flash drive but make it look like an old IDE drive.

From what I've read the Intel Atom N280 x86 can run DOS natively, I have read the only incompatability is with the sound, but there's a couple of solutions to fix that.



... Beware of geeks bearing GIFs =>

---
■ Synchronet ■ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Denn on Sun Nov 23 2025 04:24 pm

Got it done, now my hp 5740e will be my next project, I will put the

I'm wondering if DOS will be able to successfully boot from an SSD on tha

Also, I remember DOS having a partition size limit too; you might not to

Nightfox
Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Nightfox on Sun Nov 23 2025 10:19 pm

Also, I remember DOS having a partition size limit too; you might not to

MSDOS 6.22 is limited to 2 gb hard drive partition. Better to create this partition first, if you plan to have multiple partitions on your Hard Drive.
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Nightfox on Sun Nov 23 2025 06:34 pm

From what I've read the Intel Atom N280 x86 can run DOS natively, I have read the only incompatability is with the sound, but there's a couple of solutions to fix that.

That's good.. My main thought was more of the storage, as I think I'd heard DOS can have trouble booting from some modern storage devices, such as SSDs (particularly if it's an m.2 SSD), and perhaps SATA (though I'm not sure about that).

As far as the CPU, I think any modern Intel and AMD CPU could probably still run DOS natively, as x86 CPUs have a lot of backward-compatibility built in.

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Denn on Mon Nov 24 2025 09:59 am

As far as the CPU, I think any modern Intel and AMD CPU could probably still run DOS natively, as x86 CPUs have a lot of backward-compatibility built in.

Yes, and I think It is probably also linked to the BIOS. I installed MSDOS 6.22 on old, and new machines without any problem. Previous MSDOS releases are specific for some, I guess.
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

MSDOS 6.22 is limited to 2 gb hard drive partition. Better to create this partition first, if you plan to have multiple partitions on your Hard Drive.

Yes I realize that :) not sure if I'm going to install MS-DOS 6.22 or windows 95.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Nightfox on Sun Nov 23 2025 06:34 pm

That's good.. My main thought was more of the storage, as I think I'd heard DOS can have trouble booting from some modern storage devices, such as SSDs (particularly if it's an m.2 SSD), and perhaps SATA (though I'm not sure about that).

As far as the CPU, I think any modern Intel and AMD CPU could probably still run DOS natively, as x86 CPUs have a lot of backward-compatibility built in.

Nightfox

The Drive is a 4GB ss flash.
Found the flash and installed it today, booted up in windows 7 embeded, actually has my original synchronet 3.16 on it.
I'll have to copy that to a thumb drive.
Still deciding if I want DOS 6.22 or Windows 95.
I took off the sata 2.5 and put that in my ext USB drive enclosure.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Lordwoodoo on Mon Nov 24 2025 01:03 pm

Yes I realize that :) not sure if I'm going to install MS-DOS 6.22 or windows 95.

Well, I would suggest to install both, and even Windows 3.1 on the MSDOS partition is a cool thing. I will explain why later. It is always good to have a pure MSDOS. In that case, you need to part the hard drive in 2 partitions. One for MSDOS, 2 gb max, and the second to install Windows 95. See the max capacity limit for Windows 95, and if the hard drive have more space after that, you will have more space to create one more partition for data for exemple: games or software, etc.. for Windows 95. A very important thing is: you need to create 2 primary partitions to be able to boot both!! Before doing the installs. FDISK or Partition Manager will do the trick using a floppy drive or a CDRom device.

Installing Win 3.1 on the MSDOS partition does not affect the previous MSDOS installed, and its cool if you want to boot Win 3.1 and use MSDOS in windowed mode over it. You can take notes with notepad, for exemple playing Zork.. have multiple MSDOS windows opened, etc.. Really cool!

I made a machine like that and its my fav for retro things. I installed Windows XP instead of Windows 95.

Note: Windows 95 will read the MSDOS partition but MSDOS will not read the Windows 95 one. Depending of what format used: fat16 or fat32 and MSDOS size limit. See online for more details about it.

Well, do your own experiments!! :)
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Lordwoodoo on Mon Nov 24 2025 01:03 pm

Well, I would suggest to install both, and even Windows 3.1 on the MSDOS partition is a cool thing. I will explain why later. It is always good to have a pure MSDOS. In that case, you need to part the hard drive in 2 partitions. One for MSDOS, 2 gb max, and the second to install Windows 95. See the max capacity limit for Windows 95, and if the hard drive have more space after that, you will have more space to create one more partition for data for exemple: games or software, etc.. for Windows 95. A very important thing is: you need to create 2 primary partitions to be able to boot both!! Before doing the installs. FDISK or Partition Manager will do the trick using a floppy drive or a CDRom device.

