Posted by
michael
on from the chaining-bootloaders-for-fun-and-profit dept.
cpaluc writes "Bored? Surplus spare time and PC hardware? Read on. OSNews has links to a couple of articles (1,2) about a guy who installed 37 operating systems on one PC. There's something to do with your spare time and hardware."
It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.
um, what is your definition of redundant? Anyone?
-- They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
sorry, i was talking about the link in the grey box, not the link in the message. Yes i've seen Clerks, and yes i think its amazing that someone found the connection between the movie and this story. But No, i don't think its appropriate to have a link on here with something thats considered malacious because it removes your ability to click on the volume control while it screams 'i'm lookin at gay porno' and because unless you have a one year old system or newer your's will probably crash because of the 57 windows i had to close (luckily i'm on XP and can close them all as a group) Before you say that i'm wasting everyone's time why don't you see what i'm talkin about before you jump to conclusions. Anonymous jackass Coward...you're one load your mother should have swallowed. 'nuff said
I was actually asked to name five operating systems my very first computer-related job interview. I did exceed that number but I wish I could have said that I'd installed 37 on my computer...
You can't name 37 OS'es? You should take a look here - sorry about the offensive domain name, but they really do have a very long list of OS'es, both old and new!
-- Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
VICE is a Versatile Commodore Emulator, i.e. a program that runs on a Unix, MS-DOS, Win95/NT, OS/2, Acorn RISC OS or BeOS machine and executes programs intended for the old 8-bit Commodore computers. The current version emulates the C64, the C128, the VIC20, all the PET models (except the SuperPET 9000, which is out of line anyway) and the CBM-II (aka C610).
Re:And not a one of them...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You can't really count VICE without counting VMWare.. hehe VICE came to my mind too. C64 0wnz. If you count emulated OSes into it, this would be a really boring story.
Step 1: install 37 operating operating systems on one machine Step 2: mount everything possible in linux (not sure about partition types, inconsequential detail though), cat it all to/dev/audio. Convince moma that this is a somber reflection on the fractured nature of our decentralized, technological culture. Step 3: Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Re:Business Model:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Step 3: Sell it as modern art Step 4: Profit
Re:Business Model:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, no... you have to add a bunch of exclamation points after the "Profit" or it's not very funny. Like this:
4) Profit!!!!!!!
Ha ha ha!! See how much funnier that is? Also, you need to do it as a karma-accumulating user, or there's no point to posting the stupid tired 1) Foo 2) Bar 3) ??? 4) Profit!!!!! joke.
Re:Business Model:
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple Rhapsody x86
by
green+pizza
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
He should have included Apple's x86 version of Rhapsody (developer release 1 or 2 of Mac OS X from several years ago). Either that or Darwin x86, which is available from Apple's website.
darwin's pretty touch and go on x86, but nonetheless, he shoulda tried it out : )
i'm surprised a guy working on the TechTV show "the screensavers" could even get past the openbsd installer. i used to watch that show back in the day, but man, watching it now is like watching video professor
"try my product"..
Re:Apple Rhapsody x86
by
Aqua+OS+X
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It'd be neat to see that guy toss in a PPC and a 68xxx emulator too. If did that he could be up to 50+ OSes... however I guess emulators might be thought of as "cheating."
It might be fun to try an build a modern version of one of these old Apple machines: Power Macintosh 7300/180 PC Compatible These thing has both a PPC 604e and a Pentium 1. They could boot a PPC OS and an x86 OS at the same time. One could use a key combo to switch OSes on the fly.... they where rad:).
-- "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I've got some of these if you want'em.:P Some are in 7300/200's though; a guy who bought a bunch of my 180's didn't want the IBMPC compatability cards, so I just tossed them into the others. [/shameless_advertisement]
Side note: the HD's in the 7300s seem to die often. I have only gotten 2 of about 8 where the 2GB HD's where not bad in them.
-- Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
I'm about to post I can run 60+ OS with emulators alone. Technically, it is not cheating, and more amazingly, OS run with emulators can be up SIMULTANEOUSLY.
There are a few problems with those old Pentium cards for the PCI Macs. First off, the maximum amount of RAM the cards can handle is 72MB. Second, the processor was soldered onto the card (No upgrading here). Next, the hardware really was only designed to approximate an x86 PC. Consequently, the card uses special drivers and to the best of my knoweldge you can only run Windows 95 and maybe Windows 3.1. I don't think you are able to run Linux or anything else. This would have been excusable, but in Win 95 the drivers only run in 16 bit mode. It gets worse the MacOS drivers for the card rely on a bug in the PCI driver layer in the MacOS that was fixed in MacOS 8.5 and later, making the card unusable in MacOS 8.5 and later with the Apple drivers. A company later came in and released updated drivers for the card that let the card run in MacOS 8.5, 8.6, 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2. I think this update also provided 32 bit protected mode drivers for Win 95.
-- Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
You can do something similar with Sun workstations. For $400, you can add a pci card that has an x86 processor, memory, etc. then you can either have a separate monitor attached or tab the desktops. It's actually pretty sweet and allows you to use Solaris/SPARC and LinuxorWindows/x86 on the same machine for pretty cheap and do it in hardware, not virtual software.
Re:Apple Rhapsody x86
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah. Even If I did not have 37 similar operating systems, I had OPENSTEP/Mach on my PC, along with 8 others (different) OSes. Not half a dozen of linux distro.
Wow- how incredibly useless.
by
scosol
·
· Score: 0, Troll
...subject says it all...
-- I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
I hate to be boring and pedantic (OK, I don't, I quite enjoy it, but that's just me), but Minesweeper didn't appear until 3.1, and I don't think (I may be wrong) that Solitaire was around back then either.
--
--
Windows XP. From the people who brought you Edlin.
Solitaire was certainly in Windows 3.0, and I'm pretty sure my 80286 had Minesweeper with its Windows install as well. Not too sure about Minesweeper. Solitaire, though, was extremly exciting to look at when all the cards bumpbed "out of the screen" when you finished. Espcially on 12MHz.
Who says he found them? Maybe he actually purchased them, way back when, and kept the floppies, reverently, until such time as he might use them again.
"Squadron leader, we have pigs at 11 o'clock high":-)
Incidentally, you can get yourself some OS/2 bits here They used to have Windows 1.01, and 2.0, but I suppose the Beast got to them. I mean, MS have got to try their best to protect their large sales volume of these products, as we enter the 21st century.
And if you're feeling really trippy, you can see some old Windows screenshots here.
Maybe he actually purchased them, way back when, and kept the floppies, reverently, until such time as he might use them again.
Very unlikely. If you read the article, you'd know he is only 18. He was 11 when Windows 95 came out. I still have DOS 3.0 disks lying around somewhere, and I did not purchase them. My dad bought them when I was a kid. Now I'm 25.
It is a very impressive install though. I try to currently reinstall a old P120/32Meg laptop (No network card) that I want to give to my sister so she can take it to Africa (goes for Humanitarian aid), and I tried my old OS/2 Warp version and it didn't work. Now I'm trying VectorLinux which seems to be promising.
I'm pretty sure he must have had a struggle with all these OSes. I cannot imagine that Windows 1.01 would run on DOS 5 for example (Windows 1.01 is no OS in my eyes)
-- Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Being a pedant, I have to point out that I wasn't suggesting this in seriousness. My comment said:
"Squadron leader, we have pigs at 11 o'clock high":-)
This is a rather obscure reference to the expression "pigs might fly", an idiom which probably doesn't have a good equivalent in French/German (Luxembourg speaks both, right?). It means it's extremely unlikely.
And you're right - Windows 1.01 needs DOS 3.3 or below (yes, below) to run. I tried it once. It was really nasty, and trashed the whole filesystem. Admittedly it was my 286, with a 20mb MFM HDD, but still:-)
Sorry, I overlooked the reference. I know the expression "when pigs might fly".
You actually too the trouble to look up from where I come? (Okay, it's two clicks). In Lux people indeed speak French and German..and I speak 3 other languages. One of the advantages of living here.
That 286, with 20mb MFM HDD didn't happend to be a IBM PS/2 Model 50? We had one like that in the late eighties. I remember it partitioned up to 6 partitions, and I was wondering how to fill it all up. Aaaah, memories:-)
-- Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Re:Why???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
actually, those Windows versions you've mentioned are not OSes... They are just DOS shells. =)
Friend of mine has an old Dell inspiron i120 (or sometihng like that).. 120mhz pentium, 32mb ram, 2gb hd, no cdrom. Linux 2.4-based distros won't even boot. FreeBSD 4.6 does a network install flawlessly. Give it a shot!
Not IBM, nope. It was a Digital Research Machine (that's what DRM meant in *those* days!). A 286 (12.5mhz, I think) with just 640k RAM, 20mb MFM, Hercules monochrome graphics. . I ran beautiful software like 4DOS, CSHOW, and SIMCGA so I could play some Apogee games, etc. I also used (and still own) Visual Basic for DOS. Aaaah memories, indeed!
I thought solitare was so much cooler on OS/2.. when you resized the window all the cards scaled. Same with all the other OS/2 games like chess and stuff.
Actually the earliest versions of Windows had "Othello" (or "Reversi") as a sample game. That of course required intelligence on the user's part, and MicroSoft apparently changed their target audience with later versions:-)
Re:Why???
by
hoagieslapper
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Correct me if I am wrong here, but are Windows 1.x and Windows 2.x even operating systems? I know Windows 3.x wasn't. The OS for Windows 3.x was DOS.
Funny thing is that the version of Solitaire on my 1Ghz XP box is probably the same code that I ran Solitaire on my 386/16 with 4 MB of RAM back in the day.
The card deck-spill animation after you win used to take 10 minutes to complete. Now it takes about 0.75 sec.:D
Well, I know out of experience that 2.4.x distro's will boot. Just don't go mainstream, which means no SuSE, no RedHat, no Mandrake. Those are probably all compiled for Pentium Pro class machines (80686 and more) The laptop I mentioned is a Toshiba and all hardware is supported. The laptop had been running Peanut Linux for over 1 year. The only problem with Peanut is that it comes without a compiler. Now my sister doesn't need that, but I do in order to tweak the machines (compile kernel, install WindowMaker). It get's really, really, small on that 1.3Gig Harddisk when you add the compiler and the kernel source tree.
The above mentioned Vector Linux is smaller than Peanut and comes with gcc. Okay, granted a lot of documentation is missing (man lilo didn't work *sigh*), but I get a working system for 250Meg harddisk space. I find that a sweet deal. (Peanut was more) It even comes with my email client of choice (Sylpheed)
For older machines, the "minimalist" or "mini" distributions are the way to go. Thanks for the advice: if VectorLinux turns out not to work (X is playing it's games again, and I couldn't reuse XF86Config from the previous install because now it is a 4.1.0 version), I will give FreeBSD a shot. (first thought of NetBSD myself) Network install is not an option: the dongle of the PCMCIA network card I have is broken.:-( Everything must go over CD.
-- Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Yes, you're right. Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 95/98/ME are AFAIK only Operating Environments. Whereas with NT4/2000/XP, these enhancements are actually built into the kernal.
I worked with even earlier versions of Windows that were sent to developers, including the tiled ones (ie 1 and 2). I remember the Reversi game well, but I can't remember if the Solitaire game was also included.
bah
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
IMO, multiple versions of the same OS don't really count. And whoever says a dos file manager is an operating system is an idiot.
If you noticed, he didnt count the file managers in his count of 37... he said if he did he would have about 51 total. He also did not count his two sick OS'es.
I can't find my favorite!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Where is emacs?
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
The_Shadows
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Don't you mean, where is vi?
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
SquadBoy
·
· Score: 5, Funny
No Emacs is a decent OS all it is missing is a good text editor. vi OTHOH is a text editor.
--
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics.
Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
Jason+Earl
·
· Score: 2
With viper Emacs finally has a decent text editor! Emacs goodness plus vi keystrokes is a beautiful thing.
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Eventually malloc()s all computer storage
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
prator
·
· Score: 1
vi OTHOH is a text editor.
What's the extra H for?
-prator
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
SamTheButcher
·
· Score: 1
Or for that matter, MS Word.
I can't tell you how many people I know that, when asked what OS they have, say "Uh. It's Word 97."
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
sinserve
·
· Score: 3, Funny
It is vi, it inserts random Ms and Hs into your text. I am typHingM thMis in viH.
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
sinserve
·
· Score: 1
(cons)s more like it.
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
vi OTOH is a text editor....all it is missing is a good OS.
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
M-x viper-mode :)
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
hobbicik
·
· Score: 1
I've got a new sig. Thanks!
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't put it in your sig. It's a very old joke.
Re:I can't find my favorite!
by
jonadab
·
· Score: 1
> Emacs goodness plus vi keystrokes is a beautiful thing.
I haven't taken the time to familiarise myself much with the vi keystrokes, but I must say I agree in principle that the default keybindings are the worst thing about Emacs. I love the functionality of Emacs, and I don't mind the size (come on, compare it to apps with comparable levels of functionality in other categories, such as OpenOffice or Mozilla), but I did have to do a whole lot of customisation to make it usable. With that done, though, it's great:-) And anyway, the nice thing about Emacs is that you _can_ fully customise it. Without writing any C or C++ (elisp is much easier to work with, IMO).
There are a couple of things Emacs needs to really qualify as an OS, though. First off, it needs filesystem drivers so it doesn't have to rely on the ones in an underlying OS, and then it also needs a way to be booted directly from a standard boot loader. Also, a TCP/IP stack, since currently it relies on the one in the OS. There are probably another couple of bits and pieces it would need too. However, Emacs could certainly qualify as a shell that runs on top of an OS, so it's at least as much an OS as Windows 3.1, if you look at it that way. (Of course, Windows was intended to function as a user's sole interface to the computer, and Emacs wasn't really originally, but nevermind _that_.)
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Definitly a cool thing to do. I'm waiting for someone much smarted then me to figure out a way to run multiple OS's at a time(perhaps one os per cpu, with multiple cpu's. Swiching between linux and win2000 instantly would be sweet. Mad props to this guy though. I can't even count that high.
Just get a 4 port KVM switch (Linksys makes good ones). That way, if one of your systems crashes, you can just immediately switch to the other one. All I do is press CTRL key twice quickly to switch between Windows 2000 and Linux. I'm waiting for them to come out with a KVM with multimonitor support though. Does it exist?
> Run Win2000 in VMWare under Linux. > Or run Linux in VMWare under Win2000.
Run Win2000 in VMWare under Linux, which is running in VMWare under Win2000, which is running in VirtualPC under MacOS X, which is running on a Mac emulator under Linux, which is running on bochs under BeOS, which is running under an x86 emulator for VMS, which is running under a Vax emulator for glulx, running under glulxe.exe on PC-DOS 3.3 on an 8086.
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I've got the x86 Rhapsody Operating system somewhere around here. For those who don't know that's Apple's foray into the x86 market with the NeXt OS - now pretty much OS X.
Back around 96 or 98 I decided I needed to find a better Operating System. I put Rhapsody, BeOS, Slackware, Redhat, Debian and Win9x on my PC. I liked BeOS and Rhapsody the most, but the applications I wanted weren't there; and I didn't see a future for them either. I ended picking Redhat out of the lot.
Now adays I use OS X or Win XP at home, and Redhat on my server. Joseph Elwell.
I don't suppose you want to sell a copy of x86 Rhapsody? I've been looking all over the place for it... Email me at sniffers2k1 @ yahoo.com, please. (Remove spaces around the @ sign, obviously)
-- Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
I couldn't sit still that long. Sure, some OS installations are more time-consuming than others, but in general I don't look forward to the interminable wait between prompts.
I'd also be curious to know how many reboots it took. I also want to know how come nobody cared enough to get William Shatner to go to this guy's house and say "What's wrong with you? Have you ever slept with a woman?".
--
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Re:Patience?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Have you ever slept with a woman?
