Image Map Image Map
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 73

Thread: IBM 5150 saved from junkyard

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stone View Post
    You don't really need a network card. A parallel port is sufficient to transfer files (and more) between computers. There are full Server/Workstation parallel port networks that run quite nicely on a 5150/5160.
    Are they compatible with a USB parallel port or would I need a tweener to do that?
    Once upon a time, the internet sucked because it came through the phone. Now the phone sucks because it comes through the internet.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exceter View Post
    Are they compatible with a USB parallel port or would I need a tweener to do that?
    I don't know for sure as I've never tried that particular configuration. The requirements call for a 'standard parallel port' so I'd say try it out and let us know. Have you ever used LapLink over a USB parallel port? If that worked then the network will probably work too.
    PM me if you're looking for 3" or 5" floppy disks. EMail For everything else, Take Another Step

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Chilliwack, BC, Canada
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Still, how long does it take to do a DIR listing on an 8088 when your hard drive is in the gigabyte range? I dumped some archives of stuff from a few DOS machines we had years ago onto a CF card for transfer to my Tandy, and it took a few minutes to scan the directory on a 512MB card. Granted, there's copies of copies, but this is the kind of thing where having two cards can be handy. Once you figure out what programs you want to keep, just transfer them to the system card or internal hard drive, and remove the larger card from the system once it's no longer needed.
    My vintage systems: Tandy 1000 HX, Tandy 1000 RSX, Tandy 1100FD, Tandy 64K CoCo 2, Commodore VIC-20, and some random Pentium in a Hewitt Rand chassis...

    Some people keep a classic car in their garage. Some people keep vintage computers. The latter hobby is cheaper, usually takes less space, and is less likely to lead to a fatal accident.

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackepyon View Post
    Still, how long does it take to do a DIR listing on an 8088 when your hard drive is in the gigabyte range? I dumped some archives of stuff from a few DOS machines we had years ago onto a CF card for transfer to my Tandy, and it took a few minutes to scan the directory on a 512MB card. Granted, there's copies of copies, but this is the kind of thing where having two cards can be handy. Once you figure out what programs you want to keep, just transfer them to the system card or internal hard drive, and remove the larger card from the system once it's no longer needed.
    It's only the first DIR that's slow. Every DIR thereafter is fast. I presume it's some kind of cache but I'm not really sure why.
    Once upon a time, the internet sucked because it came through the phone. Now the phone sucks because it comes through the internet.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Outer Mongolia
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackepyon View Post
    Still, how long does it take to do a DIR listing on an 8088 when your hard drive is in the gigabyte range? I dumped some archives of stuff from a few DOS machines we had years ago onto a CF card for transfer to my Tandy, and it took a few minutes to scan the directory on a 512MB card.
    Does it get slower as the partition fills up? I haven't noticed that, but so far I only have around, I dunno, 25MB on the 2GB DOS 7 partition in my machine.

    I was doing some experimentation with this phenomenon, to try to determine if there might be some "optimal size" for partitions larger than 32MB that balances capacity against that Looooong delay on the first DIR, and what I saw was on a newly formatted empty partition any partition larger than 32MB took a long time compared to a smaller partition, but it seemed like it took about the same amount more time regardless of how much larger. (IE, an empty 63MB partition took about the same time to DIR as a 2GB one.)
    My Retro-computing YouTube Channel (updates... eventually?): Paleozoic PCs

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudimorphodon View Post
    Does it get slower as the partition fills up? I haven't noticed that, but so far I only have around, I dunno, 25MB on the 2GB DOS 7 partition in my machine.

    I was doing some experimentation with this phenomenon, to try to determine if there might be some "optimal size" for partitions larger than 32MB that balances capacity against that Looooong delay on the first DIR, and what I saw was on a newly formatted empty partition any partition larger than 32MB took a long time compared to a smaller partition, but it seemed like it took about the same amount more time regardless of how much larger. (IE, an empty 63MB partition took about the same time to DIR as a 2GB one.)
    That fits with my experience on DOS 6.22. The delay seemed about the same on my 5160 with 7.4G of space spread across 4 partitions as it did on my 5150 with DOS 6.22 and a 256M DOM. I can't say if it gets slower as it fills up because I never filled either of them.
    Once upon a time, the internet sucked because it came through the phone. Now the phone sucks because it comes through the internet.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exceter View Post
    That fits with my experience on DOS 6.22. The delay seemed about the same on my 5160 with 7.4G of space spread across 4 partitions as it did on my 5150 with DOS 6.22 and a 256M DOM. I can't say if it gets slower as it fills up because I never filled either of them.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............
    PM me if you're looking for 3" or 5" floppy disks. EMail For everything else, Take Another Step

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stone View Post
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............
    Don't tempt me. :P
    Once upon a time, the internet sucked because it came through the phone. Now the phone sucks because it comes through the internet.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Chilliwack, BC, Canada
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Try from within DOS Shell. It has to do a directory and file count each time you select a drive.
    My vintage systems: Tandy 1000 HX, Tandy 1000 RSX, Tandy 1100FD, Tandy 64K CoCo 2, Commodore VIC-20, and some random Pentium in a Hewitt Rand chassis...

    Some people keep a classic car in their garage. Some people keep vintage computers. The latter hobby is cheaper, usually takes less space, and is less likely to lead to a fatal accident.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Outer Mongolia
    Posts
    2,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackepyon View Post
    Try from within DOS Shell. It has to do a directory and file count each time you select a drive.
    Aaaah. Yeah, I thought you meant that delay on the command line prompt was taking several minutes and was wondering what the heck. This, though, actually perfectly fits with my expectations regarding DOSSHELL.EXE. (When referring to it verbally I'd always break the two halves of the executable's name in a nonstandard location, in between the second "S" and the "H"...)
    My Retro-computing YouTube Channel (updates... eventually?): Paleozoic PCs

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •