A while back I had tried getting VirtualBox to work with DOS. I wanted
to use my internet connection like a virtual modem inside the VM.
Suffice to say I failed . DOSBOX works with a virtual modem, but it has caching problems that make it da ngerous to use
A while back I had tried getting VirtualBox to work with DOS. I wanted to us in a multi-user environment. Has anyone been able to get some kind of virtua
For what it's worth I still run Synchronet 2.3 on OS/2 using SIO with virtual modems. I stuck with OS/2 as it's MS-DOS compatibility & multitasking can't be beat (yeah I know so 1990s!).
It's not too hard to get working, once you know how, of course. The bummer is that SIO is nolonger for sale, so you are stuck with the 'share ware' versions that max out at 4 virtual modems. So I run my crap bbs in a Qemu
So software wise, I have OS/2 2.0, XR6100, TCP/IP, the TCPIP fix U64092d, and SIO 1.60.
I've also migrated on VMWare ESX 5.5, and it required the unofficial
update to 2.1, then 2.11 (xr06200) and then XR_B108, afterwards I could finally get the network card to work.
Mark Hofmann wrote to Neozeed <=-
Cool, another OS/2 BBS using the SIO drivers in a virtual environment!
I'm using eCS with SIO on VMWare ESXi 5.5 for my BBS (along with other VMs).
That brings back memories, I used to love running a BBS under OS/2, it was the best DOS multitasker of its day, and there were some good native apps too. SIO was cool in its day too. :)
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I've chimed in before on this -- loved OS/2 for it's flexibility back
in the day. I started off running OS/2 on my desktop, DOS on the BBS,
and used a DOS VDM running the DOS-only Lantastic drivers to
communicate between them. Later, I moved the BBS to OS/2, made it my desktop, and ran OS/2 native BBS apps alongside my day-to-day stuff. Couldn't have done everything on one box without OS/2.
Pretty much the same experience as me, except because I was running RA, the BBS had to stay in a DOS box. But OS/2 was the bees knees. It was an excellent OS in its day. Sadly, lack of native application support led me to eventually drifting to Windows as well as Linux.
I'll always have fond memories of OS/2, it was an awesome OS.
For what it's worth I still run Synchronet 2.3 on OS/2 using SIO with virtual modems. I stuck with OS/2 as it's MS-DOS compatibility & multitasking can't be beat (yeah I know so 1990s!).
Cool, another OS/2 BBS using the SIO drivers in a virtual environment! I'm using eCS with SIO on VMWare ESXi 5.5 for my BBS (along with other VMs).
It's not too hard to get working, once you know how, of course. The bummer is that SIO is nolonger for sale, so you are stuck with the 'share ware' versions that max out at 4 virtual modems. So I run my crap bbs in a Qemu
I still have my original SIO registered copy but am only using 4 virtual serial
ports.
So software wise, I have OS/2 2.0, XR6100, TCP/IP, the TCPIP fix U64092d, and SIO 1.60.
Using eCS 2.2 beta here.
I've also migrated on VMWare ESX 5.5, and it required the unofficial update to 2.1, then 2.11 (xr06200) and then XR_B108, afterwards I could finally get the network card to work.
What filesystem are you using for OS/2? I could never get HPFS to work on ESXi. It would just crash the VM and never load. I am using JFS on eCS, which
is better than HPFS anyway.
Mark Hofmann wrote to Neozeed <=-
Cool, another OS/2 BBS using the SIO drivers in a virtual environment! I'm using eCS with SIO on VMWare ESXi 5.5 for my BBS (along with other VMs).
That brings back memories, I used to love running a BBS under OS/2, it was the best DOS multitasker of its day, and there were some good native apps too. SIO was cool in its day too. :)
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-
excellent OS in its day. Sadly, lack of native application support led me to eventually drifting to Windows as well as Linux.
I'll always have fond memories of OS/2, it was an awesome OS.
We all did. The lack of consumer SMP, 3D, and 64bit well.. I mean really OS/2 has been since long dead. You have to really look no further than the recently unearthed beta's of OS/2 "Football" which is from 1987 and features the base OS/2 1.0 OS along with 386 based VDM multitasking.
Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I'll always have fond memories of OS/2, it was an awesome OS.
I agree, I liked OS/2. I never actually made much use of it overall, since by the time I first tried OS/2 (in 1996), I had already been
using DOS & Windows for several years. However, I bought a copy of
OS/2 Warp 3 and then eventually Warp 4 and used it a bit (I
multi-booted it along with Windows & Linux), and I thought it was
fairly nice. I feel like it's a shame that it lost out to Windows in
the overall market.. I've heard some people say that OS/2's ability to run Windows 3.1 apps within OS/2 contributed to its downfall - Windows
was rising in popularity, and software developers thought they might as well save effort and development costs by only developing a Windows version of their software.
Neozeed wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That brings back memories, I used to love running a BBS under OS/2, it was the best DOS multitasker of its day, and there were some good native apps too. SIO was cool in its day too. :)
It was the best solution I could think of at the time. I guess the
next best, is DOSBOX with it's tcpip modem, and doing a boot of MS-DOS inside of DOSBOX with the ne2000 + netware client to do a seperate
machine / node BBS but that would be a nightmare of VM's to reboot and look after. I tried to setup the MS-DOS TCPIP/Fossil driver a while
back, but I couldn't get it to talk right with Synchronet. I could
have messed more, but OS/2 is honestly so much easier to get working
with MS-DOS. It really excells at that.
Neozeed wrote to Vk3jed <=-
You say that until you have to rebuild a desktop. Or boot off of
diskette to run chkdsk. Or deal with the insane mess of it's
config.sys It looks nice in the past, but grab 2.0 or 2.1 and get IDE CD-ROM support working, and remember what a peicemeal disaster it
was.... and once you get it running all you want to do is back it up
and never go through that hell again!
I've chimed in before on this -- loved OS/2 for it's flexibility back in the day. I started off running OS/2 on my desktop, DOS on the BBS, and
used a DOS VDM running the DOS-only Lantastic drivers to communicate between them. Later, I moved the BBS to OS/2, made it my desktop, and ran OS/2 native BBS apps alongside my day-to-day stuff. Couldn't have done everything on one box without OS/2.
Pretty much the same experience as me, except because I was running RA,
the BBS had to stay in a DOS box. But OS/2 was the bees knees. It was an excellent OS in its day. Sadly, lack of native application support led me
to eventually drifting to Windows as well as Linux.
I ended up triple booting at one stage, with a configuration that allowed my BBS to run under DOS/ OS/2 or NT 4 (with clever assignment of drive letters and initialisation routines to load the correct FOSSIL, etc). That way, I could minimise the disruption that changing OSs caused me. I also had to use the hack that allowed NT4 to access HPFS formatted drives, by utilising the driver from NT 3.51.
From memory, I had the following drives:
C: - DOS boot and OS
D: - Mainly the BBS and other DOS apps that had to run under multiple OSs. E: - OS/2 boot drive and apps.
F: - OS/2 data and main file storage (shared with Windows NT)
G: - Windows NT4 boot and apps.
Was a pretty flexible setup. I still have disk images kicking around. :)
While I can pull in DOVENET from VERT ok via FTP, I can't send anymore.
Are you able to send and receive dovemail/and the groups on OS/2?
I run HPFS on the OS drive, and I went with FAT+Stacker on the data drive. Then I found out that stacker wont work on 2 gig volumes, or kinda freaks out if you can store more than 2gb into a volume. So I ended up going to HPFS on te data drive as well. I may add another, not that it really
matters in these modern ages of having files on a BBS, but sometimes
zmodem is a great way to sneak data through some nosy firewall.
tried to setup the MS-DOS TCPIP/Fossil driver a while back, but I couldn't get it to talk right with Synchronet. I could have messed more, but OS/2
is honestly so much easier to get working with MS-DOS. It really excells
at that. ---
Mark Hofmann wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes and the serious lack of driver support. Thankfully that isn't an issue with eCS running in VMWare ESXi. No more hardware driver crap to deal with.
Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Was a pretty flexible setup. I still have disk images kicking around. :)
That's cool. :) I didn't have that elaborate of setup, as I
eventually got a dedicated PC for my BBS, but on my main PC I was triple-booting Windows, OS/2, and Linux at one point. I had BeOS in
the mix at one point too, since I was curious to try out that OS. And this was back when hard drives were a lot smaller than they are today..
I think I had a 4GB hard drive when I was multi-booting, but I may
have had a multi-boot setup with my 2.1GB hard drive as well.
Mark Hofmann wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-
No doubt! Back in those days, not nearly as many people had PCs. The ones that did typically only had one system. If you ran a BBS and
wanted to still use your PC, OS/2 was one of the best.
I also really enjoyed an old multitasker called VM386. Not many people knew about it, but I ran it for a good while before OS/2 really came
into being.
Now I can host tons of virtual computers on one server here with ease - plus I have more computers than I can even use. :)
No doubt! Back in those days, not nearly as many people had PCs. The ones that did typically only had one system. If you ran a BBS and wanted to still use your PC, OS/2 was one of the best.
Yes, there'd be no drivers for anything nowadays. At least a VM provides a well defined environment which emulates common hardware that there might be drivers for.
I was a hands-on guy at the time, and I gave up on OS/2 after giving up on trying to get the network stacks to talk to each other. I could get OS/2 talking to the network card no problem, but could never get the windows side working. I gave up, set up another network card and ran the Crynwyr drivers on it!
I did play around with DOSemu many years ago, but haven't had much opportunity to play with DOSBox. It does look interesting though, especially since it runs on all major platforms, and has serial to telnet conversion built in.
I also really enjoyed an old multitasker called VM386. Not many people knew about it, but I ran it for a good while before OS/2 really came into being.
While I can pull in DOVENET from VERT ok via FTP, I can't send anymore. Are you able to send and receive dovemail/and the groups on OS/2?
The only thing I use OS/2 (eCS) for is the BBS nodes (telnet). All tossing and
everything else runs in a Windows 7 32-bit VM. All the data for the BBS resides on the Windows 7 VM. The eCS VM maps a drive (VM to VM) to fire up the
nodes.
So you have HPFS working under OS/2 in a VM? I was never able to get things booted in a VM using HPFS.
Yes, there'd be no drivers for anything nowadays. At least a VM provides a well defined environment which emulates common hardware that there might be drivers for.
There should be a "retro mode" for old VMs -- Soundblaster 16, NE2000 NIC, some old VGA chipset...Check out PCem !
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Vk3jed to Mark Hofmann on Sun Mar 27 2016 07:58 am
Yes, there'd be no drivers for anything nowadays. At least a VM provides a well defined environment which emulates common hardware that there might be drivers for.
There should be a "retro mode" for old VMs -- Soundblaster 16, NE2000
NIC, some old VGA chipset...
Neozeed wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Most people overlook DOSBox's ability to use hard disk images, and boot MS-DOS. It's not intuitive at first to setup, but it really is handy.
I just found qemu + OS/2 + SIO a better fit for me, as I don't have to load X, qemu can just serve it's console over VNC. If it matters I
found version 0.15.1 the best to run OS/2. The newest version of Qemu isn't nessicarly the best. The emulation engine got screwed over in
GCC's changes between version 3 and 4, and the newer x86 on x86 engine just isn't as solid. But they are too busy chasing KVM/OpenStack to
care about people running OS/2.
Neozeed wrote to Vk3jed <=-
This is the biggest win in virtualization. I've changed providers at least 6 times over the last four years with this BBS VM, and it's been super trivial to move. The biggest challenge I had was on a 64bit
host, as my qemu is 32bit, so I had to install the 32bit compatibility layer, but with that installed I was up and running in maybe 10
minutes? Most of the time was spent in googling how to enable the x86 mode, and installing needed DLLs.
Not to mention stuff like SIMH, and I can finally run that 4.3BSD VAX I always wanted. Although I should try to join HECNET again.. I did a "port" of synchronet to listen on DECnet, and a hacked up telnet
client. It was total crap, but it actually did work.
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Mark Hofmann <=-
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Mark Hofmann to Poindexter Fortran on Sat Mar 26 2016 09:44 am
No doubt! Back in those days, not nearly as many people had PCs. The ones that did typically only had one system. If you ran a BBS and wanted to still use your PC, OS/2 was one of the best.
That or Desqview seemed to be the option. Trying to eek out a 390K DOS window for the BBS without upper memory crashing was a losing battle.
Neozeed wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-
http://pcem-emulator.co.uk
It's fantastic! It emulates all kinds of 8086/8088,80286,80386,80486
and Penitum based systems, old video cards, sound cards! It runs the
old BIOS code, so you can relive the insanity of setting everyting up
just right!
It really needs a BIG machine to run, but it is really cool!