Not by the look of him...
http://www.maximumpc.com/images/afadavit.jpg
Re:Patience?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, that's just a promotional piece...this is the real guy.
I also want to know how come nobody cared enough to get William Shatner to go to this guy's house and say "What's wrong with you? Have you ever slept with a woman?".
From the article:
Were there any OSes you couldn't find?
Yes. Windows 1.0. Refer to the statement on Jupiter's 7th moon in previous answer. Oh, and I couldn't find an OS that would tell me how to successfully deal with girls either.
Am I the only person who finds this statement a bit incongruous coming from someone with the nick "Zen Mastuh"?;-)
--
Come on, give it up, that's
Re:Patience?
by
scott1853
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is 2002. Everything, including achieving balance between body and mind takes place in zero-time. Well, except for Slashdot posting, that takes 20 seconds.
Re:Patience?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I also want to know how come nobody cared enough to get William Shatner to go to this guy's house and say "What's wrong with you? Have you ever slept with a woman?".
I think it would be more apropos if Linus did this.
partition table
by
DrLudicrous
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yikes! Think about how long it must have taken to partition that hard drive! Someone must have had a LOT of time on their hands...
of a dream I always had: to install Win 3.1.1 on my 1ghz pc, just to see how fast it would boot. Soundcard and just about everything else probably wouldn't work, but dang it would be nice to see windows start up quickly.
I'd like to try running one of the benchmarking programs of the day. I've got fond memories of programs telling me that my 486SX25 was in fact a 250MHz 386.
I also remember chuckling to myself thinking "250MHz? Processors will never get to that speed!". Ah well. Wrong again.
--
--
Windows XP. From the people who brought you Edlin.
Re:Which reminds me...
by
sys$manager
·
· Score: 1
it would be nice to see windows start up quickly.
XP Home starts on my new laptop within ten seconds. As an ex-Windows 2000 Pro user, I couldn't believe it when I swiched it on and looked back at it and it was sitting at the desktop already.
I remember back in college I had a 486/33 with a promise ide caching controller with 4MB on it. With Win 3.1, after the initial power on, I could reboot it and it would be up in windows in about 2-3 seconds without even accessing the hard drive. Oh how I loved that promise ide controller!
Re:Which reminds me...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
sure, it would blue screen in about 200 ms flat : )
Re:Which reminds me...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've had this sick fantasy of installing dos on a drive and then upgrading one step and a time 3.1, 95, 98, etc... until XP and then see if the computer would even work anymore
Just try even a high end Pentium. I worked for an ISP and we still had a few customers that had Win 3.1 so we had a Pentium 233 with Windows 3.1 so we could work with the install program. Everything was instant.
Re:Which reminds me...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I put win311 on a P2-350 wiht 128mb of ram, and it was lightning fast....
Re:Which reminds me...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
With modern hardware Windows ME boots almost instantly...
Alright, let me ask this.
by
antis0c
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Where the hell did he get all these Operating Systems from? Not even getting into how does he have licenses for them all, but Windows 1.01? All the versions of QNX? I'm asking a serious question too, anyone know where?
--
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
Aexia
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have an early CD-ROM program(some reference) that not only runs on Windows v1.xx but includes a copy as well.
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
MrResistor
·
· Score: 2
Well, you can download QNX from their site for free for personal use (Neutrino, anyway, I'm not sure about older versions, but I'd bet you can download QNX 4 from there as well).
Where one would find Windows 1.01, though, I have no idea. Ebay, perhaps?
-- Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
egreB
·
· Score: 1
Windows 1.01 resides on my harddrive. I found a disk at somebody's house (I was fixing their computer). I got the disk when I asked (-8
It's not that hard to find old OSes. Generally, it's called Google.
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Read the above mentioned techtv page for more details... I seriously doubt all of them are licensed, though... Oh, and the reason why? Maybe I know because I live in a nearby city in the same state. His story made the local news a while back. Check his state of residence - Utah. Can you think of much else to do here?:)
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
Oztun
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I found a page with google that looks to have windows 1.01 and QNX links.
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
aussersterne
·
· Score: 2
I have still have both licenses and media for Windows 2.01 and 3.0 (the only version ever to run under DOSEMU), OS-9000 x86, OS/2 1.0 and OS/2 2.1, OS9/68k 2.3, TRS-DOS and some old version of SunOS, I don't even remember which, from a Sun 3 (now there was a beast). The SunOS is on a bootable QIC cartridge! I think I even have an Archive Viper 2150 somewhere that I could probably use to boot it, if I had a Sun 3. Oh, and I also have the original Mac Finder 'System' disk from a 128k Mac that cost about $3,000 back in the day. Come to think of it, I also have the Mac 128k somewhere, closeted away, though I doubt whether it runs now.
They're all just left hanging around from my own computers over the years. *shrug* That's sort of how it works, isn't it?!
-- STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Were there any OSes you couldn't find?
Yes. Windows 1.0. Refer to the statement on Jupiter's 7th moon in previous answer. Oh, and I couldn't find an OS that would tell me how to successfully deal with girls either.
If only he could get a copy of Windows 1.0...
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Check his state of residence - Utah. Can you think of much else to do here?
He could sleep with his wives, if he had any.
Re:Alright, let me ask this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
Aexia
·
· Score: 5, Funny
* Windows 1.01 * Windows 1.03 * Windows 2.03 * Windows 2.10 * Windows 3.1 * Windows 95 * Windows 98 First Edition * Windows 98 Second Edition * Windows 98 SE Lite (not counted as separate) * Windows Me * Windows 2000 * Windows XP
Not only do we need to verify that he has licenses for each of those installations, I'm willing to bet he illegally transfered licenses from their original systems!
In short, this man is a terrorist who only wishes to kill each and every freedom-loving American. Arrest him now!
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He has the original media and license for Windows 1.01 all others are upgrade licenses.
When he sells his computer, the paper work is going to be a real bitch.
:-)
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
McFly69
·
· Score: 1
He can always say that his box is virtually in China.... where it is legal.
He might of nto illegally transfered the licenses, as long as he has one componet from each orginal unit:)
Come on people... laugh.. ITS FUNNY!
--
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
McFly69
·
· Score: 1
Wait one friggin second... Where the hell is Windows 3.11 for work groups, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4, Windows 2k Server (assuiming he has pro), and Winblows 97 (a stripped down warez version released in 97 which it said 97).
Mod - Interesting +4
--
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
perljon
·
· Score: 1
With Windows 2000 Server licenses, if you buy this license from MS, it allows you to run Windows 2000 Server or any earlier MS Server Product. (I was research MS licenses recently for a client)
If the desktop license is the same, a single XP Prod License should be enough for all desktop OS's.
-- This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
dzym
·
· Score: 2
The key word is "or". He would not have the license for all of the above, just one of the above.
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
Electrum
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The key word is "or". He would not have the license for all of the above, just one of the above.
He is only running one at a time.
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
JoshRoss
·
· Score: 1
Well, on TechTV he said that he had trouble getting NT 3.1 , 3.5 and 3.51 behaving NICE with others.
Re:Quick! Someone call the BSA!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In short, this man is a terrorist who only wishes to kill each and every freedom-loving American. Arrest him now!
Does this mean each hard drive spindle is an "axis of evil"?
I think the real question is, what would Jesus do to be on Slashdot?
-- The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Re:Simple purpose
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Sleep with CowboyNeal?
Re:Simple purpose
by
*xpenguin*
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I think the real question is, what would Jesus do to be on Slashdot?
Kill the trolls.
Re:Simple purpose
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't know about 37 different operating systems, but I could masturbate 37 times in one day. I could videotape it if you wanted to verify, and I could keep the.. well you know.. I could keep it in a jar and drive to California with it.
Apparently he should have installed 37 operating systems, instead of walking on water, healing people physically, saving them from sin, and rising from the dead.
Of course, he often is mentioned on slashdot, even aside from his mention by you... see these articles or comments.
I'd just accept him throwing lightning and plagues at his "followers" who maim, kill, and enslave in the name of universal love and brotherhood, personally.
Christianity would be a pretty decent religion if it were somehow purged of 98.5% of those who call themselves "Christian."
-- You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:Simple purpose
by
scott1853
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Jesus won't be on slashdot because he refuses to switch from Windows to Linux. Apparently Jesus never loses his data when his Windows box crashes because he always saves.:P
Re:Simple purpose
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He would settle the following arguments and issues once and for all:
* vi vs. emacs * Intel vs. AMD * Linux vs. Windows * RIAA/MPAA vs. the world * Palladium/TCPA * standardize a DVD-burning format * get broadband to people in the sticks still stuck on dialup...and before Jesus goes to bed, he'd write and finish HolyOS (which would curiously happen to run *exactly* like OS X), which he would make sure ran on every architecture currently available (and it would run perfectly on all those arch's the first time he compiles it)... And he'd release JesusOS under the BSD license, for The Good of the World.
And if Jesus had spare time, he'd fix all the security holes in Windows. Wait, no -- that would require an Act of God; even Jesus has his limits...:)
South Park fans, of course, would be more interested to know: "What would Brian Boitano do to be on Slashdot?". He'd kick himself an ass or two, that's what Brian Boitano'd do...
-- Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Remember the Jesux operating system parody? Christian-themed Linux, only with "function calls and features suggesting evil and otherwise pagan ideas would be changed: abort(3), kill(1), references to "daemon" "
Teh J35U5 C|-|R15T I5 3l337, D00D!
--
--All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine... However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.
That's a little bit of an understatement. So how many version of Windows before it starts getting redundant?
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think I remember Windows 95, 98, and ME (little more difficult to get to DOS in ME) using IO.SYS and WIN.COM, therefore being loaded from a version of DOS.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
egreB
·
· Score: 1
If we're that technical, Windows 9x|ME isn't operating systems either. They're shells as well. IIRC, Win95 runs on DOS 7 and Win98 and ME on DOS 8. All NT-derived Windowses (NT, 2K, XP) are "real" OSes on their own.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
NineNine
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Prior to Win 95? Actually, I consider everything up to and including Win ME to be DOS-based shells.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
foonf
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
All the non-NT versions of Windows still are technically DOS shells, but the boot process has been changed so that Windows loads immediately (and cannot be started from another version of DOS).
There may be a valid technical reason for it, but the main effect was to completely shut out competing DOS implementations, as Caldera argued in their lawsuit against MS. During this lawsuit they actually demonstrated a slightly-modified Windows 95 running under DR-DOS.
--
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
Theom
·
· Score: 0
As they included their own DOS versions there are operational systems.
--
mp3: l33t term for empty.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
compwiz3688
·
· Score: 1
I've read through the posts on this thread, and what I'm about to say is a tad redundant, but anyway:
I leafed through a rather thick book once in the library. The author has basically decompiled IO.SYS/MSDOS.SYS/COMMAND.COM and compared the DOS version with Win9x's (I think it was only a 95, since it was a long, long time ago). They both contain almost identical coding, except for the "missing" MSDOS.SYS in Win9x. That file is actually combined as a single file in IO.SYS.
In fact, he made a claim that Win9x is really DOS with a really beefed up Win 3.x (better 32-bit, multitasking, new 9x look even with the 16-bit apps, etc). If you edit the MSDOS.SYS file, you can actually boot to a DOS prompt.
He also made some other comparisons and fiddling around with the, um, shell, but the IO/MSDOS/COMMAND is what I remembered from it. Well, that and how to resurrect MSDPMI from Windows 3.1x/9x files.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
perljon
·
· Score: 1
Even though you can make Windows 95 boot to a command prompt, the command prompt is called windows 95. It isn't dos. Just looks like it.
Before Windows 95 you can load DOS, then load windows. Seperately. Windows 95 and after, there is no DOS.
-- This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
Webmonger
·
· Score: 2
Actually, you could configure Win95 to boot to the dos prompt. Then you typed "win" and it booted the Windows GUI. And it was referred to as a "DOS prompt" in the Windows 95 GUI.
Yes, it's all hair-splitting, but it's pretty clear that the Windows GUI was a separate thing, just like Gnome/KDE/TWM/foo.
And that's not such a bad idea. Why not keep separate functionality separate? You could even make a version of Windows Explorer that didn't contain a web browser. Oh wait-- they already did that.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
perljon
·
· Score: 1
But the DOS prompt was called Windows 95.
-- This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
pyrrho
·
· Score: 1
during the Win95 Beta typeing version (or is the command ver) in at the command prompt in win85 showed that what was running was MS DOS 7.0.
That's what it was. That microsoft called it something different, in order to support an illegal leveraging to destroy the DOS compatibles (like DRDOS) doesn't mean it WAS what they called it. Or rather, that what they called it made it something different. That is. Even bill gates admited when XP came out... Win95 was a version of DOS!
--
-pyrrho
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
gmarceau
·
· Score: 3, Informative
To those who have replied to intermodal : You got your definition of an OS all wrong. An OS's job is to mediate between multiple program trying to access to same ressource. That could be the disk, the memory, the ports, the printers, etc. Msdos hardly qualifies, Win3.1 is twisted and Win95 is proper.
Msdos always just barely qualified as an operating system. It had some memory layout libraries and provided some basic disk access libraries, both of which could be ignored by programs. Win3.1 added mediation of screen estate space, of the printers and of the sound card. Those were the bad old days where the high levels function, which had fairly proper mediation, were running on a non-kernel. It was the Eric-the-half-a-bee of operating systems. Painful days indeed.
With its prehemptive scheduler, Win95 introduced clock-cycle mediation. It also brought proper memory mediation (memory "protection") For the first time, Windows was providing something more than a set of ignorable library functions, which qualified it as true OS.
You will indeed find Msdos code shipping with Win95 : it's upside down. It is part of the msoldapp compatibility layer that ran 16-bits apps, and it ran them under the new 32-bits kernel. This doesn't take anything away from Win95's OS-ness.
-- This post was compiled with `% gec -O`. email me if you need the sources
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
chthon
·
· Score: 1
Win95 still has no pre-emptive scheduling, only collaborative.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
perljon
·
· Score: 1
However, because software tittles are defined by their creator, MS gave Windows95 as the title to DOS 7.0.
-- This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
Webmonger
·
· Score: 2
Depends where you looked. The ver command might have identified it as Windows 95, but the Windows GUI referred to the "DOS prompt" and "Full-screen DOS mode" and used the MSDOS icon for commandline programs. I've never noticed any mention of DOS in the Win2k gui.
The point is not that it was either Windows or DOS. The point is, it was confused.
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
gmarceau
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Preemptive multitasking for 16-bit Windows-based applications Win95:No WinNt:Yes
The compatibility layer which ran old 16-bits apps (winoldapp) wasn't preemptive, but the main kernel certainly was.
-- This post was compiled with `% gec -O`. email me if you need the sources
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
pyrrho
·
· Score: 1
I agree, but also nitpick as follows. 1. The creators didn't name it, the Marketing Department did. 2. What something is named is not identical to what it is.
--
-pyrrho
Re:Win earlier than 95 were shells for DOS
by
perljon
·
· Score: 1
By creators, I meant Microsoft in general. And because Microsoft created the name Windows 95 and they created the definition, even the DOS prompt is Windows 95. The OS under the windowing shell is Windows 95. It happens to be that the windowing shell is also called Windows 95.
-- This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
Not really 37 different OSen
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Different versions of the same OS hardly count as different OSen.
Why didn't he install Plan-9, by the way?
It's an achievement configuring them all to boot properly, but not really very interesting.
I am suprised that the early versions of some operating systems actually work properly on modern hardware - backwards compatibility isn't that good.
