PDA

View Full Version : windows 95 on psp amazing!!!!!



DOS-Master
April 23rd, 2006, 05:04 PM
it's true! he also ran linux on it. see for yourselves

http://www.hacker.co.il/psp/bochs/

Vlad
April 23rd, 2006, 05:06 PM
Wow, he got the Bochs emulator onto a PSP. For those of you who don't know, Bochs is kinda like VMware Virtural Workstation, you run an OS on a simulated machine. Kinda cool to see someone running 95 on something like that.

-VK

DOS-Master
April 23rd, 2006, 05:08 PM
I sooooooooooo want it.

NathanAllan
April 23rd, 2006, 11:04 PM
I wonder if making the screen grayscale would help it run better for all the gui stuff. But then, that's counter-productive, I suppose. I don't mind grayscale.

Starshadow
April 23rd, 2006, 11:49 PM
cool, but its no replacement for a good Nec Mobilepro 770 from a usability standpoint :p

Terry Yager
April 24th, 2006, 04:26 AM
I'll stick with my Libretto...

--T

EvanK
April 24th, 2006, 12:03 PM
UGH. Why don't the newbies here understand this is a VINTAGE forum? Again, a note to Erik & The Mods: by joining in such posts rather than censoring them, you guys are ruining the forum.

Vlad
April 24th, 2006, 12:07 PM
It's Erik's decision about what stays and what doesn't. If you have a problem, use the report this post button.
Windows 95 is a Vintage OS, It ran on the 486......

-VK

sfcspanky
April 24th, 2006, 12:08 PM
Yeah, what Vlad said...

EvanK
April 24th, 2006, 12:14 PM
Windows 95 is a Vintage OS, It ran on the 486...... -VK

Oh gimme a break! This has been debated to death, multiple times, over on classiccmp. No way, no how, is Win 95 or event Win 3.x vintage. And a 486 sure as heck is not vintage. The "10 year rule" is as obsolete as a slide rule.

sfcspanky
April 24th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Out of curiosity, what does classiccomp have to do with the VCF beyond sharing a similar subject?

Vlad
April 24th, 2006, 12:16 PM
Yes, but we're not classiccomp. We're The Vintage Computer Forum. I'll let Erik Decide the fate of this thread then since it's his final word on what happens.

-VK

This will remain locked until Erik says it can stay or be deleted....

Erik
April 24th, 2006, 12:45 PM
The "10 year rule" is as obsolete as a slide rule.

Hey! This isn't the slide rule forum! ;)

To be honest I'm not sure what to do about this thread and similar stuff. I agree that the whole "what is vintage" issue has been debated to death on the cctalk mailing list but this is absolutely not that list and some of our members are here because they felt that group too restrictive.

Windows 95, by itself, is not all that vintage but adding the fact that it's running on a PSP (admittedly not vintage at all) adds to the cool factor some and probably makes it worthy of some discussion.

I'll have to disagree that posts like this, if kept to a minimum, are "ruining" anything. I will, however, move this thread to "general OT" for obvious reasons.

I'll unlock it as well since I'm sure there are folks who want to chime in on the vintage vs. not vintage issue. If that topic takes over this thread then I (or the mods) will prune it and move the relevant posts into a new thread in general discussions. . .

I would like to point out that the Vintage Computer Forums represent a community that goes beyond the hobby. Obviously that's what brought us together and that's what I think our focus here should be, but I did include various off-topic areas because I realize that none of us are automatons and nobody is going to be on-topic 24/7.

I'll take suggestions on that aspect of these forums as well. . . :)

80sFreak
April 24th, 2006, 12:58 PM
No way, no how, is Win 95 or event Win 3.x vintage. And a 486 sure as heck is not vintage. The "10 year rule" is as obsolete as a slide rule.


I agree with you that Win95 isn't vintage, but I would somewhat disagree on Win 3.1.. For instance, would you also classify GEM, GEOS (or GeoWorks) and other GUIs released around the same time as not vintage? As for the 486 it may not be vintage, but a part if it (VLB - Vesa Local Bus) may be considered vintage-ish.

Cheers,

80sFreak
(Bryan P.)

DOS-Master
April 24th, 2006, 01:13 PM
UGH. Why don't the newbies here understand this is a VINTAGE forum? Again, a note to Erik & The Mods: by joining in such posts rather than censoring them, you guys are ruining the forum.

you ruin the forum with that attitude. gees i'm just trying to show you guys some cool mods that you might want to try in the future

CP/M User
April 24th, 2006, 02:24 PM
Erik wrote:

> To be honest I'm not sure what to do about this
> thread and similar stuff. I agree that the whole
> "what is vintage" issue has been debated to death on
> the cctalk mailing list but this is absolutely not
> that list and some of our members are here because
> they felt that group too restrictive.

Too restrictive eh? Hand me over to them - I'll bust them wide
open. They will have to submit themselves to the power to
talk! ;-)

CP/M User.

carlsson
April 24th, 2006, 03:53 PM
Generally, this forum has had a big increase in posts over the last few weeks. I can agree a fair bit of it has been in off-topic sections. If Erik and the mods want to follow Evan's suggestions and clear it up to be more strictly on-topic (as also proposed by Lawrence a few days ago) like the mentioned e-mail list, I have full understanding, but it may also result in fewer active members and a dwindling community. I posted my thoughts in the other thread, so I won't repeat them here.

sfcspanky
April 24th, 2006, 06:45 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this forum is thriving! Why try to stunt the growth of something that is doing incredibly well by restricting the off topic sections of the site?