Installing Win 3.1 on the MSDOS partition does not affect the previous MSDOS installed, and its cool if you want to boot Win 3.1 and use MSDOS in windowed mode over it. You can take notes with notepad, for exemple playing Zork.. have multiple MSDOS windows opened, etc.. Really cool!

I'm leaning towards just installing DOS 6.22.
I Remember when Windows 3.0 came out, i bought it and then I upgraded to 3.1, never really liked those 2 versions, they were basically DOS shells, in dos I used a program called xtree.

I remember my 1st DOS machine, it had a whopping 20 mb hard drive. Then I bough my 386 sx that had 40 mb hard drive.

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Lordwoodoo on Tue Nov 25 2025 01:19 pm

I'm leaning towards just installing DOS 6.22. I Remember when Windows 3.0 came out, i bought it and then I upgraded to 3.1, never really liked those 2 versions, they were basically DOS shells, in dos I used a program called xtree.

After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools, word processors, etc. moved toward Windows because (I think) drawing programs were probably easier to develop for Windows 3.x than for DOS, and with word processors, you could get WYSIWYG interfaces, so it was a lot easier to create documents just as they'd appear when you print them, compared to DOS software.

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Denn on Tue Nov 25 2025 02:32 pm

After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run the

Productivity software in those days was horrible, for me. Maybe it's just because I always had older and slower machines, but I stuck with text-based word processor (WordPerfect 5.1) for quite a long time. The only WYSIWYG one I liked was Word for Mac because you could turn off all those awful toolbars and make your window just your text. The problem with that, though, was that Macs sucked balls and would crash if you breathed wrong, so you always ended up losing unsaved parts of your document.

I still don't really like most GUI word processors, but they're definitely a lot better these days. Abiword was pretty good at one point, I wonder if that one is still actively worked on. It was decently fast, and had Word Doc support.

---
■ Synchronet ■ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

Nightfox wrote to Denn <=-

After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to
run them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools,
word processors, etc. moved toward Windows because (I think) drawing programs were probably easier to develop for Windows 3.x than for DOS,
and with word processors, you could get WYSIWYG interfaces, so it was a lot easier to create documents just as they'd appear when you print
them, compared to DOS software.

That was about the time I started in DOS/Windows technical support. I
remember seeing people be able to sit in front of Microsoft Word and
write a memo without any training. WordPerfect came with keyboard
overlays with all the commands on them.

We had one person who insisted on WP, and our finance team swore by
1-2-3. Excel wasn't quite ready for Prime Time yet.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Denn to Lordwoodoo on Tue Nov 25 2025 01:19 pm

I'm leaning towards just installing DOS 6.22. I Remember when Windows 3.0 came out, i bought it and then I upgraded to 3.1, never really liked those 2 versions, they were basically DOS shells, in dos I used a program called xtree.

I remember my 1st DOS machine, it had a whopping 20 mb hard drive. Then I bough my 386 sx that had 40 mb hard drive.

I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.

My first MSDOS Machine have a 8mb Hard Drive. I sold it recently to a retro computer guy. Still working well.

Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: phigan to Nightfox on Wed Nov 26 2025 05:28 am

I still don't really like most GUI word processors, but they're definitely a lot better these days. Abiword was pretty good at one point, I wonder if that one is still actively worked on. It was decently fast, and had Word Doc support.

I had An ASMTRAD PCW 8256 booting CPM and having a great word processor at the time. Lot of writing fun with this one. :0)



Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Wed Nov 26 2025 07:16 am

After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were
specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run
them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools, word

That was about the time I started in DOS/Windows technical support. I remember seeing people be able to sit in front of Microsoft Word and write a memo without any training. WordPerfect came with keyboard overlays with all the commands on them.

We had one person who insisted on WP, and our finance team swore by 1-2-3. Excel wasn't quite ready for Prime Time yet.

One time, years ago, there was someone who asked me, "You're a software engineer? Do you know how to create letter head in Microsoft Word?" Being a software engineer doesn't mean I know how to do such-and-such in any given program..

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Lordwoodoo to Denn on Wed Nov 26 2025 10:55 am

I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.

I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was available at the time..

Nightfox

MSDOS 6.22 is limited to 2 gb hard drive partition. Better to create this

>partition first, if you plan to have multiple partitions on your Hard Drive.

Yes I realize that :) not sure if I'm going to install MS-DOS 6.22 or windows

>95.

The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space
if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking
up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions
to cut back on wasted space.

I ran a suped up Win 98SE system for way too long (2020) using native
DOS programs on it as well as Windows software.

FAT can handle 2 gigabyte partitions as stated, but FAT 32 can handle
2 Terrabytes. Win 98 comes with DOS 7.1 usually but you can use
DOS 6.22 with it if you prefer by installing 6.22 first and then
installing Win 98 and telling it which version of DOS to boot with.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Death is a small price to pay for life
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Rob Mccart to DENN on Wed Nov 26 2025 08:05:00

The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space
if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking
up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions
to cut back on wasted space.

I can remember back in the days taking a large drive and partitioning it into several "drives" of ~120MB. ;)

Mike
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Rob Mccart to DENN on Wed Nov 26 2025 08:05 am

The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions to cut back on wasted space.

In fact, its probably because, if you doesnt want to waste space, you need to create and format all the partitions before installing MSDOS and Win95/98 or Windows XP. Before Windows 7 you cant manage disk space under Windows.. from memory. Better to think it before.

Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Lordwoodoo on Wed Nov 26 2025 10:25 am

I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was available at the time..

Maybe depending from where you are in the world. Because I dont remember Xtree. I will try it this week! Thanks.
I used and use Volkov Commander. Norton have one if I remember well.
Or even Desqview.

But for real multitasking with real MSDOS, Win 3.1 with a Windowed MSDOS over it is the best for me. My exemple was: you are playing Zork over MSDOS and you want to takes notes with Notepad at the same time. Desqview is really a cool thing but eating all the memory.

Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Lordwoodoo to Nightfox on Wed Nov 26 2025 03:38 pm

But for real multitasking with real MSDOS, Win 3.1 with a Windowed MSDOS over it is the best for me. My exemple was: you are playing Zork over MSDOS and you want to takes notes with Notepad at the same time. Desqview is really a cool thing but eating all the memory.

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Lordwoodoo on Wed Nov 26 2025 01:31 pm

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI, but version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQView 1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.



Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Rob Mccart to DENN on Wed Nov 26 2025 08:05 am

FAT can handle 2 gigabyte partitions as stated, but FAT 32 can handle
2 Terrabytes. Win 98 comes with DOS 7.1 usually but you can use
DOS 6.22 with it if you prefer by installing 6.22 first and then installing Win 98 and telling it which version of DOS to boot with.

That's actually a great idea, I am going to install MSDOS 6.22 soon, I think I still have a windows 98 CD, I think I'll give that a try.

... COLDBEER.CAN not found. Operator not loaded.

---
■ Synchronet ■ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Lordwoodoo on Wed Nov 26 2025 10:25 am

I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.

I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was available at the time..

Yes, it was a valuble program, Xtree Gold was the best.

... Press Ctrl-Alt-Del to increase access

---
■ Synchronet ■ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Lordwoodoo to Nightfox on Wed Nov 26 2025 06:01 pm

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better
than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI, but version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQView 1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.

Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't realize they made one that had a GUI.

Nightfox

Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

One time, years ago, there was someone who asked me, "You're a software engineer? Do you know how to create letter head in Microsoft Word?"
Being a software engineer doesn't mean I know how to do such-and-such
in any given program..

Working in IT in small companies, people tried to get me to fix lots of
things that weren't IT related by adding the word "server" to it.

Once I was asked to reboot the coffee "server". In all fairness, it was
a Rube Goldberg-esque machine with an internal conveyor belt made of
filter paper. a contraption pressed coffee down onto the filter and
passed hot water through it. The conveyor moved onto a fresh piece of
filter, and the coffee contraption dumped the puck into a trash bin. All
this happened through little peepholes in the case, with the interior
lit up. It looked like an erector set on the inside.

I've been trying to find them again, to no avail.





--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Nightfox wrote to Lordwoodoo <=-

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better
than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

Oh, the time I spent trying to free up a megabyte or two of DOS memory
with DesqView and QEMM!



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Lordwoodoo wrote to Nightfox <=-

Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI,
but version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQView 1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.

Yep, two different beasts. DESQview was a DOS multitasker, DESQview X
was an Xwindows client that also multitasked DOS applications. I thought
it was a totally cool idea, but didn't have a market. If you had a *nix
box on your network, you could run X client apps like a web browser,
editor, or mail client on DV/X.

There were unix versions of Microsoft Word and 1-2-3 that ran in a unix console, don't know if they had X versions back then. You could use DOS desktops to run X apps from a big unix system, keep all your data on it,
back it up, etc - like a mainframe. Client/Server had already taken hold
by then, though.