It really needs a BIG machine to run, but it is really cool!
Even the hedaches involved.PCem can even run the old 'winbios' that was total crap, complet with buggy reboots, and all that fun, if you want to experence retro pain.
I love it.Sometimes it's great to just see how far we've come. But it's cool to virtually take a 486 to an 'overdrive' cpu at will. Much faster to switch processors than the real thing!
Where things got really squirrly was when you wanted to use networking. Most DOS network interfaces were at the hardware level, making it almost impossible to share network cards between applications. Attempting to do so was a surefire way to crash the system. :) OS/2 and Windows with their inbuilt network stacks made life much easier! :)
Yes, there'd be no drivers for anything nowadays. At least a VM provides a well defined environment which emulates common hardware that there might
be drivers for.
I was well off for PCs, had 3 or 4 through the latter half of the 1990s.
One was dedicated as a router (before those cheap Chinese boxes hit the market), running Linux, the others were end user PCs. :)
The name rings a bell, but I never saw a copy. I did run DESQview, then
OS/2 and later, Linux and Windows.
Join the club. If I need a server these days, I grab a R-Pi! My
applications tend not to have significant storage or I/O requirements, so the Pi's limitations are not a problem, and the low power consumption is what I need. The Pi even has enough grunt for many DSP applications.
I never thought of that. I guess as long as they can read eachothers DB's it'll be fine? Sadly I don't have the NFS package for IBM OS/2 TCP/IP.
That would have really helped having the Linux host run the tosser. I
don't know if I care enough to see if I can get the MS lanmanager client
to run in conjunction+SAMBA.
My C drive is 500MB. I think that may be part of why it works for me, OS/2 never did well on BIG (lol) IDE disks, espeically when I'm installing 2.0
This is the biggest win in virtualization. I've changed providers at least
6 times over the last four years with this BBS VM, and it's been super trivial to move. The biggest challenge I had was on a 64bit host, as my
qemu is 32bit, so I had to install the 32bit compatibility layer, but with that installed I was up and running in maybe 10 minutes? Most of the time was spent in googling how to enable the x86 mode, and installing needed DLLs.
That would work for a lot of older OSs and allow them to live on in a VM.
:)
I think I mentioned it earlier -- I ran Lantastic, an older proprietary
LAN that used thinnet, but wasn't ethernet compatible. If memory serves, you could run it at 2mbps or 5 mbps.
There should be a "retro mode" for old VMs -- Soundblaster 16, NE2000 NIC, some old VGA chipset...
There should be a "retro mode" for old VMs -- Soundblaster 16, NE2000 NIC, some old VGA chipset...
Mark Hofmann wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes, there'd be no drivers for anything nowadays. At least a VM provides a well defined environment which emulates common hardware that there might
be drivers for.
That was exactly my thinking. Basically allows the classic BBS to
remain timeless. It will work forever, even on the most modern
hardware on the market.
I would have never thought the physical system my BBS would be running
on one day would be an HP DL380 G6 with 144GB of ram and (2) Xeon
6-core processors!
Obviously, that isn't the only thing running on there - but it is the real/physical system my BBS is running on (with eCS).
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think I mentioned it earlier -- I ran Lantastic, an older proprietary LAN that used thinnet, but wasn't ethernet compatible. If memory
serves, you could run it at 2mbps or 5 mbps.
I set up a DOS VDM with a DOS 6 disk, loaded the drivers in the VDM,
and that window had access to the LAN. Once I copied files to the OS/2 system from that box, I could do whatever I wanted with them. Lantastic also had a VNC-like tool I could use over that VDM to share the DOS BBS screen on my OS/2 desktop.
Baett wrote to Neozeed <=-
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Neozeed to Poindexter Fortran on Sat Mar 26 2016 07:25 pm
It really needs a BIG machine to run, but it is really cool!
This is my favorite part of this entire thread. We live in a world with monster computers that keep getting faster, and we need all the power
we can to emulate the slow junk we used to have 20 years ago just for nostalgia. Even the hedaches involved.
Mark Hofmann wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I was too by that point - I would get old hardware from work (which was still really decent). In the late 80s at $2000 a PC, most people
didn't get more than one. Actually, not many people had PCs at all
back then.
The name rings a bell, but I never saw a copy. I did run DESQview, then OS/2 and later, Linux and Windows.