Dos 6.22 w/Dosshell
Dos 7.0
DR-Dos
FreeDos
OS/2 warp IV
SkyOS
Windows Menu:
Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98 First Edition
Windows 98 SE (2 installations - Main, Lite)
Windows ME
Windows XP Pro
Windows 2000 Pro
Unix Menu:
AtheOS
Syllable OS
Aos (Bluebottle)/Oberon 2.3.6
BeOS 5 Personal Edition
BeOS 5 w/ Mac skin
BeOS 5.03 Developer Edition
QNX 6.1
QNX 6.2
FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
Minix
LInux Menu:
Storm 2000
Immunix
Conectiva
Libranet
Vector
JBLinux
Slackware
Trustix
Red Hat 7.2
Mandrake 8.2
Debian
Dos Window Managers Menu:
Tandy Deskmate
Desktop 2
Dos94
Dosstart
Egress
Gaze
Glance
IconDOs
Iconshell
QBfos99
Iconshell 2.1
xgui 3
xgui 4
MAcShell
MilleniumOS
XTos
An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
Elentar
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
(without reading the article). These are all ones that I've used at some point, too. And they should all run on a PC.
1) MS-DOS 3.3 2) MS-DOS 5 3) MS-DOS 6.2 4) Windows 95 5) Windows 98 6) Windows 98SE 7) Windows ME 8) Windows XP 9) Windows NT 3.51 10) Windows NT 4.00 11) Windows 2000 12) SCO Xenix 13) Linux of all sorts 14) FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc. 15) Solaris 16) GNU/Hurd 17) Plan 9 18) FreeDOS (Version ?) 19) DR-DOS (Version ?) 20) Novell Netware (Version ?)
That's about all I can pull from the top of my head. If you consider seperate versions BSD, Linux, FreeDOS, DR-DOS, Netware as different OSes or installations of Windows 286/386/3.1/3.11 as actual OSes, you'd easily get past 37.
-Elentar
-- The wheel it turns, around and around,
with an ancient rumbling sound.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
403Forbidden
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I saw this on TheScreenSavers awhile back. If i recall he had multiple XOSL (www.xosl.org) bootloaders and it worked in chains.. one XOSL would boot another which would boot another etc. until you got to the OS of choice
The OSes he booted were not all unique kernels, there were about 10 different linux distros if i remember right, and Win 1.0-XP i belive.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
sphealey
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
UCSD p-System (don't think it can run from a hard disk though)
CP/M-86
Concurrent CP/M
sPh
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
quinine
·
· Score: 1
BeOS
OS/2
Then of course you don't have to boot into an operating system in order to run it. Emulation opens the door a little wider.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
DEBEDb
·
· Score: 2
Forgot Amiga OS, and the great NeXTSTEP. Then, of course, how about MINIX, TOPS, etc.
--
Considered harmful.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
ztc
·
· Score: 1
I would consider FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD to be separate entries (not different versions of the same.)
Also, you forget QNX and AtheOS!
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
mrbuttle
·
· Score: 1
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
langed
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
IIRC, EMACS can be run as its own OS as well. Granted, it's not done much, but it is possible.
And, there's a great OS called Oberon (yeah, there's a programming language of the same name--from the same people too) but this beast required a special, rather expensive and obscure card. On an 8-bit card for an 8086 or 80286 came an array of anywhere from 4 to 8 processors. It was one of the first true multitasking OSes available--well before PC hardware really supported it.
Personally, I was proud when I had 8 OSes installed in rather small partitions on my 1.2GB drive. (Hey, 1.2GB was "big" back around '95 or so....:) I used a third-party bootloader called "BootIt". It had the ability to create up to 10 partitions of different types, didn't have any problems getting around that 1024cyl barrier, and was capable of booting any OS I threw at it--even the MS products were able to boot from logical partitions, even well past the 1024th cylinder!
From a technical standpoint, when I read "37 OSes, 1 PC", I thought "Yeah, how many partitions, and what bootloader?" After all, there's a bit of a fixed limit of only 4 partitions in a partition table.... But BootIt got around that by storing the actual partition info in its own partition, and wiping out the partition info in the table, rewriting it just before booting the relevent OS (and unhiding the related logical/extended partitions as well.)
Theoretically, with a nice 20GB drive, I could have pulled the same stunt with BootIt--it was also capable of booting itself.
From the article:
If you count my 18 DOS window managers, I have a total of 57 operating systems on my PC.
Well, if you count QuarterDeck's DesqView, you can throw in a whole new mix of multiple versions of DOS, Win 2.x, and Win 3.x--and you can even use it like I do--I put DesqView on a spare box an ran a Win3.1 version of IE 5 on it. I found it to be a great way to get IE "running" on linux. (I have a friend who said he wouldn't switch unless he could keep his Internet Explorer. Boy, converting Windows zealots can be kinda rough!:) Okay, and it felt a little satisfying--like a slap in the face of the great, evil Empire of Microsoft. Make the two platforms interoperate, somehow, even when they go out of their way to prevent it. It's one of my favorite--and frustrating--challenges.
And, coming back to the article again, you can count these new permutations separately:
DesqView
DesqView+Dos3+Dos4 (setver.exe didn't come with DOS until 5.0)
DesqView+Dos5+Win3.1+WinS extensions
Oh, and if this guy really wanted to get his hands dirty, he could start rolling out his own OS; that has been a bit of a hobby for some of us underchallenged college students.:)
And finally, one more note--I haven't seen the obligatory V2OS reference on here yet... As of around V0.89, it can be installed to a hard disk.:)
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Let's see, I guess can top that:
1. MS-DOS 2.11 2. MS-DOS 3.2 3. MS-DOS 3.3 4. MS-DOS 4.01 5. MS-DOS 5.0 6. MS-DOS 6.0 7. MS-DOS 6.2 8. Windows 1.03 9. Windows 3.0 10. Windows 3.1 11. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 12. Windows 95 13. Windows 98 14. Windows 98SE 15. Windows ME 16. Windows NT 3.51 17. Windows NT 4.0 18. Windows 2000 19. Windows XP 20. Several Linux distributions, starting with Slackware 3.4 21. OS/2 1.3 22. OS/2 2.0 23. OS/2 2.1 24. OS/2 Warp 3 25. Plan 9 26. BeOS 5
Yep, looks like I have you beat.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
brsmith4
·
· Score: 1
I don't really consider multiple versions of windows or dos, separate OSs. Thats not very impressive.
00-OpenBSD/NetBSD/FreeBSD
01-GNU/Linux
02-GNU/Hurd
03-OpenVMS
04-Minix
05-MS/IBM DOS
06-Sun Solaris
07-Plan 9
08-AmigaOS
09-MacOS
0A-MacOS X (Based on BSD)
0B-Microsoft Windows (1.x,2.x,3.x,9x,ME)
0C-Microsoft Windows (NT,2000/XP) too many fundamental differences from previous windows.
0D-IBM OS/2 1.3,2.0,2.1
0E-Novell Netware
0F-BeOS
0G-RISC OS
10-HP-UX
11-SGI IRIX
12-IBM AIX
13-AtheOS
14-Digital UNIX
15-Compaq Tru64 UNIX
16-OS/400
17-Lynx OS
18-GLUnix
19-OpenSTEP
1A-QNX
1B-Lites
So, I got 1C Operating Systems listed, but it's still not too bad. I really don't believe the post anyway. Its not impressive to have 50 different versions of windows, linux, and BSD installed on an intel computer. It only means that the dude has a lot of time on his hands.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
geekster
·
· Score: 1
Why that wierd numbering? Base 17?
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
Beatbyte
·
· Score: 1
I doubt seriously he got OS X running on his PC...
or a Mac OS X for that matter..
if he did however... that would be a completely different story.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
Andreas+Rueckert
·
· Score: 1
There should be a bootable version of JOS already (jos.org) and there's also a Java OS from Sun. QNX should run on PCs, too.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
corian
·
· Score: 1
Nope.
Different versions of the same OS aren't different operating systems.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
brsmith4
·
· Score: 1
its the new way of doing things... at like 4 in the morning.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
brsmith4
·
· Score: 1
I have always felt that G was unfairly left out of Hexadecimal as it was with the grading system and everything else. Give G a chance!!! It actually means I have 1D operating systems named, but we wont mention anything.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
kzinti
·
· Score: 1
1C - VxWorks
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
big_oaf
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, this is frickin' old news. Although I will admit that the sloagan does not say "Up to Date News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
-- --
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Re:An attempt to name 37 operating systems
by
WWWWolf
·
· Score: 2
I found it to be a great way to get IE "running" on linux.
Heh. Know what I did?
I have Win98SE on one partition, and Linux on other. Once I had to change preferences on a Hotmail account while I was in Linux, and Hotmail worked perfectly in Mozilla except for the preferences. So, due to some odd inspiration, I typed wine 'c:\Ohjelmatiedostot\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe'. The program started up pretty quickly, complained that it couldn't find privacy settings and asked me to check them if I had time, and then just ran with no problems, apart of a few toolbar buttons that were black. Considering the amount of "it's integrated in the OS" stuff that MS spewed out about Win98, I found this whole experience quite jaw-dropping. =)
Windows menu
Windows 1.01
Windows 1.03
Windows 2.03
Windows 2.10
Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98 First Edition
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows 98 SE Lite (not counted as separate)
Windows Me
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Ok I make the list realisticly at 28-ish. I count all the DOS's, Linux distro count as one, 9 Unix's (verses 11 listed), and 10 windows (all win98 as one)...
You can argue beyond that, but 28 is still impressive... No WinNT?
They're all the same, just dos and windows. Why not count what you can do with an emulator?
I've run MVS on a simulated IBM/360, various PDP-8 OSes such as OS8 and TSS8, TOPS-10 on a simulated PDP-10, RSTS/e on a simulated PDP-11, and of course original CPM on a Altair8080.
All of the above run in a emulator under Debian Linux.
-- "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
They're all the same, just dos and windows.
Why not count what you can do with an emulator?
Man, that was sloppy of me... Windows 1.0-3.11 are just GUI's not OS's!
Ok take the count down to 23-ish (not counting windows 1.0-3.11 at all)... Emulation verses actual install, there is a difference...
I count all the DOS's, Linux distro count as one, 9 Unix's (verses 11 listed), and 10 windows (all win98 as one)..
Well, since Windows 1-Me are DOS at their heart, you probably shouldn't count them as separate, either. Only 2 in that list are not running on top of DOS.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:37 not quite...
by
nick_davison
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Windows menu
Windows 1.01
Windows 1.03
Windows 2.03
Windows 2.10
Windows 3.1
Windows 1-3x were not OSs, you had to have a DOS OS installed and boot in to DOS before running Windows - they were systems that ran over the top. That's excluding 95 still technically working that way but making you boot in to Windows then exit out (dressed up as logging out) to DOS.
It's the equivalent of calling RedHat two different OSs because it comes with Gnome and KDE.
Re:37 not quite...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok I make the list realisticly at 28-ish. I count all the DOS's, Linux distro count as one, 9 Unix's (verses 11 listed), and 10 windows (all win98 as one)... ...and many will argue that Windows 1.01-3.1 shouldn't even be on the list, as they only window managers.
I disagree. They usually have a kernel in common, but the conventions they adopt are different. They have different installer programs, different/etc/ layouts, different printer utilities, and so on. Most people would say these things differentiate operating systems from eachother. Some people would argue that the kernel is really the operating system, but just how useful is the kernel in itself?
-- Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Re:37 not quite...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except that AtheOS, BeOS, QNX, etc., are not technically UNIX. He needs a Solaris/x86.
Re:37 not quite...
by
rabidcow
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Windows 1-3x were not OSs, you had to have a DOS OS installed and boot in to DOS before running Windows
This alone does not make Windows a shell running on DOS. An OS may boot from another OS. You can start Linux from DOS, that doesn't make it any less of an OS. (even if it *only* booted from DOS)
The key is whether Windows used DOS functions while it was running or provided its own. Win95 avoided using 16-bit drivers as much as possible. Since DOS is entirely 16-bit, I think that at least begins to qualify it as a separate OS.
Re:37 not quite...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Syllable is a fork of AtheOS, not a port. 0.4.0 is certainly very similiar to AtheOS 0.3.7, but if he's been keeping upto date he'll be on 0.4.1, which is different enough to count, IMHO (I'm biased). Once he has 0.4.2 on there, then you start counting them as two seperate OS's.
"You can argue beyond that, but 28 is still impressive... No WinNT?"
I saw this guy on TechTV. He said that WinNT was too much of a pain in the ass to bother with. It didn't like the menu system or multiple partitions or something.
It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant. (Emphesis mine)
This must be a use of the word "redundant" I have never heard before.
-- "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant. (Emphesis mine) This must be a use of the word "redundant" I have never heard before.
==== Indeed, and a spelling of Emphasis I've never seen before.
-ajb
Stares in horrified silence...
by
FyRE666
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Now I like wasting my time on technology as much as the next geek, but really! The words "more", "must", "out" and "get" spring to mind here...
The Most Expensive C64 Ever
by
Myriad
·
· Score: 2
I'll have to check out this emulator! Hopefully it's better then some of the ones that used be out there...
I tried one a few years ago that scared me away from them: it sucessfully began emulating a C64. However, my brand new (at the time), very expensive (at the time), Pentium 100 didn't want to STOP being a C64. No matter how I tried to quit or reboot it kept coming up as a C64.
'Great' I think to myself, 'I have the worlds most expensive Commodore 64... and I don't even have a 1541 floppy.':)
-- "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
XOSL has a 24 boot-item limit and a 56 partition limit, forcing me to install more than one dedicated installation.
Well, clearly XOSL must suck if it can't do more than 24 boot items. I mean here's a clear example of the vast user demand for such things... I wonder if the makers of XOSL ever thought anyone might need more?;)
Not as impressive as I hoped
by
vadim_t
·
· Score: 1
All the versions of Windows don't impress me much, he could also have installed all DOS versions from 1.0 to DOS 6.22. Lots of Linux distributions IMO don't count either, they're just different configurations of the same thing.
And he even missed some. I have used PC DOS and PTS-DOS. Solaris x86 is also missing.
Re:Not as impressive as I hoped
by
Malizar
·
· Score: 1
Ummm, DOS versions under 2.0 did not support a hard disk, so they would be out.
Re:Not as impressive as I hoped
by
vadim_t
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I'm sure something could be done about that. Maybe something like vmware or dosemu could get it to work
Sigh did you read the article
by
Gekko
·
· Score: 1
He uses multiple copies of XOSL, so that they are in a menu structure. XOSL takes mouse input as well.
-- I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
Solaris x86
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was surprised to see Solaris x86 absent from his list.
Obligatory Family Guy reference...
by
taernim
·
· Score: 1
Reminds me of the episode where Peter was trying to overcome his addiction to TV. I could see/.ers trying something like it.
TV Commercial Commentator: "What would you do for a Klondike bar?" Man: "I dunno." Commentator: "Would you hop on one leg?" Man: "Sure" *hops on one leg* Commentator: "Would you.. would you... kill a man?" Man: "Umm... well.." *fades to new shot, while you hear screaming ensue from the television*
-- "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Re:Obligatory Family Guy reference...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
It means you need to put some more paper in your printer, since standard 8.5x11 sheets are referred to as "Letter", 8.5x14 are "Legal" and 11x17 sheets are "Tabloid".
Re:Obligatory Family Guy reference...
by
nesthigh
·
· Score: 1
Tabloid?? What the $@#% does that mean?! Around here, Ledger size is 11" x 17".