--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Denn on Tue Nov 25 2025 02:32 pm

After Windows 3.0 came out, I think some programs came out that were specifically for Windows 3.x, so you basically had to use Windows to run them. I think especially things like graphical & drawing tools, word

Excel was the big one for me.
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #21:
Karl: Coffee makes me nervous when I drink it. Mmm.
Norco, CA WX: 82.8°F, 16.0% humidity, 2 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Lordwoodoo on Wed Nov 26 2025 05:01 pm

Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't realize they made one that had a GUI.

If you have a chance give a try to DESQView 2.xx Its really something impressive for the time. A good experiment! :0)



Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Thu Nov 27 2025 10:01 am

Oh, the time I spent trying to free up a megabyte or two of DOS memory with DesqView and QEMM!

Trying to free up MSDOS memory was an everyday challenge lol.
Good memories.. and tricks!

Regards,
.: Lord Woodoo :.
Somewhere In Time..
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Check Solar Phasing Music
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
---
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to Lordwoodoo on Wed Nov 26 2025 10:25 am

I will look into Xtree. Dont know it.

I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was available at the time..

I know it was probably my most-used utility back in my DOS days...

---
■ Synchronet ■ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Thu Nov 27 2025 10:01 am

Working in IT in small companies, people tried to get me to fix lots of things that weren't IT related by adding the word "server" to it.

Once I was asked to reboot the coffee "server". In all fairness, it was a Rube Goldberg-esque machine with an internal conveyor belt made of filter paper. a contraption pressed coffee down onto the filter and passed hot water through it. The conveyor moved onto a fresh piece of filter, and the coffee contraption dumped the puck into a trash bin. All this happened through little peepholes in the case, with the interior lit up. It looked like an erector set on the inside.

I don't know what "coffee server" would mean.. But that contraption sounds pretty cool.

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Lordwoodoo to Nightfox on Thu Nov 27 2025 06:00 pm

Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't
realize they made one that had a GUI.

If you have a chance give a try to DESQView 2.xx Its really something impressive for the time. A good experiment! :0)

I saw it for download on a DOS abandonware site, so perhaps I'll give it a try in a VM or something.

Nightfox

The other issue is that DOS partitioning wastes a huge amount of space

> > if the patitions are (to it) quite large. I often found myself breaking
> > up a drive that the OS could probably handle as-is into 4 or 5 partitions
> > to cut back on wasted space.

I can remember back in the days taking a large drive and partitioning it

>into several "drives" of ~120MB. ;)

Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a
huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than
about 32 gig. I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.

My Suped up Win 98 system had stuff they never considered in 1998
such as 128 meg of Ram to go with the 160 gig hard drive.
All software was updated to the max. Most of the Windows programs
were replaced with Win ME versions and the Drive Explorer, Browser,
Antivirus system, Notepad, Write, and MS Office programs were all
replaced with other better, non-Microsoft options, etc..

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Every silver lining has a cloud
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

FAT can handle 2 gigabyte partitions as stated, but FAT 32 can handle
2 Terrabytes. Win 98 comes with DOS 7.1 usually but you can use
DOS 6.22 with it if you prefer by installing 6.22 first and then
installing Win 98 and telling it which version of DOS to boot with.

That's actually a great idea, I am going to install MSDOS 6.22 soon,

> I think I still have a windows 98 CD, I think I'll give that a try.

I saw that online when I was looking up some of the old compatabilities
but I've never tried that myself so, maybe do a search online for that
to get exact instructions if it's not obvious.

I never worried too much about the DOS version since everything I was
using at the time worked in v7.1, v6.22 and probably earlier ones as
well, although I seem to recall some issues with DOS 5.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Look for the good - The bad happens anyway
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Rob Mccart to DUMAS WALKER on Fri Nov 28 2025 11:43 am

Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than about 32 gig. I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.

It all depended on the size of the files you stored - with 4k clusters, if you had a ton of files smaller than 4K, each one would occupy 1 4k cluster on the hard disk. If you had hundreds of small files, the wasted space would add up.

Smaller partitions meant smaller cluster sizes and more efficient storage of small files.

---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Bf2k+ to Nightfox on Fri Nov 28 2025 06:37 am

I think Xtree was one of the most popular DOS utilities that was availabl at the time..

I know it was probably my most-used utility back in my DOS days...

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found tab completion, though ;)

---
■ Synchronet ■ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: phigan to Bf2k+ on Fri Nov 28 2025 09:14 pm

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found tab completion, though ;)

I didn't know any DOS command shell had tab completion.. I had even used 4DOS sometimes..

Nightfox

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Nightfox to phigan on Fri Nov 28 2025 09:25 pm

I didn't know any DOS command shell had tab completion.. I had even used 4D sometimes..

There probably wasn't one for MS DOS right at the time, but people have released stuff since then, like an improved/modified doskey.exe. I meant when the modern command prompts came in Windows versions.

---
■ Synchronet ■ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

One time, years ago, there was someone who asked me, "You're a software engineer? Do you know how to create letter head in Microsoft Word?"
Being a software engineer doesn't mean I know how to do such-and-such
in any given program..

Working in IT in small companies, people tried to get me to fix lots of

>things that weren't IT related by adding the word "server" to it.

I did general computer work for a few years, upgrades and repairs
and software issues and a number of times I got a call to do a
certain job, but when that was done, they always hit you with,
"Oh there was one other problem you could maybe help me with.."

Could be anything from virus infected software to adding blocks
to keep their kids from going to porn sites.. B)

I recall one time I was working on a system that was in a home
for family use but also had business software on it for the
construction and trucking company they ran. While cleaning up
the business stuff I ran across some porn and I hesitated to
mention it since they were a Very religious family, but I figured
it had to go so I tried to lighten the impact by saying that
sometimes you go to a site and they send you stuff like that
without you even knowing about it.. But the funny part was that
the only one who could have been downloading the porn was the
12 or 13 year old *Daughter*.. (Enter - Nanny Software..)

It's not just for boys anymore.. B)

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ ... "Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken."
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

phigan wrote to Bf2k+ <=-

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the
big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't
mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found
tab completion, though ;)

To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a
time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.

Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to phigan <=-

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the
big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't
mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found
tab completion, though ;)

To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a
time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.

Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.

PC-Tools was a favorite of mine.

And of course the classic "LIST". Fantastic piece of software.



... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

But for real multitasking with real MSDOS, Win 3.1 with a Windowed MSDOS over it is the best for me. My exemple was: you are playing Zork over MSDOS and you want to takes notes with Notepad at the same time. Desqview
is really a cool thing but eating all the memory.

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

You are correct, there was no competition really. Only thing Windows 3.x
was better at was running Windows applications that wouldn't run under DOS.
OTOH, any DOS programs that wouldn't run with QEMM/DV were very unlikely
to run under Win 3.x, either.


* SLMR 2.1a * Can bankers count? Eight windows and only four tellers?
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Maybe. I will check this out. This is interesting for me. I have both installed in some hard drives. DESQView v.1.x version dont have a GUI, bu
version DESQView X 1.x and DESQView X 2.x have one. If I remember DESQVie
1.xx have just a system menu wich remains hidden if not used.

Interesting.. I used a version of DESQView without a GUI; I didn't realize they made one that had a GUI.

"Normal" DESQView (no "X"), which most people are most familiar with,
didn't have a GUI.

DESQView-X (the X standing for, IIRC, "X window") did indeed have a GUI.
If you knew what you were doing, you could set up an application on a DV-X
box and be able to run it remotely on a linux box. I never could get the reverse to work, though.

If you re-read his post, he is talking about DESQView-X.


* SLMR 2.1a * Tweety of Borg: I tawt I attimilated a Puddy Tat!
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I can remember back in the days taking a large drive and partitioning it

>into several "drives" of ~120MB. ;)

Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a
huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than
about 32 gig. I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.

Yes. This would have been on a DOS machine that didn't run Windows and
wasn't 32-bit. IIRC, it was when DOS (under Windows) became 32-bit that
the storate waste was no longer considered a problem.... or maybe
it was just that HDs got so cheap no one cared! :D

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * Ethernet: A device to catch the Ether Bunny.
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run
By: Rob Mccart to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Sat Nov 29 2025 08:58 am

I recall one time I was working on a system that was in a home for family us but also had business software on it for the construction and trucking company they ran. While cleaning up the business stuff I ran across some por and I hesitated to mention it since they were a Very religious family, but I

Oh, I hated that! It always seemed to be database administrators at one job that would let their kids onto their work laptops - see them with all sorts of game shortcuts on the desktop, game apps set to auto-start, and kids cartoon stickers on the laptop. A couple of them tried to play off obvious physical damage. One told me his spare bar stopped working. He didn't mention the crack in the case that ran right through the spacebar.

"A crack occurred..."

---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Dumas Walker to NIGHTFOX on Sat Nov 29 2025 05:47 pm

"Normal" DESQView (no "X"), which most people are most familiar with, didn't have a GUI.

DESQView-X (the X standing for, IIRC, "X window") did indeed have a GUI. If you knew what you were doing, you could set up an application on a DV-X box and be able to run it remotely on a linux box. I never could get the reverse to work, though.