A friend of mine had given me an early copy of it. It was my first
taste of multitasking prior to OS/2 and worked great. It had some
issues with a few games and would crash the entire OS, but it was still better than nothing.
The only thing I run that doesn't require a decent amount of storage
and memory is the BBS, itself. 512MB is nothing these days which is
all I have provisioned for it (ram).
WEATHERMAN wrote to Vk3jed <=-
That would work for a lot of older OSs and allow them to live on in a VM. :)
Yes, everlasting life - even with new hardware. That was really huge especially for the BBS world.
had (2) older 386 computers that just booted to DOS and used NDIS drivers or something to that effect, which used a peer-peer network login to the Windows NT server to run the BBS nodes.
Haha, yeah it gets like that, kinda funny, but it's good to see the old junk being preserved in software.
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Haha, yeah it gets like that, kinda funny, but it's good to see the old junk being preserved in software.
I want an IBM 5150 PC with the clicky keyboard and a monochrome monitor with a rPi inside running DOSBOX. Best of both worlds.
Poindexter Fortran wrote to WEATHERMAN <=-
That brings back bad memories of peer-to-peer MS LAN Manager networks, where accounting data was on one desktop, marketing on the other, a Paradox dbase on another, and you weren't sure what got backed up. :(
Moved all that over to a Novell server with ArcServe and all was well.
While I can pull in DOVENET from VERT ok via FTP, I can't send anymore. Are you able to send and receive dovemail/and the groups on OS/2?
I may need to re-install Snchronet, but honestly I'm really not in the mood, and have been putting it off since it magicaly broke a while back.
Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Xucaen to All on Fri Mar 18 2016 06:37 pm
Hi there!
For what it's worth I still run Synchronet 2.3 on OS/2 using SIO with virtual >modems. I stuck with OS/2 as it's MS-DOS compatibility
Yep, it would be good to preserve this part of history, and a VM is really the only practical way, real hardware will eventually break down, but virtual hardware can live on, provided the hypervisor itself is updated to run on new hardware as it comes out. With the processing power available
Hmm, and how is an old clunker going to emulate an ARM processor, USB, etc? (veeeeeeery slooooooooooowly! :P ) :)
Mro wrote to Vk3jed <=-
just make sure you backup that vm! some people might not get around to doing that because of its size and because they'd need to shut it down
Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Other way around! Emulate the PC on the Pi, have it use the screen and keyboard of the PC.
BTW, thing I discovered with DOSBOX is that when it loads, it loads the mounted disks into memory and does not write back to it until it is shut down. This crea tes several issues where multi node BBSes are concerned. For starter, share.exe won't work and
I've been playing with Freedos under Virtual Box (windows 7x64) but so
far have not found an easy way to share files and to get BBS software to use the TCP conn ects like a modem. As suggested, OS/2 SIO driver
handles this case well - the SI O virtual Modem
One thing you can try, is to comment out or remove the following line from exec/qnet-ftp.src and then recompile with Baja ("baja qnet-ftp"):
set _ftp_mode FTP_PASV
BTW, thing I discovered with DOSBOX is that when it loads, it loads the mounted disks into memory and does not write back to it until it is shut
I use QEMU and FreeDOS to run DOS Doorgames on my ORDOID. Here's a tutorial that I made:
http://cyberia.darktech.org:8080/qemu-howto.html
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Gryphon to Xucaen on Tue Mar 29 2016 08:10 am
I use QEMU and FreeDOS to run DOS Doorgames on my ORDOID. Here's a tut that I made:
http://cyberia.darktech.org:8080/qemu-howto.html
Nice! I wasn't aware of the FAT redirector being able to handl
read/write requests!
Does it handle multipel users on stuff like Lord or Tradewars? If so, this could be a super cool silver bullet!
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Neozeed on Mon Mar 28 2016 04:30 pm
One thing you can try, is to comment out or remove the following line from exec/qnet-ftp.src and then recompile with Baja ("baja qnet-ftp"): set _ftp_mode FTP_PASV
I use some hacky exe to call ncftp.. I know talk about unsupported. I know it downloads just fine.
I mean it is crazy simple...