Piracy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Anyone wanna prosecute him for piracy??? =)
What? No GEOS 1.0
by
nickgrieve
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This *EXTREMELY RARE* operating system was the first release for the IBM-PC. Previously, different versions of GEOS had done very well with the Commodore 64 and Apple 2 line. This GUI-based OS was primarily used in businesses and schools, and seldom saw its way into the hands of the public. This was the very first version that was ever released for PC users. The welcome screen had three buttons, for the Appliances level, Professional level, and the DOS Room. In the first level, the user is greeted by large buttons for the calculator, Rolodex, planner, and notepad. These four apps run in full screen, and there is no multitasking or task-switching. In the Professional level, the user is exposed to all the applications, which can run in windows and multitask with one another. The screen could be filled with a background (wallpaper in Windows lingo) for some fancy decoration. The accessories included Clock, Calculator, GeoBanner, GeoComm, GeoDex, GeoPlanner, Notepad, and Scrapbook. The major applications were GeoManager, GeoDraw, GeoWrite, and Preferences. There was also an icon for the client software to America Online. (At that time, it was the only way to connect to AOL). The user interface was Motif, and a dark cyan color scheme was used. In the DOS Room, a button for the DOS prompt was the default entry. There was a utility for creating new buttons for running other DOS applications, and there was a broad selection of icons to choose from, including both generic and branded icons. This version was later followed by versions 2.0, and New Deal School Suite '98.
Geos was as much of an OS as Win3.x was, being that it just sat on top of DOS. Perhaps a moot distinction, but I only ran geos (or windows) when I needed to use a particular program that ran under that GUI.
For example, Geos had the best tetris game I've ever played on the PC:)
I actually bought GEOWorks as an add-on on top of DOS...around 89/90 or so. Excellent shell 'OS' of the day. Probably still have the 720kb install disks around
Beautiful print drivers. Unbelievable print quality, even from a Panasonic 9-pin. I did some work at home, brought it in to work, and the boss asked "WHAT did you print this on?"
With the right marketing (and being as much of an ass as Uncle Bill seems to be), this coulda been a contenda.
It had MASSIVE share problems with DOS 4.01 (which was was what included with the 286 it ran on).
Nice GUI in general, though, but certainly not an OS. Had the coolest support for Dot-Matrix printers I've ever seen (it could get a full 244 DPI from one, if you had the time to wait).
Memories... precious memories.
-- If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:What? No GEOS 1.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Much more then that. Geos even had its own file system (visible to dos as one huge file - it was oddly named with lots of zeros as I recall). Sure it used DOS command line for lounching - not much different from lounching early versions of linux. It was truly great OS, too bad it lost to its much inferior competitors.
Re:What? No GEOS 1.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ahhh... the memories... I used to use GeoWrite to do all my word processing at one point. To make colums you would just drag them where you want them and then click them in the order you want text to flow, how cool is that. Ahhh used to take half a day to print on my Panasonic dot matrix, but the print quality was astounding.
I bought a copy of New Deal School Suite. Very powerful multitasking and all it requires is a '286 with 640K. Unfortunately, their networking support was pretty weak, which might've been their downfall.
Apparently they've gone under, since their website doesn't exist anymore. I did find some reviews of it here.
The first clients for AOL for the PC was an entire self-contained GEOS installation.
What about Tandy Deskmate? I used to run this on my 1000HX (upgraded to 640k RAM!). It was kinda slow (ok, maybe that was just my sub-10 MHz processor), but included many useful apps. This was a long time ago (I was only like 8 at the time), but I think this was just another DOS shell. And IIRC, it would only run on Tandy computers.
-- ---
At my sig, unleash hell.
Re:What? No GEOS 1.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
TO THIS DAY my dad still uses Geos for his accounting business! He absolutely refuses to switch to OpenOffice or Excel!
He is running Geos on modern machines. It is absolutely bizarre. He won't even listen to me when I tell him how easy it is to do things in Excel.
That's because if you've actually used GEOS, you won't find MS Office very easy to use. Most people I've shown GEOS to have found the GEOS apps much easier to use. The only people who haven't disagreed are the ones that'll bitch the slightest thing isn't 100% like MS Office.
What's going on in the last picture for the Windows 98 screenshots (Page 4)? Roughly half the text is in Japanese, there's a large window open in the middle that displays the desktop for an Apple Powerbook, and behind it is apparently a web browser with little tags at the bottom of the site with "FreeBSD" and "Powered by Apache" on them. I'm guessing they didn't get this screenshot from official Microsoft press materials....
-- "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
" It's interesting to see that "apps" like Notepad and Paint don't seem to have been developed since 1985:)"
I hate to be boring, but compared to the original notepad you can now:
Change the font Use larger files Drag and drop files into it use unicode
I'm sure there's more I forget as well.
graspee
Re:Windows 1.0 screenshots
by
blincoln
·
· Score: 1
Yes. If you look in the lower-right corner of the screen, you will see the text "Windows Whistler P[review?] 1" and "For testing purposes only." Judging from the build number, I would guess it's from about six months before the official release.
-- "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Re:Windows 1.0 screenshots
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Isn't the point of notepad to be as slim as possible and still functional? It's not meant to be the VI of windows, it's meant to be a simple text editor.
-- What?
Re:Windows 1.0 screenshots
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Which was way ahead of it's time IMO. Too bad app support sucked.:(
I know that there are still places that use OS/2 and have relatively new installs of it, but as a desktop OS I think it's safe to say that it is even more dead than linux.
He could of at least installed IBM's OS2/Warp and old school DesqView.
--
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Re:what a wimp...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I tried to do this, on a smaller, much older machine (3 OS* Pentium 100 w/512MB hard drive and later added several OSes on a 1GB secondary drive) but I had problems because the OS/2 installer liked to have its own partition (as do several of the other OSes that actually were listed), so it's a bit tricky. I didn't have any partitions left to put it on when I got it... where's partition magic when you need it:) I later tried again after buying another hard drive, but it didn't want to boot without its own boot loader (or something). Probably a setup issue on my part, but I just gave up on it and put it on a brand spanking new Pentium 266 (hey, it was top of the line back then...). That PC (the 266) was also my first OCing fatality (it clocked at 475MHz for about 6 1/2 seconds before frying). CPU temp monitoring is a GOOD thing:)
* When I say 3 OS above, I'm not counting DOS and Windows as separate OSes, nor multiple flavors of DOS (DR-DOS and MS-DOS). If you want that, I was running close to 11 total.
This guy's able to run relatively new OS (w2k) all the way down to DOS and Win 1.0.?? I remember trying to run older 16bit apps on Windows 95 on Pentium 200 hardware, and the numbers were all messed up. System Memory, -99999999 and I really had 32MB RAM. There was also limitations detecting Hard Drive space.
I think that is what makes this so impressive.. people saying that this could be easily done are out of their minds. From the article, he mentions getting the hardware to work in each operating system as well, which is quite an accomplishment for such a broad range of systems. And.. of course they all boot which takes quite a bit of planning (sector limitations, partition sizes, swap or no swap?, etc). From the MaxPC article, he says that the project took about a year for him to complete.
Re:no hardware limits??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All x86 CPUs are backwards compatible.
Hard drive space isn't an issue: Just make small (512MB) partition for DOS or Win 1.0 and tell boot loader to hide other partitions.
Not true, since there are assembly routines to correctly identify every model of x86 cpu.
Although it would be very bad of me I technically could write a program that crashed if you ran it on anything later than a 486 (or a 386, or a pentium 2 etc. etc.).
They also make two-port switches, if you don't need a four-port one. Also eight-port and sixteen-port switches, if you really need them. If you need more then that, look in your yellow pages under "computer cables" or something similar.
-- Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
I've never heard of SyllableOS, but out of the others I think only the *BSDs qualify as Unix. Maybe when this guy goes to get a life they'll have a sale where he can pick up a clue at half price.
--
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Re:retarded
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Err... *uses google.com*
QNX 6.X and 4.X: POSIX.1 certified Minix 2.0: POSIX 1003.1a compliant BeOS: "mostly" POSIX compliant SyllableOS: ??? AtheOS: "..does support large part's of the POSIX standard.."
So... how do you measure where something is a Unix operating system? If the title dosen't sound familiar it's not Unix?
POSIX stands for Portable Operating System Interface, and is an IEEE standard designed to facilitate application portability. POSIX is an attempt by a consortium of vendors to create a single standard version of UNIX. If they are successful, it will make it easier to port applications between hardware platforms. Hewlett-Packard is incorporating POSIX into version 5.0 of its MPE/iX proprietary operating system and into version 10.0 of HP/UX (its UNIX).
There are more than ten parts to the POSIX standard, but two are widely available. POSIX.1 defines C programming interfaces (that is, a library of system calls) for files, processes, and terminal I/O. To support the library, a POSIX system must implement a Hierarchical File System (HFS). POSIX.2 defines a "shell" command interpreter and utilities (e.g., ls to list files). Certain important standards are not covered by POSIX (for example, spooling, batch processing, and NLS -- Native Language Support). NLS is defined by the X/Open standard.
I don't care what MS propoganda you've been reading. I can't open up a shell in NT and type 'ls'
POSIX is how you define a OS as being "Unix"-like.
Seems like a good machine for doing beta testing on.. personally I'll stick with VMWare though thx.
Way too much time on his hands..
by
McFly69
·
· Score: 1
This dude has way too much time on his hands. he could of taken the time, he wasted, on developing an operating system. He could could of helped out writing multiple open source projects.
Mod - Interesting +3
--
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Re:Way too much time on his hands..
by
NineNine
·
· Score: 1
You could have written some open source software in the time you took to read the article and post.
Re:Way too much time on his hands..
by
McFly69
·
· Score: 1
Bite me:) Actually that was funny! Now imagine with our time wasted.. what operating system we could of written?
--
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Re:Way too much time on his hands..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah...or sniffing glue! or maybe even shooting crack through his nipples.
I did 19 different operating systems on the 486. It's actually quite useful to fire up some specific version of dos to twinkle some version-specific bug. Here's my list.
The installations of these were heavily stripped, because both msdos and pcdos will run the pcdos 7.0 utilities, along with a scattering of other utilities.
The other configurations were the main work client (pcdos 2000), a guest system for my mother (pcdos 2000 + win3.11 running a network install.
-- OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
Multimonitor support
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They do make KVM's with multi-monitor support. I use them at work with our linux servers as our NT4 servers are not setup for multi monitors. look this site for more info
What I mean is, are there KVM switches that would allow 2 monitors to be connected to two computers. This would require 4 inputs, and 2 video outputs. I looked through their site, but I didn't see anything like that.
XOSL obviously not planning ahead
by
prockcore
·
· Score: 5, Funny
XOSL has a 24 boot-item limit and a 56 partition limit, forcing me to install more than one dedicate installation.
"24 boot items ought to be enough for everybody!" - Gill Bates, XOSL Developer, 1980
All at the same time would be Cool.
by
1101z
·
· Score: 1
Running all at the same time that would be worth the hype. Seems easy thought, linux/UML(User mode Linux) with vmware, Replicate as need. Plus you could do it all with on big hard drive.
-- One day people will learn the folly of Winbloze, Linux Rules!
uhm... 37? maybe a few less?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
do win3.1 and such really classify as 'operating systems'?
in fact, shouldn't it be possible to install win1, win2, and win3 all on the same MS-Dos installation?
thus, why are they being counted as unique OS'es?
How about virtual machines?
by
antdude
·
· Score: 2
What's the record of OSes in VMware, VirtualPC, etc.?;)
-- Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.
He puts 57 operating systems on one computer, and is worried about redundancy...
Re:Redundancy???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why all the carping? Envy? Actually, it's pretty impressive, Many people can't install one OS.
37 OSes, bullshit
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Since when are diffent distros of Linux considered to be different OSes? Its all a damn SCAM!
Planning issues
by
div_2n
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
He had six IDE hard drives. As the article states, some OS's have severe temper tantrums if you try to install them past a certain cylinder on the HD (1024). NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000. I am not sure if the same is true for XP and 2000 on the same drive.
My guess is that given these limitations, it might have been impossible to add NT even if he wanted to.
Re:Planning issues
by
acoustix
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
XP and 2000 can be installed on the same physical drive.
I have 98, 2000, and XP Pro (installed in that order) on my drive.
-- "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000.
Yes, it can. You can't have their system directories on the same partition, though. Same thing with 2k and XP or NT and XP. Or NT, 2k and XP.
That said, I miss DOS 6.22 and Gentoo from his list, not to mention the Apple internal OS X for i386, MS Longhorn, SunOS 4.1.3 (Sunview rocks!), Solaris, NeXTStep and the Amiga Digital Environment, although the QNX Neutrino kernel probably is a good start there. Hm. Were there ever a VMS/OpenVMS version for the i386?
My workstations typically multiboot at least three OSes, sometimes more if I'm currently migrating; DOS (6.22/98SE), Linux (Gentoo) and Win32 (NT/2k/XP).
NT can exist on the same physical device as 2000. To do it install 2000 near the end of your disk. blank the partition table, install NT at the start of your disk, upgrade to sp6 and then reinstate the partition table. Et voila... (Guess who had to do this recently...)
-- Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
> > NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000. > Yes, it can.
He's using partition hiding, which allows things to exist on the same drive that otherwise couldn't exist on the same system at all -- different versions of Windows 9x for example. (I've been using PowerBoot for this, but I guess I'll check out the xosl...) That makes this issue moot for him.
> That said, I miss... MS Longhorn Is that available yet? I thought they said 2005 and were being optimistic as usual? > SunOS 4.1.3, Solaris, NeXTStep These are mentioned in the interview, but he ended up not getting them to work. Solaris he specifically listed (along with NT3/4 and Plan9) as being too picky about hardware, by which I think he means too picky about the hardware he happens to have. His video card is less than ideal for a multiboot scenerio; a 2D Matrox card would have done better, I think. That was his problem with Plan9 at least. His motherboard may also have been an issue for some systems.
> Were there ever a VMS/OpenVMS version for the i386? I don't believe so. I had to get myself a Vax in order to have VMS in my bedroom. (I settled for a used one, though, so it didn't cost that much. They seem to be a glut on the used market, for some reason.)
> My workstations typically multiboot at least three OSes I can count DOS6, Win95, WinMe, RedHat 6, Mandrake 8, QNX, and the BeOS, so I say I have seven versions of five OSes. I've also dualbooted Windows 98SE with Mandrake, on another system, and WinXP Home with Mandrake, on _another_ system. I figure that's enough to qualify me as an experienced multibooter, but obviously I'm not a record-setter like this guy. I'm looking into Plan9. I was unable so far to get BSD installed (tried the three major free distros), but I think the problem may have been a lack of understanding on my part, in terms of how the BSD partitioning stuff works. If anyone knows of a good tutorial on that...
Oh, and I don't have six (!) drives to play with like this guy does; I'm sure I'd have more OSes installed if I had that kind of space to play with. I've just got a 4GB primary master and a 30GB primary slave. I used to have an ancient Debian (old enough, it didn't come with X11), but I toasted it to make space for RedHat some time ago, when I only had the one drive.
If I get a third drive, I want to do BSD (Free, Net, or Open, whichever is easiest to get installed) and Gentoo (yes, over a dialup; I have patience). I've also put thought into trying Solaris.x86; if the current version comes out under that hobbyist license program where you only pay the one-time-fee for the media that's about the same cost as Windows, I might try it out. It would be nice to put Solaris on my resume...
I have to agree with the interviewee's assessment of BeOS; it's a multibooter's dream. Like DOS, it blissfully ignores any partition it doesn't understand and needs no drivers for anything. Like Linux, it can mount most common types of filesystems. (Okay, ext2 is readonly, but NTFS is readonly in Linux.) Also like Linux, it can be booted from basically anywhere (nth logical partition on the nth logical drive, past the 1024th cyllinder, disk image stored on any FAT16 or FAT32 partition you like, wherever). Back to being like DOS, it can be transplanted by copying, or by transplanting the drive to a different system, and will Just Work with any supported hardware configuration. It's really a shame about what happened to the company; the OS is missing some basic features (such as the ability to change colour preferences globally and have all apps that use the standard widgets follow them) and because of the collapse of the company no longer supports modern hardware, but there are a lot of things other systems can learn from the BeOS. I wish the design people for both Microsoft and the Gnome and KDE projects would sit down with it and play for a few hours some time. Maybe Apple will; you know they know about it, because they thought about _buying_ it, and then picked NeXT instead.
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
You can, if you have access to a fast link elsewhere, get stuff using emerge -f (as in fetchonly) to get all the files you need to build the system at a later date, with no Internet access.
Or do what I do when I build firewalls - I stick a small (1-2GB) IDE disk in a removable cradle, boot the Gentoo CD in VMWare and do the full install in a window on my Athlon workstation instead of trying to do it on the P100 target system.
but NTFS is readonly in Linux.
Kinda, sorta. There is write support, but the warnings on that option are scary.:-)
And I don't think NT3/4 is very picky on hardware, the main problem I can see is IDE drivers (he can go VGA mode for the graphics), but IDE should work in fall-back mode (or whatever it's called, all IDE chips I've seen has worked out-of-the-box with no special drivers but if you want to start setting DMA and stuff, you need the 'real' stuff).
> > and Gentoo (yes, over a dialup; I have patience) > You can, if you have access to a fast link elsewhere,
There's a T1 at work, but...
> get stuff using emerge -f (as in fetchonly) to get all the files > you need to build the system at a later date, with no Internet > access.
And carry them home on a floppy? Actually, I could probably carry a hard drive to work, install it in the (Mandrake) system there, let stuff download onto it while I'm doing something else, and carry the drive back home later, but I believe I have the patience to install over a dialup, particularly since I could plug my monitor into the normally-monitor-free Pentium/90 Mandrake 7 system I use as a router and do stuff ad interim that doesn't require X11 or the data that's stored on the multiboot system.
I really should get a second system, so I can store my data on the one system and use the other for evaluating stuff, like OSes and unstable applications and whatnot. Wait, I could migrate most of my data to the router system... but then it's on the box that's directly on the internet... none of it's sensitive, but there's always vandalism... I must ponder this. What I really need is to store everything in duplicate all the time...
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Well, you could get VMWare and install Gentoo in that while working with the rest of the multiboot computer. I do this all the time for building firewalls with Gentoo.
Or, if you have access to a box at work that's not used for anything critical, you could stick a hard drive in that and install Gentoo to it and then just lug it back home.
For installing over the phone line, it's not just patience (even if it would quite literally take days) but cost. I don't know where you are and what kind of rates you would get dialing up to an ISP, but I can easily imagine a hundred hours for a typical desktop install.
Do you have space in the router to add more disk? If so, use it as a server. I have triple systems both at home and at work, a P100-class box as a routing firewall, a P3 550/700 system as server and an Athlon workstation - same setup in both places. Everything I have is duplicated on the servers (or will be, I'm currently in the process of migrating the main server from RH 7.1 to Gentoo) and nothing is stored on the workstations except some temp files like captured video and so on. I have also tried to keep the servers almost identical (same mobos for starters) to facilitate management and recovery. If I b0rk up a workstation with an overenthusiastic upgrade or install, it doesn't matter. All my files are on the servers anyway.
> You have a T1 at work but not a single CD-burner?
Yep. We've had the T1 since... I don't know, since before I was hired. I think _all_ public libraries in the state have them. CD burners are fairly new on the market, by comparison, and we don't happen to have one yet.
> For installing over the phone line, it's not just patience > (even if it would quite literally take days) but cost. I don't > know where you are and what kind of rates you would get dialing > up to an ISP, but I can easily imagine a hundred hours for a > typical desktop install.
It's a flat monthly fee. This is _dialup_. All dialup ISPs I know about charge a flat monthly fee for unmetered access. That doesn't guarantee you a 24/7 connection (though in my experience it's been close to that, with redials only needed a couple of times a day, probably due to line noise), but if you can get connected there's no extra charge for being on for more time. (I'm assuming here you only connect to the account from one line; trying to dial in on two lines at once is something they probably wouldn't like.)
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
CD burners are fairly new on the market, by comparison
Well, I have had, or had access to, burners since 1996 and although T1 or equivalents probably was available back then, not many people had the use for them. At the time, we were 50 employees sharing a 256k leased line, recently upgraded from a 64k...
All dialup ISPs I know about charge a flat monthly fee for unmetered access.
Cool. Where I live (Sweden), the 'unmetered access' concept does not exist except for ADSL or leased lines. Dialups cost per minute, be it POTS, ISDN or mobile.
Anyway - in that case, I can see the reason for doing a Gentoo install over the phone - there are some howtos, anecdotes, methods and metoos at the Gentoo forums if you want some more input before starting your dialup adventure.
> Well, I have had, or had access to, burners since 1996
Wow. We knew they _existed_ back then, in the same vague way that we knew satellites and hovercraft existed -- not something we ever figured a normal person would own. I didn't start seeing computers come with them until... what, circa 2000?
> Where I live (Sweden), the 'unmetered access' concept does not > exist except for ADSL or leased lines. Dialups cost per minute, > be it POTS, ISDN or mobile.
And here I had you figured for UK (where local phone calls cost per minute -- what is _that_ all about). ISDN never really caught on very well here in the US; too expensive for what you get. Most places that did use it (back when it was the only thing approaching broadband you could get in many areas) seem to have switched over to some other solution. POTS I'm not familiar with; almost all dialup here in the US is PPP.
I once did some arithmetic concerning why unmetered PPP is ecconomic for the ISP, and I concluded that they must be able to get their incoming phone lines in bulk from the phone company at a substantial discount. Because if they paid what I pay for a line, they'd be losing money on me if everything else including the bandwidth cost them nothing. So, then, they get a hefty discount for purchasing the lines in bulk. That leaves bandwidth as the major per-minute cost, and the bandwidth I can consume over a 33.6 dialup just doesn't add up all that fast. In practice, I don't think I could cost them money by overusing it.
There _is_ a monthly bandwidth cap on the webspace I have on their server. But not on what comes to and from my home. So I conclude that they're counting on the phone line to do the throttling for them -- only so much can go through that straw^H^H^H^H^Hpipe. Most ISPs in the area charge about the same, so I figure they've got it pretty well worked out what the margins are. There are some discount ISPs that charge a good deal less, and some ISPs (including mine) have discount plans where you get fewer hours per month, but those deals all involve some kind of limits. The unlimited/unmetered dialups all seem to be $21-25 a month, at least around here.
-- Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
not something we ever figured a normal person would own.
It was at work, I burned the master copy of TFS Gateway that got sent off for manufacturing. A 4x SCSI Yamaha with not enough buffers.
And here I had you figured for UK (where local phone calls cost
per minute -- what is _that_ all about).
Same here. It's just a few years since they went to a flat model for all calls, before that we had different rates for local, regional (all adjacent area codes) and long distance. We now have the same rates for local as long distance (just under a cent a minute evenings and weekends, double that on workdays). I've never really understood why the US phone companies started offering unmetered local calls, was it just to increase the long distance rates or what? I haven't seen anything in the constitution about the right to local calls... Bare arms, yes. Unmetered phones, not a word.
POTS I'm not familiar with; almost all dialup here in the US is PPP.
POTS=Plain Old Telephone System, ie analog phone lines. Sorry 'bout that.
37 OSes but none help with the ladies..
by
verch
·
· Score: 3, Funny
So many jokes..
Brain overloading!
Anyway, my mission is clear. How could anyone possibly stop when they were so close to 42?!
Windows 1 to 3.11?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you really count Windows 1 to 3.11/WFW/whateva the last Windows was before 95? Granted 95 still ran on dos kinda, but atleast the version of dos was released specifically for win 95.. previous versions of windows ran on ms-dos or dr-dos, pc-dos whateva, but really wasn't anything more a file manager and a simple environment to make some gui apps.. I don't call X Windows and OS... dunno, point being though I guess, if your going to count those old versions of windows why aren't you going to count the dos manager things (that he was saying would total 57) and vice-versa...
well it shows how versed in OSs this guy is..
by
inteller
·
· Score: 0
...he doesn't even have OS/2 1.3EE installed. what a lamer!
OK OK.. IS windows 3.xx and 95/98 an OS?
by
fluor2
·
· Score: 1
I think The first versions of Windows was just a menu system, and NOT an OS. Windows 95 uses DOS 7.0, so it must be considered that DOS is the OS, and that Windows 95 is the "add-on" menu system.
Windows NT is a OS, because it's not an add-on. And Win2k, XP, NET is the same.
Re:OK OK.. IS windows 3.xx and 95/98 an OS?
by
alyandon
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Windows 95/98 can qualify as an OS on its own if you are not relying on any dos based drivers to support your hardware -- even if it is kick-started by DOS.
Can you spot the reference?
by
raehl
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
I have setup some systems to dual boot with LILO, but another way to do it that will work is to use the BIOS.
I installed one hard disk, installed an OS and then pulled off the IDE cable. Put in a second hard disk, installed the 2nd OS. Then restored the first hard drive. (powering down as needed)
I just change the boot order in the BIOS. Anyone who just walks up to the PC and boots it will not know that the other OS is there. Users freak out about LILO sometimes.
It does not look from the article that he did this, and I was expecting to see this used in combination with the other methods.
uh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
get a life
VM plus OS plus emulators
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So if he could get VMWare running a bunch of those OSs and the various OSs also have emulators for DOS, WINE, Amiga, Atari, Atari ST, C64, Nitendo,...how many OSs can he juggle at once?
How many licenses can he break simultaneously?
Don't certain Windows licenses preclude other DOS or Windows versions from being installed on the same PC in their EULA?
Re:VM plus OS plus emulators
by
harper18
·
· Score: 1
Don't certain Windows licenses preclude other DOS or Windows versions from being installed on the same PC in their EULA?
I think that only applies to OEM'd OS's. And we all know this guy used the full retail versions of all that software.
I don't think that emulators should really count for this experiment (since it is an exercise in boot loader utility), but if they did, think of running all 37 OS's simultaneously...
-- # Users are merely variables. I prefer to comment them out.
Really, what's the point of wasting your hard-drive like that?
Wow, he put all those versions of Windows on it and it didn't explode?
BeOS? Huh? What? Oh, that's the road kill MS ran over using their dark force monopoly powers.
Linx? Huh? What? Where? Hasn't MS that group of infidels yet?
MS to Richard Robbins: thank you very much for creating a list of all the enemies we need to crush!
US government to Richard Robbins: Your running QNX on your computer? That must make you a terrorist, since QNX can be used to control nuclear warheads or nuclear reactors!
BSA to Richard Robbins: What? You can't find the license for Windows 1.01? That'll be 500,000 dollars, and you'll have to remove all those non-windows OS' from your computer, and sign a deal with MS stating you'll only buy MS software in the future.
Which one is the best?
by
rapidweather
·
· Score: 1
That's what I like to do, partition the drives, and install several os's and see which one runs the best on the hardware. On this little PS/1, I have Windows 98, with Grey Cat Linux 3.0 (470MB partition), and DOS/Arachne 1.70 in a little 30 MB partition. I run a menu in the little partition so I can choose between Arachne 1.70 or Grey Cat Linux 3.0 (in the big partition).
See http://www.angelfire.com/ms/telegram/menu.html for that.
Although Arachne and GCL 3.0 are fun, Windows 98 does the best, I use Opera and Pegasus, and leave IE 4.0 alone. I don't bother to upgrade Windows 98 on a setup like this at all, since a lot of that is just security fixes anyway. Btw, you need at least IE 5x to upgrade anyway. I can do that, I have the 80+ MB file for MSIE 5.x but can't spare the HDD space for something I won't use.
I have other machines with dual Linux installs, and almost always Windows 98. Keeps me busy, without spending much $.
Dualhead KVM (Re:Smooth)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
YES! I've been using a KVM from VETRA (www.vetra.com) for 6+ months now. An NT computer and a Win2000 computer, both with dual-head Matrox Graphics cards connected to 2 monitors. Price was about $200 for the box plus some more for the cables.
Correction
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000
Not so. Microsoft doesn't want you to, but you can do it. I have NT, 2000, 95B and DOS 6.22 on the same physical drive. You just have to hide the NT or 2000 boot partition when using the other. The same applies for multiple NT or multiple 2000 boot partitions. I use Bootmagic - it automatically hides the other boot partitions and it works flawlessly.
Where it is a bitch, AND I CURSE MICROSOFT AND WISH THEM ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR THIS, is that the first time 2000 even sees and NTFS 4 partition, it updates it to NTFS 5 WITHOUT TELLING YOU and NT 4 can no longer write to it. They warn you that 2000 will do this during the install, but the assholes do not mention that it will do it after installation when you simply look at an NTFS 4 partition.
I bought a bourgeois house in the Hollywood hills With a truckload of hundred thousand dollar bills Man came by to hook up my ISP We settled in for the night my baby and me We switched 'round and 'round 'til half-past dawn There was thirty-seven systems and nothin' on
Well now home entertainment was my baby's wish So I hopped into town for a satellite dish I tied it to the top of my Japanese car I came home and I pointed it out into the stars A message came back from the great beyond There's thirty-seven systems and nothin' on
Well we might'a made some friends with some billionaires We might'a got all nice and friendly If we'd made it upstairs All I got was a note that said "Bye-bye John Our love is thirty-seven systems and nothin' on"
So I bought a.44 magnum it was solid steel cast And in the blessed name of Elvis well I just let it blast 'Til my 'puter lay in pieces there at my feet And they busted me for disturbin' the almighty peace Judge said "What you got in your defense son?" "Thirty-seven systems and nothin' on" I can see by your eyes friend you're just about gone Thirty-seven channels and nothin' on... Thirty-seven channels and nothin'
-
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Baah...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pfft... I was hoping to see some interesting, exotic OS's in the list but instead I just see a dozen different versions of windows, dos, linux distros and a few others (QNX,BeOS). I could break this record by installing all linux kernel versions know to man into my lilo bootloader.
Quick! Before windows crashes his hard drive!
by
carlmenezes
·
· Score: 0
Take the machine away from him and put it in a museum! It's the only machine we know that runs Windows successfully:)
-- Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
I think you mean Dell/GNU/HURD (at least when it's running on Dell hardware).
Or is that Steelcase/Dell/GNU/HURD? (if it's all set up on a Steelcase office desk)
Original Article
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why not link to the original article?
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/print/0,23102,3 399433,00.html...and this is just plain wrong:
"When you have multiple versions of Windows on one PC, you have to hide them from each other or they won't function."
This is like soooooo old. I have been noticing this recently. This was reported a couple of weeks ago on TechTV during an episode of The Screen Savers. They even had an interview with the kid.
As Usual BeOS Rocks Unlike All Others
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you have a favorite OS, or are they like "children" -- you love them all "equally but differently"?
Alas, I do share a unique type of love with each one of my beloved systems. But if I had to pick one to be crowned the birthright, I would go with BeOS. Why? Because it minds its own business, is easily pleased, and doesn't complain...
I image that BeOS is his favorite since you can install it anywhere and it will be happy. Heck, I can pull my BeOS drive and drop in another, completely different system, and it boots without a single complaint. I did that with Win98SE and it took 4 hours to things straight.
Infinite Loop
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Step 1: Spend weeks installing 36 Operating Systems Step 2: Install Windows 95 (pre-A) Step 3: Boot Windows 95 Step 4: Goto Step 1
37 Os's?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I didn't even know so many existed, including distro's
Re:I am first
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fuck off, chadtard!
Old news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This guy was on the ScreenSavers on Tech tv a few weeks back showing off all of the os's and his 5 bootup menus.
He had all the versions of windows in one sub menu. Another with unix's. They even showed one called bluebird.
Do Emulators count?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If so, he can add in Tops-10, Tops-20 and ITS.
They are all fully functional, and have TCP stacks so you can telnet in and run yor favourite MACRO-10 program, like the original Elisa or Adventure.