If you re-read his post, he is talking about DESQView-X.

Ah.. Yeah, I wasn't aware of the existence of DESQView-X.

Nightfox

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run MS-DOS
By: Gamgee to poindexter FORTRAN on Sat Nov 29 2025 02:45 pm

poindexter FORTRAN wrote to phigan <=-

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the
big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't mind

Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.

PC-Tools was a favorite of mine.
And of course the classic "LIST". Fantastic piece of software.

Dude, you beat me to it, I was going to chime in on "LIST". I still use it today, that and QEdit (file editor) and a LIST clone called LOOK.COM

Lonewolf
---
■ Synchronet ■ Fireside BBS - AI-WX - firesidebbs.com:23231

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Dumas Walker to NIGHTFOX on Sat Nov 29 2025 05:47 pm

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than
Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

You are correct, there was no competition really. Only thing Windows 3.x wa better at was running Windows applications that wouldn't run under DOS. OTOH any DOS programs that wouldn't run with QEMM/DV were very unlikely to run under Win 3.x, either.

Bending the rules a bit, OS/2 rocked at running DOS programs. I ran my BBS on it and ran OS/2 at work to support Windows desktops and Novell servers. I could have multiple DOS windows open, even VDMs with separate versions of DOS...

---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a huge

> > storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than about 32 gi
> > I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.

It all depended on the size of the files you stored - with 4k clusters, if yo

>ad a ton of files smaller than 4K, each one would occupy 1 4k cluster on the
>d disk. If you had hundreds of small files, the wasted space would add up.

Smaller partitions meant smaller cluster sizes and more efficient storage of

>ll files.

I was probably thinking about FAT 16 and on larger drives that used
a cluster size of up to 64kb on 2 to 4 gig partitions..

And the file size wasn't the only consideration because the final
cluser for the file was not filled and so would waste up to that
much space for every file on the drive.

Even FAT 32 used 16 kb clusters on partitions/drives over 16 gig.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ A hospital is no place to be sick
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

"Normal" DESQView (no "X"), which most people are most familiar with, didn't have a GUI.

DESQView-X (the X standing for, IIRC, "X window") did indeed have a GUI. If you knew what you were doing, you could set up an application on a DV-
box and be able to run it remotely on a linux box. I never could get the
reverse to work, though.

If you re-read his post, he is talking about DESQView-X.

Ah.. Yeah, I wasn't aware of the existence of DESQView-X.

It never had much of a footprint, or much marketing that I am aware of. I
was a long time DV user but never heard of DV-X until long after
Quarterdeck was no more.


* SLMR 2.1a * Confidence is important; the computer can sense fear.
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

For multitasking in DOS, I think QEMM with DeqView was perhaps better than
Windows 3.1, as there was no GUI to use resources.

You are correct, there was no competition really. Only thing Windows 3.x w
better at was running Windows applications that wouldn't run under DOS. OTO
any DOS programs that wouldn't run with QEMM/DV were very unlikely to run under Win 3.x, either.

Bending the rules a bit, OS/2 rocked at running DOS programs. I ran my BBS on it and ran OS/2 at work to support Windows desktops and Novell servers. I coul
have multiple DOS windows open, even VDMs with separate versions of DOS...

IIRC, I am thinking that the only programs I tried running under DV that wouldn't work also wouldn't work under OS/2 -- or at least I never went to
the trouble to try.

I am positive I did try Simcity 2000 and it did *not* work. Another that
I had trouble with was PC-Write and, for that matter, Wordperfect 5 for
DOS. I never tried either of those under OS/2 but suspect that one or both might just work.


* SLMR 2.1a * Sheesh! You start havin' fun, and they send the lawyers!
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't
mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found
tab completion, though ;)

To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a
time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.

Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.

IIRC, isn't Midnight Commander a clone of Norton Commander?


* SLMR 2.1a * alnal nathrak uth vaas bethud dothiel dienve
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

And of course the classic "LIST". Fantastic piece of software.

Just used that a few minutes ago in a dosemu window. LIST was always on my list of extra programs to add to any new DOS install. Now it is on the
list for dos emulator installs. ;)


* SLMR 2.1a * Ensign Walnut approaches Dr. Crusher with caution....
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Dude, you beat me to it, I was going to chime in on "LIST". I still use it today, that and QEdit (file editor) and a LIST clone called LOOK.COM

Using QEdit to respond to this message. That one is another essential DOS program.