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int rc;
FILE *inz;
char command[255];
if(argc!=3)
{
printf ("\nUsage %s Username Password\n\n",argv[0]);
return;
}
inz=fopen("c:\\sbbs\\data\\vert.rep","ro");
if(inz!=NULL){
fclose(inz);
printf("sending file....\n");
chdir("/sbbs/data");
sprintf(command,"ncftpput -F -u%s -p%s vert.synchro.net / vert.rep",argv[1],argv[2]);
system(command);
unlink("vert.rep");
chdir("/sbbs/exec");
}
printf("downloading file...\n");
sprintf(command,"ncftpget -F -u%s -p%s vert.synchro.net c:\\sbbs\\data\\ vert.qwk",argv[1],argv[2]);
system(command);
}
I almost wonder if it is some y2k thing between 2.30 and 3.1x ...
I use QEMU and FreeDOS to run DOS Doorgames on my ORDOID. Here's atutorial
that I made:
http://cyberia.darktech.org:8080/qemu-howto.html
The key to the whole scenario as I have found, is to create a serial connection in the VM where the doors can use for I/O, and then connect to that serial connection via telnet or socat.
You can mount local drives too, but you have the same issue with DOSBOX, where it won't rescan the drive after first boot.
Definitely not.
Subj : Virtual machine with
Attr : Read
To : Neozeed
From : Digital Man (VERT)
Date : Invalid Time UT
@MSGID: <56F9BE85.83275.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@REPLY: <56F6080E.83224.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@TZ: c1e0
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Neozeed to Mark Hofmann on Fri Mar 25 2016 08:54 pm
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Neozeed on Tue Mar 29 2016 05:18 pm
Definitely not.
This is why I wondered if it's y2k related...
Subj : Virtual machine with
Attr : Read
To : Neozeed
From : Digital Man (VERT)
Date : Invalid Time UT
@MSGID: <56F9BE85.83275.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@REPLY: <56F6080E.83224.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
@TZ: c1e0
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Neozeed to Mark Hofmann on Fri Mar 25 2016 08:54 pm
Oh well it's not a big deal.
If you're seeing messages from here with an "Invalid Time", that would be a separate issue. I also see QWKnet kludge lines in your quoted text, and that shouldn't be included in the body text, normally, so there's some else up there as well. What version of Synchronet are you running?
I want an IBM 5150 PC with the clicky keyboard and a monochrome monitor
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Neozeed on Tue Mar 29 2016 10:30 pm
If you're seeing messages from here with an "Invalid Time", that would be a separate issue. I also see QWKnet kludge lines in your quoted text, and that shouldn't be included in the body text, normally, so there's some else up there as well. What version of Synchronet are you running?
Well for the heck of it, I snagged an outbound file, and it looks a bit like this:
VERT
0 03-30-11603:2Neozeed Neozeed hi
0 2
so I would assume the date being encoded like 03-30-116 would be a slight y2k issue...
I'm running version 2.30 ...
Revision B Sep 5 1997 00:57 RIOLIB 1.00 SMBLIB 2.01 BCC 4.60
Tim Wray wrote to Poindexter Fortran <=-
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Poindexter Fortran to Vk3jed on Mon Mar 28 2016 09:51 am
I want an IBM 5150 PC with the clicky keyboard and a monochrome monitor
The clicky keyboards were the best. I have a couple stashed in case I
need to type good and loud!
Yes, *that* is a Y2K bug and it was fixed in 1999 with Synchronet v2.30c. You should "upgrade". :-)
ftp://vert.synchro.net/main/sbbs_arc/230cbeta.zip
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Neozeed on Sun Apr 03 2016 11:28 pm
Yes, *that* is a Y2K bug and it was fixed in 1999 with Synchronet v2.30c. You should "upgrade". :-) ftp://vert.synchro.net/main/sbbs_arc/230cbeta.zip
I tried it, and I'm glad I backup up my VM first as the exe's won't run on OS/2 2.0 ...
I guess the compiler is too new or something?
Is the source available?
I guess I could try to see why it won't run. I
really don't feel like upgrading OS/2, as I'm sure that'll just turn into an interdependancy hell, and I don't want to go through the 'why wont the cd-rom' work type crap again.
If you provide more details, I might be able to help.
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Neozeed on Tue Apr 05 2016 07:40 pm
If you provide more details, I might be able to help.
Sure I get a SYS2070
The system could nod demand load the
application's segment. OS2CHAR is in error.
For additional detailed information type: HELP SYS193
And what is displayed when you type "HELP SYS193"?