Funny, he missed a HUGE one
by
gosand
·
· Score: 2
I didn't see GNU/Linux anywhere in the list. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Wasn't this guy on the ScreenSavers?
by
incripshin
·
· Score: 1
I swear I saw this guy on The ScreenSavers. Did it seriously take this long for an article to come out? I mean I'm sure that there's on one TechTV... let me see... yup. September 27, 2002. Took a while.
Beg pardon, but just because Microsoft changed the message that "VER" returns to "Windows 95" doesn't mean that it isn't DOS - I used DR-DOS v6 with Windows 95, back in the day, just fine (ignoring the error message on boot).
I also used QEMM-386 in place of EMM386, until MS finally broke it with Windows 98SE.
with all the linux versions, it does not count as 37. It's the same OS. Instead he missed some easily accessable OSes like EROS succsessor to KeyKOS. It's even mostly GPLed.
There are 51 x86 os's. He's still missing 14!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The narrow definition of an OS just includes the kernel, so distribution and version variations are not counted. Here is (complete?) list of x86 os's with seperate kernel source trees. Anyone have updates? * Adrenaline * Apostle * AtheOS * BeOS * BRiX * BSD-OS * BugOS * DOS * EduOS * EROS * Exopc * Fiasco * FreeBSD * FreeVMS * FullPliant * GEM * Gemini Nucleus * GEOS * GNU Hurd * Go * JxOS * L4 * Linux * MenuetOS * MINIX * Nemesis * NetBSD * On Time RTOS-32 * OnCore * OpenBSD * OS/2 * OS-C * PETROS * PIOS * Proolix * QNX * RadiOS * Roadrunner * RT Mach NTT * SCO * Scout * Solaris * SPIN * TinyOS * Unununium * V2 OS * VSTa * VxWorks * Windows 9x * Windows NT * Yamit please ignore the rest of this comment. trying to get past the stupid comment filter trying to get past the stupid comment filte1r trying to get past the stfupid commfsent filter trying t3o get past wthe stupid cofmment fildfter trying to get past the stupid commentas filter trying tos get past the stupid comment filter2 trying to get past the stupsdid comment filter trying to get past the stupid comment filter tryinddg tod get past the stupfsid comment filter trying to get past the stupid comment filter tdrying to get padst the stupid comment filter tryifng dto get past the stupid comment filter trying to get past thes stupifd comsment filter
Another OS you could of got for $30 bucks if you had a commadore128(dunno for c64). Meaning it was easy to get.
As an aside, when I tried running CP/M...it was hell. I was dumb and stupid at the time(10 yrs), and didn't know why it couldn't read my disks...I couldn't even get it to open files or do anything. But that was due to my stupidity...now that I think of it I guess it was a unix-style os(i don't even have the book anymore)
Another challenge was to get the OSes to cooperate with each other. It's like putting a pit bull, a cat, a parakeet, a Komodo dragon, an antelope, a wolverine, a rattlesnake, and a duck-billed platypus all in a room and saying, "Now please get along, children."
As someone who has tried this,* I have to give this guy props for his courage. Well done!
* s/rattlesnack/small\ fluffy\ bunny/
--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I'd be truly impressed if he had all 37 different operating systems running simultaneously in separate virtual machines!
Alan.
HEADS UP CUBICLE DWELLERS
by
Any+Web+Loco
·
· Score: 1
Word to the wise...
User 956's "homepage" links to a pr0n site. Opens many many nasty pics & screams out "hey eveybody, I'm looking at gay porno".
Funny, but not when you're at work.
Old Windows Licenses
by
Jack+Admiral
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think Microsoft allows the use of old Windows versions if you purchased a license of the newest version. For example, if you bought Windows XP Home, you could use, instead, any version from Windows 3.1 to Windows ME. You can't use Windows 2000 Pro since its upgrade path is Windows XP Pro.
Damn! I hope he paid for all those WinDOS licenses!
funnier than hell...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it's funny when closed-minded fools think things are "too hard" or "uninteresting". the guy that did it was a young kid so "time" is not a realistic issue. I'd bet a mortgage that those that think this is "a waste of time" couldn't come close to achieving the same so SHUT THE FUCK UP. don't dog people that want to stretch the possibilities. sounds like you are the vermin that needs to see why www.linuxisforbitches.com was created... sucka
I don't usually reply to AC's, but doing something like installing 37 OS's is a waste of time. Not so much that I'm against technology and learning new things, but I think people should focus their effots on things that would be profitable like say mastering the Java programming language or C++. I could easily learn to install all those different OS's but I have better things to do. Learning to install archaic OS's wouldn't help much on my resume:)
Had to say it...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My first computer pr0n was accessed by the Geos paint program on my c64. I'm sad aren't I?
The best solution for me is to use virtual machines.
I use VMware when on a PC on top of either Win2000 or Linux. I use Connectix Virtual PC on Mac on top of either OS 9 or Mac OS X.
Either one allows me to run MULTIPLE PC OSes simultaneously in separate windows. Cool!
Each hard drive is a virtual hard drive saved on a disk image file. Double click on that image file and that hard drive is loaded and booted.
This allows me to run a completely separate virgin copy of Win2000 inside my normal Win2000 environment. I can do a test install. If I don't like the install, I just restore the backup of the virgin Win2000 image file. You can't do that on real disks.
Someone working at Universal/MCA Records in Nashville got me onto VMWare when I visited for an installation trip. We were able to test a number of OS builds on one machine so that we could make sure my software worked on what they were using and what they would be using in a year. I loved it.
On the other hand; what the heck would you do with THIRTY-EIGHT operating systems; except experiment and goof off? You couldn't possibly need to test software builds on that many platforms.
-- I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
Pshaw!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'd be truly impressed if he had all 37 different operating systems running simultaneously in separate virtual machines!
Kid stuff. If he was a real man, he'd do what you suggest but in only 640k of RAM.
There are loads of GNU/Linux distros, each being counted as a specific OS, several DOSses... I thought he could have taught me a lot about any of these. I expected his list to contain at least:
Smart to upgrade to Windows 1.01...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... I heard Windows 1.00 was horribly insecure.
IGNORE THE TROLL. MOD PARENT BACK UP
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Word to the wise... User 956's "homepage" links to a pr0n site. Opens many many nasty pics & screams out "hey eveybody, I'm looking at gay porno". Funny, but not when you're at work.
WTF are you talking about? It goes to about.com. There's no gay porno on about.com.
People, if you're going to moderate, at least check out this troll's story before modding stuff down. He's obviously just trying to waste everyone's mod points.
Re:IGNORE THE TROLL. MOD PARENT BACK UP
by
Any+Web+Loco
·
· Score: 1
I didn't ask anyone to mod the guy, so fuck off with the attitude. I just pointed out his homepage didn't go nice places, whihc, if you're at work, is a handy thing to know. And no, it DIDN'T go nice places.
fucking classic
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Were there any OSes you couldn't find? Yes. Windows 1.0. Refer to the statement on Jupiter's 7th moon in previous answer. Oh, and I couldn't find an OS that would tell me how to successfully deal with girls either.
Did he actually say that?
Does that has to do with TechTV???
by
TheJZA
·
· Score: 1
Does that has to do with the kid that was on TechTV's, The Screen Savers, about a week ago which demostrated 39 operating systems in his machine including many versions of MS-DOS and Free-DOS, QNX, ERIKA, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other less famous OS such as Lesbian, and ERIKA.
If anyone want to see a pretty cute list of OSes go to fuckmicrosoft.com
There can be only four primary partitions on one hard drive, or three primary partitions and one extended partition. It's a BIOS restriction and there is only one (messy) way around it.
That is simply not true. The BIOS does not even know the concept of partitions. There is nothing in the BIOS mandating a particular partition format, neither that harddisks should be partitioned and floppydisks should not.
With a minor change of the OS you could use the raw harddisk as a single medium and have 10 primary partitions on your floppydisks.
But the required change of the OS is the real problem. You simply need a partition table format supported by all your OSes. And a lot of the OSes only supports the original format with four primary partitions one of which can optionally be split into a number of logical partitions. On my Linux only system I seriously consider switching to another partition format to overcome this limit, but for a multiboot it is not an option.
The article has a pointer to a way to overcome this limit, the trick is to use a completely different partition table format elsewhere on the disk, and generate the partition table in the MBR on every boot with only partitions needed for the particular OS. If done right you can even make some of the OSes use the new partition table format natively. So you could in theory let your Linux systems access all the partitions without even reading the table in the MBR. I don't know if that works with this partition manager, but it would be possible.
Recently to get screenshots for a Knowledge base we had to install pretty much all versions of Windows, though not including Windows 3.1. However, we only had a Windows 95a Upgrade CD, rather than a full install, so on went Windows 3.11.
The machine wasnt particularly a high spec machine, a Celeron 800 with 128 Meg of RAM. Dos loaded in about 1 second after the Bios finished doing its thing. Windows 3.1 loaded in about a second, and took almost another second to display everything. All in all, you could go from turning a machine on to being in Solitaire in about 10 seconds.
Re:A bit offtopic, but...
by
operagost
·
· Score: 1
I guess you didn't realize that you could just feed the first Windows 3.1 floppy when prompted during the Windows 95 install.
2 Operating Systems
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I cant even get two to work on my PC. Several times I've tried and it just goes a bit wobbly.
Can you put Win95, Dos, Win98 on the same disk and not cause havoc?
Re:2 Operating Systems
by
WebMasterJoe
·
· Score: 2
I cant even get two to work on my PC. Several times I've tried and it just goes a bit wobbly.
Can you put Win95, Dos, Win98 on the same disk and not cause havoc?
Good luck. I can't even install one of the above without causing havoc!
-- I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Tandy Deskmate!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
didn't saw one running for a more than a decade... back in 1990, I had it on my glorious Tandy 1400FD "laptop" (640kb ram, dual floppy, 640*200 2 shades or 320*200 4 shades display)
ive done it at 950
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ive run windows 3.1 on my last pc, which was a duron 650, which i overclocked to 950. It ran fine at both speeds. from hitting enter after typing "win" at the command line, if you blinked you would miss the boot time.
seb
The truth about redhat advanced server
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
the amstrad xt's (and 286's, at's??) shipped with GEM, here's a link.
it was pretty cool and easy enough for 7 year old to operate:P. it was also my first contact to computers, i drew an yellow elephant in the painting tool.
-- world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
That's excluding 95 still technically working that way but making you boot in to Windows then exit out (dressed up as logging out) to DOS.
Actually you can make it boot to the DOS prompt by putting the line BOOTGUI=0 in your MSDOS.SYS file. Sorry if this advice is 7 years too late to be useful.;-)
wrong: I have nt4 and 2000 on the same drive.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
i had over 40 os's on 2 hard drives 2 or 3 years ago. currently its just dos 6.22, win3.1, geos, win98, and winnt4 on the first 2 gig partition. windows 2000 and win95 on the 3rd 12 gig partition. solaris, netbsd, openbsd, and freebsd occupy 6 gigs together in the space between the 2 gig and 12 gig windows drives. qnx and beos are on the 12 gig windows drive too. the last big partition is a linux extended, type 85 with 12 partitions of linux, bootable from my nt4 boot loader. the 12 gig drive starts at cylinder 1000 to make it bootable by win95. i boot them all with freebsd's booteasy, a master boot record partition booter, and create the the chain by putting lilo in each linux partition's root partition then something like dd if=/dev/hda12 of=/mnt/hda1/boot/loaderfile bs=512 count=1, then add that entry to the nt4 boot.ini anyway, i've been doing this for years, and know bunches of tricks. by the way, solaris will hose your partition table, and you have to fix it with linux, but solaris will still work.
But they where different versions
by
systemaster
·
· Score: 1
They where different versions of DOS if i remember correctly. Win 95 had like DOS 7 or something. So IF your counting different versions of DOS then they are still seperate for sure. Read the post above that explains how 95 did not run on DOS it just had DOS in it.
-- LinuxWorx Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
Buy VMware and not only have 37 operating systems, but run several simultaneously.
The Jury isn't convinced....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nice One! Fair play to him..but the jury isn't convinced... I'm not woefully impressed with his method....
11 versions of linux.....(wonder what file systems..) 3 versions of Beos (all 5.??)(BeFS - this to me counts as one) 2 versions of QNX (6.1, 6.2) (again 1) 4 versions of dos.....(fat16) (again 1) 3 installations of Windows 98 (fat32) (again 1)
The following are dosshells.... (don't count at all)
Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3.1
1. he's used 5 separate boot menus.... 2. he's used logical partitions.....(yuk) 3. One of the oses is emulated....
Taking the above into account....
-10 for linux oses.... -2 for beos oses.... -1 for QNX os... -3 for dos os... -2 for windows 98 os... -3 for the windows ?.?? shells.... -1 for the emulated os...
Total -22 oses leaving 15 oses.... Some of the other listed oses i'm not familiar with so I can't comment? Sorry to be a nit picker.
Mind you there's nothing about networking, internet access, email configs, crossing file systems etc... At the same time he deserves credit...
I've managed the following..... Dos 6.22 (fat16) Windows 98 SE (fat32) Windows XP (ntfs V5.1) Windows NT 3.1 (ntfs V3) Windows NT 4.00 (ntfs V4) Windows 2000 Server (ntfs V5) OS/2 Warp 3 (hpfs) Netware 4.11 (volume) QNX 6.0 (ifs) Beos 5.0 (BeFS) Suse Linux 7.3 (ext3) OpenBSD FreeBSD
All the other Windows OSes are just variants so should not be interpreted as an independent os. Same applies to Linux. Emulating is cheating when one makes a claim for multiple os installation.
XOSL, the boot manager he used has an ADDON which is used in the context of booting atapi cdroms on machines whose bios does not support cdrom booting. It in itself is an independent boot manager called "Smart Boot Manager" and the creator deserves acknowledgement for his technical ability.
37 OSes - I'm not so sure
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Fair play to him.. but the jury isn't convinced... I'm not woefully impressed with his method....
11 versions of linux.....(wonder what file systems..) 3 versions of Beos (all 5.??)(BeFS - this to me counts as one) 2 versions of QNX (6.1, 6.2) (again 1) 4 versions of dos.....(fat16) (again 1) 3 installations of Windows 98 (fat32) (again 1)
The following are dosshells.... (don't count at all)
Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3.1
1. he's used 5 separate boot menus.... 2. he's used logical partitions.....(yuk) 3. One of the oses is emulated....
Taking the above into account....
-10 for linux oses.... -2 for beos oses.... -1 for QNX os... -3 for dos os... -2 for windows 98 os... -3 for the windows ?.?? shells.... -1 for the emulated os...
Total -22 oses leaving 15 oses....
Sorry to be a nit picker.
Mind you there's nothing about networking, internet access, email, file systems, partitions, does all hardware work in all OSes etc...
I asked the engineer who designed the communication terminal's keyboards why these were not manufactured in a central facility, in view of the small number needed [1 per month] in his factory. He explained that this would be contrary to the political concept of local self-sufficiency. Therefore, each factory needing keyboards, no matter how few, manufactures them completely, even molding the keypads.
-- Isaac Auerbach, IEEE "Computer", Nov. 1979
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
Slashdot Mirror
I can't even name 37 operating systems
can run my Vic 20 software!
Too bad it don't count for squat when you're an AC.
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
Step 1: install 37 operating operating systems on one machine /dev/audio. Convince moma that this is a somber reflection on the fractured nature of our decentralized, technological culture.
Step 2: mount everything possible in linux (not sure about partition types, inconsequential detail though), cat it all to
Step 3: Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sell your certainty and buy bewilderment
The Lightning Seeds seem to have answered the question that most people will be asking.
"Why?"
"All because. The only reason is just because."
Impressive though.
--
Windows XP. From the people who brought you Edlin.
Does that INCLUDE all different distros of linux?
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
He should have included Apple's x86 version of Rhapsody (developer release 1 or 2 of Mac OS X from several years ago). Either that or Darwin x86, which is available from Apple's website.
...subject says it all...
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
We do this all the time with VMWare on big GSX/ESX servers. Not that many DIFFERENT OS's, just that many of them.
He could probably count each JDK as an OS too.
This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
He installed these?
Windows 1.01
Windows 1.03
Windows 2.03
Windows 2.10
How could you even find these versions let alone tolerate installing them? Hmm... Just imagine all the versions of Minesweeper and Solitare!
Honestly, who could possible have the time to do something like this?
IMO, multiple versions of the same OS don't really count. And whoever says a dos file manager is an operating system is an idiot.
Where is emacs?
shit you think I'd waste karma on this shit?
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Definitly a cool thing to do. I'm waiting for someone much smarted then me to figure out a way to run multiple OS's at a time(perhaps one os per cpu, with multiple cpu's. Swiching between linux and win2000 instantly would be sweet. Mad props to this guy though. I can't even count that high.
After that many he'll need an extra hard drive just for the grub.conf/lilo.conf file.
Jonahweb.com has stuff.
I've got the x86 Rhapsody Operating system somewhere around here. For those who don't know that's Apple's foray into the x86 market with the NeXt OS - now pretty much OS X.
Back around 96 or 98 I decided I needed to find a better Operating System. I put Rhapsody, BeOS, Slackware, Redhat, Debian and Win9x on my PC. I liked BeOS and Rhapsody the most, but the applications I wanted weren't there; and I didn't see a future for them either. I ended picking Redhat out of the lot.
Now adays I use OS X or Win XP at home, and Redhat on my server.
Joseph Elwell.
I couldn't sit still that long. Sure, some OS installations are more time-consuming than others, but in general I don't look forward to the interminable wait between prompts.
I'd also be curious to know how many reboots it took. I also want to know how come nobody cared enough to get William Shatner to go to this guy's house and say "What's wrong with you? Have you ever slept with a woman?".
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Yikes! Think about how long it must have taken to partition that hard drive! Someone must have had a LOT of time on their hands...
Probably get modded down for this, but I just *can't* resist imagining a Beowulf cluster of THESE.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
of a dream I always had: to install Win 3.1.1 on my 1ghz pc, just to see how fast it would boot. Soundcard and just about everything else probably wouldn't work, but dang it would be nice to see windows start up quickly.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Where the hell did he get all these Operating Systems from? Not even getting into how does he have licenses for them all, but Windows 1.01? All the versions of QNX? I'm asking a serious question too, anyone know where?
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
In a row?
-Clerks
* Windows 1.01
* Windows 1.03
* Windows 2.03
* Windows 2.10
* Windows 3.1
* Windows 95
* Windows 98 First Edition
* Windows 98 Second Edition
* Windows 98 SE Lite (not counted as separate)
* Windows Me
* Windows 2000
* Windows XP
Not only do we need to verify that he has licenses for each of those installations, I'm willing to bet he illegally transfered licenses from their original systems!
In short, this man is a terrorist who only wishes to kill each and every freedom-loving American. Arrest him now!
Actually he just wanted to be on Slashdot ...
/. ? :)
What would *you* do to be on
theefer
That's a little bit of an understatement. So how many version of Windows before it starts getting redundant?
I think this guy was on The Screen Savers(Techtv).
They weren't technically operating systems
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Different versions of the same OS hardly count as different OSen.
Why didn't he install Plan-9, by the way?
It's an achievement configuring them all to boot properly, but not really very interesting.
I am suprised that the early versions of some operating systems actually work properly on modern hardware - backwards compatibility isn't that good.
Now all we need is to find a guy who writes an app and is (for some reason) concerned about compatibility with each of these 37 Operating Systems.
Any takers?
37? my girlfriend sucked 37 dicks? in a row?
Dos 6.22 w/Dosshell Dos 7.0 DR-Dos FreeDos OS/2 warp IV SkyOS Windows Menu: Windows 1.01 Windows 2.03 Windows 3.1 Windows 95 Windows 98 First Edition Windows 98 SE (2 installations - Main, Lite) Windows ME Windows XP Pro Windows 2000 Pro Unix Menu: AtheOS Syllable OS Aos (Bluebottle)/Oberon 2.3.6 BeOS 5 Personal Edition BeOS 5 w/ Mac skin BeOS 5.03 Developer Edition QNX 6.1 QNX 6.2 FreeBSD OpenBSD NetBSD Minix LInux Menu: Storm 2000 Immunix Conectiva Libranet Vector JBLinux Slackware Trustix Red Hat 7.2 Mandrake 8.2 Debian Dos Window Managers Menu: Tandy Deskmate Desktop 2 Dos94 Dosstart Egress Gaze Glance IconDOs Iconshell QBfos99 Iconshell 2.1 xgui 3 xgui 4 MAcShell MilleniumOS XTos
(without reading the article). These are all ones that I've used at some point, too. And they should all run on a PC.
1) MS-DOS 3.3
2) MS-DOS 5
3) MS-DOS 6.2
4) Windows 95
5) Windows 98
6) Windows 98SE
7) Windows ME
8) Windows XP
9) Windows NT 3.51
10) Windows NT 4.00
11) Windows 2000
12) SCO Xenix
13) Linux of all sorts
14) FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc.
15) Solaris
16) GNU/Hurd
17) Plan 9
18) FreeDOS (Version ?)
19) DR-DOS (Version ?)
20) Novell Netware (Version ?)
That's about all I can pull from the top of my head. If you consider seperate versions BSD, Linux, FreeDOS, DR-DOS, Netware as different OSes or installations of Windows 286/386/3.1/3.11 as actual OSes, you'd easily get past 37.
-Elentar
The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
You can argue beyond that, but 28 is still impressive... No WinNT?
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
11 Linux distros - 1 OS. Still, no less of an accomplishment!
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Imagine having to go through all those at bootup! I can see extending the bootloader to provide regex searches.
This must be a use of the word "redundant" I have never heard before.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Now I like wasting my time on technology as much as the next geek, but really! The words "more", "must", "out" and "get" spring to mind here...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I tried one a few years ago that scared me away from them: it sucessfully began emulating a C64. However, my brand new (at the time), very expensive (at the time), Pentium 100 didn't want to STOP being a C64. No matter how I tried to quit or reboot it kept coming up as a C64.
'Great' I think to myself, 'I have the worlds most expensive Commodore 64... and I don't even have a 1541 floppy.' :)
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
XOSL has a 24 boot-item limit and a 56 partition limit, forcing me to install more than one dedicated installation.
;)
Well, clearly XOSL must suck if it can't do more than 24 boot items. I mean here's a clear example of the vast user demand for such things... I wonder if the makers of XOSL ever thought anyone might need more?
Come play Moral Decay!
All the versions of Windows don't impress me much, he could also have installed all DOS versions from 1.0 to DOS 6.22. Lots of Linux distributions IMO don't count either, they're just different configurations of the same thing.
And he even missed some. I have used PC DOS and PTS-DOS. Solaris x86 is also missing.
He uses multiple copies of XOSL, so that they are in a menu structure. XOSL takes mouse input as well.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
I was surprised to see Solaris x86 absent from his list.
Reminds me of the episode where Peter was trying to overcome his addiction to TV. /.ers trying something like it.
I could see
TV Commercial Commentator: "What would you do for a Klondike bar?"
Man: "I dunno."
Commentator: "Would you hop on one leg?"
Man: "Sure" *hops on one leg*
Commentator: "Would you.. would you... kill a man?"
Man: "Umm... well.." *fades to new shot, while you hear screaming ensue from the television*
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Anyone wanna prosecute him for piracy??? =)
This *EXTREMELY RARE* operating system was the first release for the IBM-PC. Previously, different versions of GEOS had done very well with the Commodore 64 and Apple 2 line. This GUI-based OS was primarily used in businesses and schools, and seldom saw its way into the hands of the public. This was the very first version that was ever released for PC users. The welcome screen had three buttons, for the Appliances level, Professional level, and the DOS Room. In the first level, the user is greeted by large buttons for the calculator, Rolodex, planner, and notepad. These four apps run in full screen, and there is no multitasking or task-switching. In the Professional level, the user is exposed to all the applications, which can run in windows and multitask with one another. The screen could be filled with a background (wallpaper in Windows lingo) for some fancy decoration. The accessories included Clock, Calculator, GeoBanner, GeoComm, GeoDex, GeoPlanner, Notepad, and Scrapbook. The major applications were GeoManager, GeoDraw, GeoWrite, and Preferences. There was also an icon for the client software to America Online. (At that time, it was the only way to connect to AOL). The user interface was Motif, and a dark cyan color scheme was used. In the DOS Room, a button for the DOS prompt was the default entry. There was a utility for creating new buttons for running other DOS applications, and there was a broad selection of icons to choose from, including both generic and branded icons. This version was later followed by versions 2.0, and New Deal School Suite '98.
For a trip down memory lane (ok, I'm lying, my memory lane begins at Windows 3.0), here's a set of Windows screenshots, starting at 1.0 up to Win XP.
0 1w indowshistory_screenshots.html
http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2001/10/a2510
Interesting how similar Windows 2.0 looks to Windows XP, and many other GUI environments...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Which was way ahead of it's time IMO. :(
Too bad app support sucked.
I know that there are still places that use OS/2 and have relatively new installs of it, but as a desktop OS I think it's safe to say that it is even more dead than linux.
He could of at least installed IBM's OS2/Warp and old school DesqView.
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
Woah! You must have missed out on the greatest nerd debate in the history of Usenet: Woah! Win95 boots in only 3 seconds!
This guy's able to run relatively new OS (w2k) all the way down to DOS and Win 1.0.?? I remember trying to run older 16bit apps on Windows 95 on Pentium 200 hardware, and the numbers were all messed up. System Memory, -99999999 and I really had 32MB RAM. There was also limitations detecting Hard Drive space.
$cat
Were there any OSes you couldn't find?
Yes. Windows 1.0...Oh, and I couldn't find an OS that would tell me how to successfully deal with girls either.
You've just geeked 37 OS'es onto your PC. Just open your bedroom door (in your Mom and Dad's house) and wait for the babes to come stampeding in.
What about GNU/Emacs.....?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
It would kinda suck to have a hardware failure. Changing the drivers for how many operating systems?
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
...I could do this if I wanted to. All I would need would be more hard drives and more drive docks. Here's a peek at what I've been doing.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
They also make two-port switches, if you don't need a four-port one. Also eight-port and sixteen-port switches, if you really need them. If you need more then that, look in your yellow pages under "computer cables" or something similar.
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
I like the "Unix" menu:
* AtheOS 0.3.7
* BeOS 5 Personal Edition
* BeOS 5.0.3 Developer Edition
* FreeBSD 4.4
* Minix 2.2
* NetBSD 1.5
* OpenBSD 2.9
* QNX RTP 6.0 (hosted)
* QNX RTP 6.1 (dedicated)
* QNX Neutrino OS 6.2
* SyllableOS 0.4.0
I've never heard of SyllableOS, but out of the others I think only the *BSDs qualify as Unix. Maybe when this guy goes to get a life they'll have a sale where he can pick up a clue at half price.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Ok so it was just a pretty wrapper for the OS...but het so are DOS mindow managers....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions [of linux] because any more seemed redundant.
However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions [of linux] because any more seemed redundant.
However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions [of linux] because any more seemed redundant.
However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions [of linux] because any more seemed redundant.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Seems like a good machine for doing beta testing on.. personally I'll stick with VMWare though thx.
This dude has way too much time on his hands. he could of taken the time, he wasted, on developing an operating system. He could could of helped out writing multiple open source projects.
Mod - Interesting +3
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
I did 19 different operating systems on the 486. It's actually quite useful to fire up some specific version of dos to twinkle some version-specific bug. Here's my list.
The installations of these were heavily stripped, because both msdos and pcdos will run the pcdos 7.0 utilities, along with a scattering of other utilities.
System commander provided the menu.
msdos 5.00 6.00 6.20 6.21 6.22 7.00b
pcdos 5.00 5.02 6.00 6.10 6.30 7.00 2000
drdos 6.00b 7.00
mswin 95a
os/2 3.00 4.00
nt 4.00
OS/2 3.0 was heavily stripped to 9MB total, it was used for burning cdroms.
On top of these, I ran different operating system extenders: These
dosshell [a hacked win30 standard mode]
win30
win31
win311
deskView
qemm
The other configurations were the main work client (pcdos 2000), a guest system for my mother (pcdos 2000 + win3.11 running a network install.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
They do make KVM's with multi-monitor support. I use them at work with our linux servers as our NT4 servers are not setup for multi monitors. look this site for more info
"24 boot items ought to be enough for everybody!" - Gill Bates, XOSL Developer, 1980
Running all at the same time that would be worth the hype. Seems easy thought, linux/UML(User mode Linux) with vmware, Replicate as need. Plus you could do it all with on big hard drive.
One day people will learn the folly of Winbloze, Linux Rules!
do win3.1 and such really classify as 'operating systems'?
in fact, shouldn't it be possible to install win1, win2, and win3 all on the same MS-Dos installation?
thus, why are they being counted as unique OS'es?
What's the record of OSes in VMware, VirtualPC, etc.? ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
This was featured on Tech TV's The Screen Savers a while back, and is also how I discovered XOSL (great graphical boot manager).
No Coherent? No Plan 9? No Inferno?
better is the enemy of good
It's entirely possible to install almost every version of Linux on one machine. New versions of LILO eliminate the 1,024th cylinder boundary, enabling you to use up to 160GB for Linux. However, I decided to stop at around 10 versions because any more seemed redundant.
He puts 57 operating systems on one computer, and is worried about redundancy...
Since when are diffent distros of Linux considered to be different OSes? Its all a damn SCAM!
He had six IDE hard drives. As the article states, some OS's have severe temper tantrums if you try to install them past a certain cylinder on the HD (1024). NT can't exist on the same physical drive as 2000. I am not sure if the same is true for XP and 2000 on the same drive.
My guess is that given these limitations, it might have been impossible to add NT even if he wanted to.
So many jokes..
Brain overloading!
Anyway, my mission is clear. How could anyone possibly stop when they were so close to 42?!
Do you really count Windows 1 to 3.11/WFW/whateva the last Windows was before 95? Granted 95 still ran on dos kinda, but atleast the version of dos was released specifically for win 95.. previous versions of windows ran on ms-dos or dr-dos, pc-dos whateva, but really wasn't anything more a file manager and a simple environment to make some gui apps.. I don't call X Windows and OS... dunno, point being though I guess, if your going to count those old versions of windows why aren't you going to count the dos manager things (that he was saying would total 57) and vice-versa...
...he doesn't even have OS/2 1.3EE installed. what a lamer!
I think The first versions of Windows was just a menu system, and NOT an OS. Windows 95 uses DOS 7.0, so it must be considered that DOS is the OS, and that Windows 95 is the "add-on" menu system.
Windows NT is a OS, because it's not an add-on. And Win2k, XP, NET is the same.
37 Operating systems? In a row?
paintball
He just lists 'OS/2' once. There was:
OS/2 v1
OS/2 v2
OS/2 v2.1
OS/2 warp v3
OS/2 Warp v4
OS/2 Warp v4.5
OS/2 Warp v4.51
OS/2 Warp v4.52
OS/2 gets dissed even when there are 37 opportunities to load it.
I'd make a comment that "surplus spare time" verges on being redundant, but in this case, there seems to be a legit need for the additional emphasis.
I have setup some systems to dual boot with LILO, but another way to do it that will work is to use the BIOS.
I installed one hard disk, installed an OS and then pulled off the IDE cable. Put in a second hard disk, installed the 2nd OS. Then restored the first hard drive. (powering down as needed)
I just change the boot order in the BIOS. Anyone who just walks up to the PC and boots it will not know that the other OS is there. Users freak out about LILO sometimes.
