Robin Laing wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 08:37 -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Guy Fraser wrote:
[I wrote]
As far as I know, the 80386 was the first processor supported
by Linux, or BSD but I don't know. Back in those days, I
What I said. MicroSoft products are better able to run
on old hardware than Linux.
[snip]
This is the point. DOS was written before Linux existed so it will run
on previous devices. Heck I still have an unused 4004 chip at home and
I wonder if DOS would run on that? How about a VIC 20?
I don't imagine there is any OS which would run on a 4004. Or even on
an 8008. There are OS which run on a VIC 20, but not MSDOS. But the
ones I know of were written by MicroSoft, and my post on this subject
was about "MicroSoft products", not MSDOS in particular.
My point is Linux won't run on a 286 or 8080 because it was never
designed to run on that. It is also an interesting history lesson.
I used Linux in 1993 for the first time on a P90. I also used CP/M on a
Z80 processor.
Cromix was an interesting knock-off of Unix at that time. I used CP/M
on an 8085 to write a mutitasking RTOS for that machine.
DOS and Linux do two different things. DOS isn't a
multi-user/multi-threaded OS. Linux was from day one. Of course Linux
will need more resources but as a basic system it will do more than
DOS. Of course, you can look at the Tiny Linux stuff that it going on.
Yeah, I'm investigating DSL right now, have it up and running for about
20 hours. I've run Puppy Linux, which I also intend to investigate for
use on a 486 class machine, purely for network connections and backup.
One of them should run on a 486.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