Is this with the DOS or OS/2 version of sbbs?I'm running it under OS/2, in the CMD.exe prompt, running sbbs4os2 so the OS/2 version.
The best I can figure is that OS2CHAR is a DLL that is probably 2.1 or later.No, I'm wrong it's part of 2.0 ... (yes I know it's old).
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Neozeed on Wed Apr 06 2016 04:02 pm
And what is displayed when you type "HELP SYS193"?
SYS0193: *** cannot be run in a OS/2 session.
EXPLANATION: The specified file or program is either a DOS
application program or not compatible with OS/2.
ACTION: If the specified application is a DOS program,
switch to a DOS session and retry the command.
Otherwise reinstall the application and retry the command.
If the error occurs again, contact the supplier of the
application program.
Is this with the DOS or OS/2 version of sbbs?I'm running it under OS/2, in the CMD.exe prompt, running sbbs4os2 so the OS/2 version.
The best I can figure is that OS2CHAR is a DLL that is probably 2.1 or later.
I've never heard of OS2CHAR, so that guess is as good as mine. It's possible that the build tools I used for v2.30c could have required OS/2 2.1, but I don't recall that. It seems I would have had that detail documented somewhere back then. <shrug>
The clicky keyboards were the best. I have a couple stashed in case I need
to type good and loud!
I use Unicomp clicky keyboards... they still make them. They have a "103-key" version that has the
original model M button layout with the window and menu keys fitted into
the smaller space, so theat
Sure I get a SYS2070
The system could nod demand load the
application's segment. OS2CHAR is in error.
For additional detailed information type: HELP SYS193
I use Unicomp clicky keyboards... they still make them. They have a "103-key" version that has the
original model M button layout with the window and menu keys fitted into the smaller space, so theat
crtl/alt/spacebar is spaced as per original...
The clicky keyboards were the best. I have a couple stashed in case I need to type good and loud!
The clicky keyboards were the best. I have a couple stashed in case
I need to type good and loud!
i tossed enough of those model m keyboards in the trash to fill a lake with the tears of neckbeards.
i dont really see the draw of them and i type fast and learned to type
on typewriters (like everyone should). i'm happy as long as the
keyboard doesnt have weird square keys like some laptops and mac
keybaords have.
The clicky keyboards were the best. I have a couple stashed in case I
need to type good and loud!
i tossed enough of those model m keyboards in the trash to fill a lake with the tears of neckbeards.
i dont really see the draw of them and i type fast and learned to type on typewriters (like everyone should). i'm happy as long as the keyboard doesnt have weird square keys like some laptops and mac keybaords have.
I don't really see the appeal in the loud clicky keyboards either. If I'm going to be typing on it for a while, or near people who are typing, I'd rather not have to listen to loud clicky noises.
Also, where do you even find a typewriter anymore? And why would it be better to learn to type on a typewriter vs. a computer keyboard?
Also, where do you even find a typewriter anymore? And why would it
be better to learn to type on a typewriter vs. a computer keyboard?
you can buy typewriters. for me i learned better posture and rhythm from learning on a typewriter. when you are starting out and typing aaaa ssss dddd ffff you feel it, and that helps to get a good rhythm for typing.
brother is still cranking out typewriters. you can even type of a whole report and store it in the memory and edit it and print it out. i didthat
in college. i think those were typewriter/word processors though.
Subject: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
@MSGID: <570C2EB3.25024.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <570A963A.6283.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@TZ: 41e0
Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Nightfox to Mro on Mon Apr 11 2016 04:09 pm
Subject: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
@MSGID: <570C2EB3.25024.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <570A963A.6283.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@TZ: 41e0
Do you know why these QWK Kludge lines are in your body text of your message (in its form on Vertrauen)? They normally, are not. There must be a bug somewhere, but I'm just curious if you have any insight.
Re: Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: tracker1 to Tim Wray on Fri Apr 08 2016 01:39 am
I use Unicomp clicky keyboards... they still make them. They have a "103-key" version that has the
original model M button layout with the window and menu keys fitted into the smaller space, so theat
would be nice if they had multimedia controls. i would be sold.
Those Unicomps are nice. I haven't used my model M since I moved out of my
house with a separate home office. Too loud.
I use Unicomp clicky keyboards... they still make them. They have a "103-key" version that has the
original model M button layout with the window and menu keys fitted into the smaller space, so theat
crtl/alt/spacebar is spaced as per original...