* SLMR 2.1a * Beware Romulans baring GIFs.
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Thin client PC to run MS-
By: Dumas Walker to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Sun Nov 30 2025 11:23 am

IIRC, I am thinking that the only programs I tried running under DV that wouldn't work also wouldn't work under OS/2 -- or at least I never went to the trouble to try.

I am positive I did try Simcity 2000 and it did *not* work. Another that I had trouble with was PC-Write and, for that matter, Wordperfect 5 for DOS. I never tried either of those under OS/2 but suspect that one or both might just work.

It looks like there was an OS/2 version of SimCity 2000. It's on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/SimCity2000ForOS2

I believe there was also a Windows 3.1 version of SimCity 2000. Perhaps that might run in the Windows subcomponent of OS/2.

Nightfox

Dumas Walker wrote to GAMGEE <=-

And of course the classic "LIST". Fantastic piece of software.

Just used that a few minutes ago in a dosemu window. LIST was always
on my list of extra programs to add to any new DOS install. Now it is
on the list for dos emulator installs. ;)

I still use it occassionally when playing in DOSBox. It truly amazes me
as to what it can do, and so easily.

I have often thought that that "era" (let's call it '85 to '97 or so) of computing was my favorite time with computers. Sure, we now have so
much more capability, and Linux, and graphics galore and all.... but....
that period of time was when I feel like I "peaked" in many abilities.
All the stuff you had to know to maximize MSDOS, and batch files, and
putting *so* many pieces of software together to run a complete
BBS/Mailer setup. I think of it as the "Golden Years". ;-)




... And we had to chisel taglines into the walls of the cave.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

Man, so many people were all about xtree gold.. I was like, what's the big deal? It's just another shell you arrow-key around in. I didn't mind typing in paths to files. Imagine how stoked I was when I found tab completion, though ;)

To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a
time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.

Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.

IIRC, isn't Midnight Commander a clone of Norton Commander?

Yes it is, and it's probably better.




... Bug free, cheap, on time, works. Pick two.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Dumas Walker wrote to LONEWOLF <=-

Dude, you beat me to it, I was going to chime in on "LIST". I still use it today, that and QEdit (file editor) and a LIST clone called LOOK.COM

Using QEdit to respond to this message. That one is another essential
DOS program.

Absolutely, it is.




... Windows 3.1 - From the people who brought you EDLIN.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Dumas Walker wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-

IIRC, isn't Midnight Commander a clone of Norton Commander?

Yes, it was part of the Norton Utilities, probably one of the most
pirated titles back then.

I remember Norton Desktop, it was an alternative window manager for
Windows 3.x, looked pretty nice.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Dumas Walker wrote to LONEWOLF <=-

Using QEdit to respond to this message. That one is another essential
DOS program.

I tried lots of different editors during the DOS era, but ended up
coming back to Qedit - still used it under DOSBOX for my offline reader
setup as of last year. I found TSEPro, the 32-bit version of Qedit, and
am using that now!



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Gamgee wrote to Dumas Walker <=-

I have often thought that that "era" (let's call it '85 to '97 or so)
of computing was my favorite time with computers. Sure, we now have so much more capability, and Linux, and graphics galore and all....
but.... that period of time was when I feel like I "peaked" in many abilities. All the stuff you had to know to maximize MSDOS, and batch files, and putting *so* many pieces of software together to run a
complete BBS/Mailer setup. I think of it as the "Golden Years". ;-)

Getting a batch file, BBS, utilities and a mailer all working together
was a high point of BBSing in the DOS era. Scheduling mail runs, echo maintenance, defragging, log rotation and online games was pretty fly.

Did I just type that?



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run
By: Gamgee to Dumas Walker on Sun Nov 30 2025 08:11 pm

I have often thought that that "era" (let's call it '85 to '97 or so) of computing was my favorite time with computers. Sure, we now have so much more capability, and Linux, and graphics galore and all.... but.... that period of time was when I feel like I "peaked" in many abilities. All the stuff you had to know to maximize MSDOS, and batch files, and putting *so* many pieces of software together to run a complete BBS/Mailer setup. I think of it as the "Golden Years". ;-)

What I liked about that time (and I was also fairly young and didn't get my own PC until 1992) was that upgrades were a lot more significant, so it was a much more noticeable difference. For instance, going from a 12mhz 286 to a 40mhz 386 or from monochrome graphics to color, or adding a sound card to a PC, were exciting upgrades. After making those kinds of upgrades, I was excited to use my computer. Also, home computers were still a relatively new thing in those times, so there was the novelty of it too. And things like being able to run a BBS from your home computer was pretty cool.