Erik's done a great job of creating a community for vintage computer lovers, and as long as this place gives people a sense of belonging and collaboration, I feel we should leave it to the moderators and Erik as far as what is said when and where.

I acknowledge I am not a moderator or administrator (and neither is mobilemaster), and on top of that I am relatively new to the forum. However, I run a (presently small) forum myself that might be more appropriate for some of the conversations on here that deal with the more modern computer generations. While I normally would ask for permission from a mod or admin, the link to my forum has already been posted here by Vlad. As such, I provide the url here: http://www.tc-online.us/phpBB2.

From what I can tell, mobilemaster has become a sort of citizen-police- not a moderator, but seems to have a lot of strict ideas on what should/shouldn't be posted where. While it isn't annoying when in moderation, the persistent posts on what should and shouldnt be posted where just kinda tears at the morale of a forum. Dude, lighten up a bit and let the moderators do their jobs. At any rate, we're all human and we all make mistakes; its not unusual for someone to post something in a certain forum and realize afterwards that there was a more suitable place for it elsewhere. And unless they're a mod, they can't do a thing about it.

In the spirit of brevity, I rest my case.

dpatten
April 25th, 2006, 09:21 AM
It's getting into semantics. What is vintage? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Why am I always missing a sock when I finish the laundry?

So here is a definition for vintage, when that word is used in an adjectival fashion. As in vintage computer...



VINTAGE
adj.
Of or relating to a vintage. (referring to a wine pressing, not us)
Characterized by excellence, maturity, and enduring appeal; classic.
Old or outmoded.
Of the best.
Of the most distinctive.

The third definition pretty much covers it IMNSHO. Old or outmoded. Is Windows 95 outmoded? Maybe, maybe not. My grandma still uses it on her home machine. Is it old? From an OS standpoint? Undoubtedly.

Then there are the last two definitions. The best and the most distinctive. Are we defining vintage to mean the best and most distinctive? Wouldn't that pretty much rule out any common machines like commodore 64 or Vic or Apple IIe?

Should we discuss things like Windows 95 here? I think it is up to the site owner and general consensus. Personally it doesn't bother me. But then I'm the guy running mindows 98 on a 386SX16 for fun. I'm sick. Sick I say!

Keep in mind. None of us or the computers we own are getting any younger.

In 10 or 15 years these new smoking hot 4 Ghz computers are going to be sitting on curbs and in recycle centers. Will we not consider them vintage then? Do we not have a sliding scale for vintage? Hell, I just bought a 1ghz machine on Ebay for $5 locally Its almost 7 years old.

Is there some car guy somewhere who has been claiming for 50 years that his 1919 Ford model T is vintage but his neighbour's 1925 Ford Model A isn't?

At what point do you break? When does this reach silliness? Are we gonna have ground wars between the 8 bitters and the 16 bitters? DOS ambushing CP/M?

Bah I say.

Maybe there needs to be a new home on this forum for newer "vintage" machines so purists won't get their panties in a wad having to read about windows 95.

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 09:49 AM
Hey, CP/M can kick DOS's azz, with one byte tied behind it's BIOS!

--T

Terry Yager
April 25th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Actually, I have to disagree with your definition #2. The terms 'mature' and 'classic', while somewhat overlapping sometimes, are often mutually exclusive. I believe that 'maturity' is an important component of 'vintage-ness', but 'classic' is a whole 'nother aminal. I mean, I've never seen a wine bottle that says 'Vintage: Last Month'. It takes at least a few years to earn that designation. Classic is different. Some things can be 'instant classics', (like a brand-new Dodge Viper, f'rinstance). When Bob Seeger's latest album came out earlier this year, it only took one fone call to our local 'Classic Rock' radio station to convince them to start playing it immediatly, even though only a couple of the songs are really retro. I mean...it's Bob Seeger! If anyone defines 'Classic', it's him, even if the material is not 'Vintage'...
(Sh!t, I've been knowin' that for ten years!)

--T

dpatten
April 26th, 2006, 04:40 AM
Actually, I have to disagree with your definition #2. The terms 'mature' and 'classic', while somewhat overlapping sometimes, are often mutually exclusive. I believe that 'maturity' is an important component of 'vintage-ness', but 'classic' is a whole 'nother aminal. I mean, I've never seen a wine bottle that says 'Vintage: Last Month'. It takes at least a few years to earn that designation. Classic is different. Some things can be 'instant classics', (like a brand-new Dodge Viper, f'rinstance). When Bob Seeger's latest album came out earlier this year, it only took one fone call to our local 'Classic Rock' radio station to convince them to start playing it immediatly, even though only a couple of the songs are really retro. I mean...it's Bob Seeger! If anyone defines 'Classic', it's him, even if the material is not 'Vintage'...
(Sh!t, I've been knowin' that for ten years!)

--T


It's not my definition. It's copied straight from the dictionary.

You might not have seen a wine bottle that says "vintage: last month", But I bet that you have heard the phrase "last years vintage" in reference to wine. That's because vintage didn't originally mean what it does today(old or classic) but referred instead simply to a specific pressing of wine.