@MSGID: <570C2EB3.25024.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>Subject: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
@TZ: 41e0
Do you know why these QWK Kludge lines are in your body text of your message (in its form on Vertrauen)? They normally, are not. There must be a bug somewhere, but I'm just curious if you have any insight.
Do you know why these QWK Kludge lines are in your body text of your
message (in its form on Vertrauen)? They normally, are not. There must
be a bug somewhere, but I'm just curious if you have any insight.
I think I figured it out: Your QWKnet account was not set for QWKE support. The "Subject:" kludge-line is a QWKE-ism, so with that option turned off, it was interpretted as part of the message body text. I've turned on QWKE support for your QWKnet account (DIGDIST) now.
Re: Virtual machine with virtual modem?
By: Digital Man to Nightfox on Mon Apr 11 2016 16:48:12
Do you know why these QWK Kludge lines are in your body text of your
message (in its form on Vertrauen)? They normally, are not. There must
be a bug somewhere, but I'm just curious if you have any insight.
I think I figured it out: Your QWKnet account was not set for QWKE support. The "Subject:" kludge-line is a QWKE-ism, so with that option turned off, it was interpretted as part of the message body text. I've turned on QWKE support for your QWKnet account (DIGDIST) now.
I see. Was that something I was supposed to enable at some point? QWKE sounds familiar, but I don't remember much about it..
I remember seeing those in stores a long time ago, but I didn't realize Brother was still making those. Seems to me you might as well buy a PC/laptop and a printer these days since you can do word processing and a lot more with that.
Yet your SHIFT key is apparantly broken. If you learned how to type on a typewriter you would have learned the shift key and how to capitalize
letters in your sentences. Then you bitch about others being lazy. Pot, meet kettle.
I remember seeing those in stores a long time ago, but I didn't
realize Brother was still making those. Seems to me you might as well
buy a PC/laptop and a printer these days since you can do word
processing and a lot more with that.
well they print on real paper. and the ink is cheaper. i've had printers before but never use them before the ink dries out.
Yet your SHIFT key is apparantly broken. If you learned how to type on
a typewriter you would have learned the shift key and how to
capitalize letters in your sentences. Then you bitch about others
being lazy. Pot, meet kettle.
picky picky.... who the hell cares. The important thing is the message one tries to convey or are you a grammar teacher? :)
well they print on real paper. and the ink is cheaper. i've had printers before but never use them before the ink dries out.
Real paper, as opposed to what? Printers used with PCs print on real paper
too. I didn't know the ink in those word processors lasted longer. I'm
the same with ink though, I don't print very often so I don't use printer
ink before it runs out. For that reason, I bought a laser printer a while ago - Laser toner can sit for quite a while between printings and still be good to use. Laser printers & toner might cost a little more than an inkjet, but I felt like I was wasting money buying inkjet ink and having it dry out before I used it all. I still print something occasionally, just
Yet your SHIFT key is apparantly broken. If you learned how to type on
a typewriter you would have learned the shift key and how to
capitalize letters in your sentences. Then you bitch about others
being lazy. Pot, meet kettle.
Yeah, the message is important, but it almost looks like an 8 year old's typing when none of the sentences are capitalized..
And he has a point, you complain about sysops being lazy and not
customizing their BBS enough, but you can't seem to be bothered to use the shift key to capitalize your sentences.
picky picky.... who the hell cares. The important thing is the message one tries to convey or are you a grammar teacher? :)
... "Ummm, Trouble with grammar have I! Yes!... " -- Yoda
Regards,
The Curmudgeon
If you are who I think you are I'm surprised you are still alive. <Evil Grin>
OK, I'll bite... who do you think I am? :)
Yet your SHIFT key is apparantly broken. If you learned how to type on a typewriter you would have learned the shift key and how to capitalize letters in your sentences. Then you bitch about others being lazy. Pot, meet kettle.
Oh, man, here come the flashbacks...
it's a preference thing. i wonder how many authors write on wordprocessors and typewriters instead of computers. probably a lot, i'd assume.
If your first name is Gerry then we are indeed among BBS
Royalty. I remember you from way, way, way back in the day.
(Talking the Strawberry Patch Days)
Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
---|---|
Location: | Prospect, CT |
Users: | 325 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 105:49:22 |
Calls: | 506 |
Messages: | 219621 |