Although I like today's computers too, I feel like technology has reached a bit of a plateau, and computer upgrades these days often don't seem quite as significant or noticeable.

Nightfox

Maybe I'm thinking of earlier systems but if I recall there was a

>> huge storage waste reduction if you went to partitions of less than
>> about 32 gig. I recall dividing a 160 gig drive into 5 drives.

Yes. This would have been on a DOS machine that didn't run Windows and

>wasn't 32-bit. IIRC, it was when DOS (under Windows) became 32-bit that
>the storate waste was no longer considered a problem.... or maybe
>it was just that HDs got so cheap no one cared! :D

As I mentioned elsewhere even using DOS 7 with FAT 32 could give you
quite a bit of space wasted (up to 16kb) for every one of the oftem
tens of thousands of individual files on the drive.

I think it was my Suped up Win 98SE system where I was still having
to divide the drive into 4 or 5 parts.. but as you say, the drives
had started getting so big that it probably didn't matter that much.
It was just a leftover habit from older systems.

My first PC type computer (as opposed to Apple) was an 8088 with
a 32 meg (MEG!) hard drive (1985 or 86) so optimizing drive space
was a little more beaten into your head.. B)

Back then that 'cheap' hard drive could run you $1400, to go
along with your 5.25" floppy drive at $400..

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ ...So fahr... So güten...
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

To me, it was a Window manager before we had window managers. For a

>time, the last line of my autoexec was to run Xtree.

Norton Commander was nice along the same lines, if memory serves.

Yes, I ran both of those as well. As mentioned elsewhere, when
Win 3.x came out I avoided using it as much as possible, although
I had to know it pretty well because I was working on computers
for other people.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Say What
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I recall one time I was working on a system that was in a home for family

> > but also had business software on it for the construction and trucking
> > company they ran. While cleaning up the business stuff I ran across some p
> > and I hesitated to mention it since they were a Very religious family, but

Oh, I hated that! It always seemed to be database administrators at one job t

> would let their kids onto their work laptops - see them with all sorts of ga
>shortcuts on the desktop, game apps set to auto-start, and kids cartoon stick
> on the laptop. A couple of them tried to play off obvious physical damage. O
>told me his spare bar stopped working. He didn't mention the crack in the cas
>hat ran right through the spacebar.

"A crack occurred..."

Yes, these days it seem every kid over 5 has their own computer and
we forget about the 'good olde days' when it took about 2 months
income to buy a computer so having multiple systems was a lot more
difficult so, do you keep your kids from getting used to them or
do you take a chance and hope for the best?

Obviously this is a bigger problem/question when you run your
business out of your home..

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ In God we trust... All others pay cash
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

And of course the classic "LIST". Fantastic piece of software.

Dude, you beat me to it, I was going to chime in on "LIST". I still use it to

>, that and QEdit (file editor) and a LIST clone called LOOK.COM

I am using QEdit to answer this message.. B)

I'm sure I must have used LIST for a while, the name is familiar,
but it's been so long I don't recall all that it did off hand.
But pretty much any program that made DOS work better I found a copy of..

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ If you believe in Fairies, clap your hands
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I have often thought that that "era" (let's call it '85 to '97 or so) of computing was my favorite time with computers. Sure, we now have so
much more capability, and Linux, and graphics galore and all.... but....
that period of time was when I feel like I "peaked" in many abilities.
All the stuff you had to know to maximize MSDOS, and batch files, and
putting *so* many pieces of software together to run a complete
BBS/Mailer setup. I think of it as the "Golden Years". ;-)

Same. It seems like I do learn things now, but a lot of it is "use once" knowledge that I either never need again, or it is so long between needs
that I forget it. ;)

It somehow also isn't as much fun as it was when I learned something I
could do back then.


* SLMR 2.1a * If you believe in telekinesis, please raise my hand.
---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: Thin client PC to run
By: Rob Mccart to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Dec 01 2025 08:17 am

Yes, these days it seem every kid over 5 has their own computer and we forget about the 'good olde days' when it took about 2 months income to buy a computer so having multiple systems was a lot more difficult so, do you keep your kids from getting used to them or do you take a chance and hope for the best?

These days, maybe a cheap tablet or smartphone would be okay for a young child. And I think they tend to have parental controls on them too, so you can lock down what they can access. And I was also thinking an iPod Touch would be good, since it doesn't have the phone part, but I don't think Apple makes that anymore.. Maybe you could find a used one for not too much money.

Obviously this is a bigger problem/question when you run your business out of your home..

In that situation, if possible, I think it could be good to have a dedicated office room, maybe with a locking door, so a yound child couldn't get in and make a mess.

Nightfox