It does not look from the article that he did this, and I was expecting to see this used in combination with the other methods.
get a life
How many licenses can he break simultaneously?
Don't certain Windows licenses preclude other DOS or Windows versions from being installed on the same PC in their EULA?
Now we know how he had the time for all of this. (Hint: the soap is right near the hand cream you no doubt use by the bucketful)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Hey what is it with Utah and computers. They must be nuts. And I didn't notice QNX on the list..
m. felzien
And to think I didn't even know he was interested in computers. :(
Way to go Richard.
This guy was on Tech TV the other day.
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/st
There's a link to the article
TopView from IBM
Really, what's the point of wasting your hard-drive like that?
Wow, he put all those versions of Windows on it and it didn't explode?
BeOS? Huh? What? Oh, that's the road kill MS ran over using their dark force monopoly powers.
Linx? Huh? What? Where? Hasn't MS that group of infidels yet?
MS to Richard Robbins: thank you very much for creating a list of all the enemies we need to crush!
US government to Richard Robbins: Your running QNX on your computer? That must make you a terrorist, since QNX can be used to control nuclear warheads or nuclear reactors!
BSA to Richard Robbins: What? You can't find the license for Windows 1.01? That'll be 500,000 dollars, and you'll have to remove all those non-windows OS' from your computer, and sign a deal with MS stating you'll only buy MS software in the future.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
And deploy to 100 workstations on your LAN.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
A beowulf cluster of these!!!
;))
(O.k. I know is bad
This is not impressive at all. With enough disk space, you could install every build of Mac OS versions 8 through X.2.1. On separate partitions.
Then add virtual PC to get the same 37 OS's this guy had.
Behold the glory of emulation!
That's a life experience.
That's what I like to do, partition the drives, and install several os's and see which one runs the best on the hardware. On this little PS/1, I have Windows 98, with Grey Cat Linux 3.0 (470MB partition), and DOS /Arachne 1.70 in a little 30 MB partition. I run a menu in the little partition so I can choose between Arachne 1.70 or Grey Cat Linux 3.0 (in the big partition).
See http://www.angelfire.com/ms/telegram/menu.html for that.
Although Arachne and GCL 3.0 are fun, Windows 98 does the best, I use Opera and Pegasus, and leave IE 4.0 alone. I don't bother to upgrade Windows 98 on a setup like this at all, since a lot of that is just security fixes anyway. Btw, you need at least IE 5x to upgrade anyway. I can do that, I have the 80+ MB file for MSIE 5.x but can't spare the HDD space for something I won't use.
I have other machines with dual Linux installs, and almost always Windows 98. Keeps me busy, without spending much $.
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
YES! I've been using a KVM from VETRA (www.vetra.com) for 6+ months now. An NT computer and a Win2000 computer, both with dual-head Matrox Graphics cards connected to 2 monitors.
Price was about $200 for the box plus some more for the cables.
Not so. Microsoft doesn't want you to, but you can do it. I have NT, 2000, 95B and DOS 6.22 on the same physical drive. You just have to hide the NT or 2000 boot partition when using the other. The same applies for multiple NT or multiple 2000 boot partitions. I use Bootmagic - it automatically hides the other boot partitions and it works flawlessly.
Where it is a bitch, AND I CURSE MICROSOFT AND WISH THEM ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR THIS, is that the first time 2000 even sees and NTFS 4 partition, it updates it to NTFS 5 WITHOUT TELLING YOU and NT 4 can no longer write to it. They warn you that 2000 will do this during the install, but the assholes do not mention that it will do it after installation when you simply look at an NTFS 4 partition.
37 systems nothing on.
.44 magnum it was solid steel cast
__________________
I bought a bourgeois house in the Hollywood hills
With a truckload of hundred thousand dollar bills
Man came by to hook up my ISP
We settled in for the night my baby and me
We switched 'round and 'round 'til half-past dawn
There was thirty-seven systems and nothin' on
Well now home entertainment was my baby's wish
So I hopped into town for a satellite dish
I tied it to the top of my Japanese car
I came home and I pointed it out into the stars
A message came back from the great beyond
There's thirty-seven systems and nothin' on
Well we might'a made some friends with some billionaires
We might'a got all nice and friendly
If we'd made it upstairs
All I got was a note that said "Bye-bye John
Our love is thirty-seven systems and nothin' on"
So I bought a
And in the blessed name of Elvis well I just let it blast
'Til my 'puter lay in pieces there at my feet
And they busted me for disturbin' the almighty peace
Judge said "What you got in your defense son?"
"Thirty-seven systems and nothin' on"
I can see by your eyes friend you're just about gone
Thirty-seven channels and nothin' on...
Thirty-seven channels and nothin'
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Pfft... I was hoping to see some interesting, exotic OS's in the list but instead I just see a dozen different versions of windows, dos, linux distros and a few others (QNX,BeOS). I could break this record by installing all linux kernel versions know to man into my lilo bootloader.
Take the machine away from him and put it in a museum! :)
It's the only machine we know that runs Windows successfully
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Out of all the OS's he is runnning... He's not running GNU/HURD :)
Why not link to the original article? http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/print/0,23102,3 399433,00.html ...and this is just plain wrong:
"When you have multiple versions of Windows on one PC, you have to hide them from each other or they won't function."
This is like soooooo old. I have been noticing this recently. This was reported a couple of weeks ago on TechTV during an episode of The Screen Savers. They even had an interview with the kid.
01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01100100 01101111 01101101
Do you have a favorite OS, or are they like "children" -- you love them all "equally but differently"?
Alas, I do share a unique type of love with each one of my beloved systems. But if I had to pick one to be crowned the birthright, I would go with BeOS. Why? Because it minds its own business, is easily pleased, and doesn't complain...
I image that BeOS is his favorite since you can install it anywhere and it will be happy. Heck, I can pull my BeOS drive and drop in another, completely different system, and it boots without a single complaint. I did that with Win98SE and it took 4 hours to things straight.
Step 1: Spend weeks installing 36 Operating Systems
Step 2: Install Windows 95 (pre-A)
Step 3: Boot Windows 95
Step 4: Goto Step 1
I didn't even know so many existed, including distro's
Fuck off, chadtard!
This guy was on the ScreenSavers on Tech tv a few weeks back showing off all of the os's and his 5 bootup menus.
He had all the versions of windows in one sub menu.
Another with unix's.
They even showed one called bluebird.
If so, he can add in Tops-10, Tops-20 and ITS.
They are all fully functional, and have TCP stacks so you can telnet in and run yor favourite MACRO-10 program, like the original Elisa or Adventure.
Doesn't this guy read Slashdot!?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I swear I saw this guy on The ScreenSavers. Did it seriously take this long for an article to come out? I mean I'm sure that there's on one TechTV ... let me see ... yup. September 27, 2002. Took a while.
Beg pardon, but just because Microsoft changed the message that "VER" returns to "Windows 95" doesn't mean that it isn't DOS - I used DR-DOS v6 with Windows 95, back in the day, just fine (ignoring the error message on boot).
I also used QEMM-386 in place of EMM386, until MS finally broke it with Windows 98SE.
with all the linux versions, it does not count as 37. It's the same OS. Instead he missed some easily accessable OSes like EROS succsessor to KeyKOS. It's even mostly GPLed.
The narrow definition of an OS just includes the kernel, so distribution and version variations are not counted. Here is (complete?) list of x86 os's with seperate kernel source trees. Anyone have updates?
* Adrenaline
* Apostle
* AtheOS
* BeOS
* BRiX
* BSD-OS
* BugOS
* DOS
* EduOS
* EROS
* Exopc
* Fiasco
* FreeBSD
* FreeVMS
* FullPliant
* GEM
* Gemini Nucleus
* GEOS
* GNU Hurd
* Go
* JxOS
* L4
* Linux
* MenuetOS
* MINIX
* Nemesis
* NetBSD
* On Time RTOS-32
* OnCore
* OpenBSD
* OS/2
* OS-C
* PETROS
* PIOS
* Proolix
* QNX
* RadiOS
* Roadrunner
* RT Mach NTT
* SCO
* Scout
* Solaris
* SPIN
* TinyOS
* Unununium
* V2 OS
* VSTa
* VxWorks
* Windows 9x
* Windows NT
* Yamit
please ignore the rest of this comment.
trying to get past the stupid comment filter trying to get past the stupid comment filte1r trying to get past the stfupid commfsent filter trying t3o get past wthe stupid cofmment fildfter trying to get past the stupid commentas filter trying tos get past the stupid comment filter2 trying to get past the stupsdid comment filter trying to get past the stupid comment filter tryinddg tod get past the stupfsid comment filter trying to get past the stupid comment filter tdrying to get padst the stupid comment filter tryifng dto get past the stupid comment filter trying to get past thes stupifd comsment filter
More then likely because 42 is the max number of OS's you could ever have on a single computer, just ask deep thought.
Check out my life
Come on. You have Windows 1.0 but not Desqview???
I don't read or respond to AC posts
when do I hub?
-pyrrho
CP/M?
Another OS you could of got for $30 bucks if you had a commadore128(dunno for c64). Meaning it was easy to get.
As an aside, when I tried running CP/M...it was hell. I was dumb and stupid at the time(10 yrs), and didn't know why it couldn't read my disks...I couldn't even get it to open files or do anything. But that was due to my stupidity...now that I think of it I guess it was a unix-style os(i don't even have the book anymore)
* s/rattlesnack/small\ fluffy\ bunny/
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I'd be truly impressed if he had all 37 different operating systems running simultaneously in separate virtual machines!
Alan.
Word to the wise... User 956's "homepage" links to a pr0n site. Opens many many nasty pics & screams out "hey eveybody, I'm looking at gay porno". Funny, but not when you're at work.
I think Microsoft allows the use of old Windows versions if you purchased a license of the newest version. For example, if you bought Windows XP Home, you could use, instead, any version from Windows 3.1 to Windows ME. You can't use Windows 2000 Pro since its upgrade path is Windows XP Pro.
What!? No Darwin.
Damn! I hope he paid for all those WinDOS licenses!
it's funny when closed-minded fools think things are "too hard" or "uninteresting". the guy that did it was a young kid so "time" is not a realistic issue. I'd bet a mortgage that those that think this is "a waste of time" couldn't come close to achieving the same so SHUT THE FUCK UP. don't dog people that want to stretch the possibilities. sounds like you are the vermin that needs to see why www.linuxisforbitches.com was created... sucka
My first computer pr0n was accessed by the Geos paint program on my c64. I'm sad aren't I?
The best solution for me is to use virtual machines.
I use VMware when on a PC on top of either Win2000 or Linux. I use Connectix Virtual PC on Mac on top of either OS 9 or Mac OS X.
Either one allows me to run MULTIPLE PC OSes simultaneously in separate windows. Cool!
Each hard drive is a virtual hard drive saved on a disk image file. Double click on that image file and that hard drive is loaded and booted.
This allows me to run a completely separate virgin copy of Win2000 inside my normal Win2000 environment. I can do a test install. If I don't like the install, I just restore the backup of the virgin Win2000 image file. You can't do that on real disks.
Kid stuff. If he was a real man, he'd do what you suggest but in only 640k of RAM.
I thought he could have taught me a lot about any of these.
I expected his list to contain at least
Trolling using another account since 2005.
... I heard Windows 1.00 was horribly insecure.
Word to the wise... User 956's "homepage" links to a pr0n site. Opens many many nasty pics & screams out "hey eveybody, I'm looking at gay porno". Funny, but not when you're at work.
WTF are you talking about? It goes to about.com. There's no gay porno on about.com.
People, if you're going to moderate, at least check out this troll's story before modding stuff down. He's obviously just trying to waste everyone's mod points.
Were there any OSes you couldn't find?
Yes. Windows 1.0. Refer to the statement on Jupiter's 7th moon in previous answer. Oh, and I couldn't find an OS that would tell me how to successfully deal with girls either.
Did he actually say that?
Does that has to do with the kid that was on TechTV's, The Screen Savers, about a week ago which demostrated 39 operating systems in his machine including many versions of MS-DOS and Free-DOS, QNX, ERIKA, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other less famous OS such as Lesbian, and ERIKA.
If anyone want to see a pretty cute list of OSes go to fuckmicrosoft.com
The JZA
Say where can I put this deck of cards...umm...
OOps
IEFBR14
Will RMS want this guy to call it GNU/Linux/FreeBSD/Windows/OS2/DOS/DRDOS/Netware?
www.Beyond7.com Insane modern art water sculpture.
There can be only four primary partitions on one hard drive, or three primary partitions and one extended partition. It's a BIOS restriction and there is only one (messy) way around it.
That is simply not true. The BIOS does not even know the concept of partitions. There is nothing in the BIOS mandating a particular partition format, neither that harddisks should be partitioned and floppydisks should not.
With a minor change of the OS you could use the raw harddisk as a single medium and have 10 primary partitions on your floppydisks.
But the required change of the OS is the real problem. You simply need a partition table format supported by all your OSes. And a lot of the OSes only supports the original format with four primary partitions one of which can optionally be split into a number of logical partitions. On my Linux only system I seriously consider switching to another partition format to overcome this limit, but for a multiboot it is not an option.
The article has a pointer to a way to overcome this limit, the trick is to use a completely different partition table format elsewhere on the disk, and generate the partition table in the MBR on every boot with only partitions needed for the particular OS. If done right you can even make some of the OSes use the new partition table format natively. So you could in theory let your Linux systems access all the partitions without even reading the table in the MBR. I don't know if that works with this partition manager, but it would be possible.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Recently to get screenshots for a Knowledge base we had to install pretty much all versions of Windows, though not including Windows 3.1. However, we only had a Windows 95a Upgrade CD, rather than a full install, so on went Windows 3.11.
The machine wasnt particularly a high spec machine, a Celeron 800 with 128 Meg of RAM. Dos loaded in about 1 second after the Bios finished doing its thing. Windows 3.1 loaded in about a second, and took almost another second to display everything. All in all, you could go from turning a machine on to being in Solitaire in about 10 seconds.
I cant even get two to work on my PC. Several times I've tried and it just goes a bit wobbly.
Can you put Win95, Dos, Win98 on the same disk and not cause havoc?
didn't saw one running for a more than a decade... back in 1990, I had it on my glorious Tandy 1400FD "laptop" (640kb ram, dual floppy, 640*200 2 shades or 320*200 4 shades display)
ive run windows 3.1 on my last pc, which was a duron 650, which i overclocked to 950. It ran fine at both speeds. from hitting enter after typing "win" at the command line, if you blinked you would miss the boot time.
seb
Its all right here .
Although...
:)
AtheOS (Seems to be down mostly these days)
Syllable (Carries on where AtheOS left off)
SkyOS
Read OSNews for more
More info can be found here:
Click Me!
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Where's CPM86 and/or MPM86? That would be another 2
In the interview he said, "Most Linux and Unix systems are open source, and therefore free."
That's dangerous territory you're stepping on, boy.
Since when have Windows 3.1 and the earlier versions qualifed as an OSes? They are just windowing applications running on DOS.
An easy 38th with this - the only OS written in QBasic !
As enthusiastically reviewed by NTK
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
the amstrad xt's (and 286's, at's??) shipped with GEM, here's a link .
:P. it was also my first contact to computers, i drew an yellow elephant in the painting tool.
it was pretty cool and easy enough for 7 year old to operate
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
There is a big .NET ad right in the middle of the article title ..Is that the way its supposed to be ????
Actually you can make it boot to the DOS prompt by putting the line BOOTGUI=0 in your MSDOS.SYS file. Sorry if this advice is 7 years too late to be useful. ;-)
i had over 40 os's on 2 hard drives 2 or 3 years ago.
currently its just dos 6.22, win3.1, geos, win98, and winnt4 on the first 2 gig partition. windows 2000 and win95 on the 3rd 12 gig partition. solaris, netbsd, openbsd, and freebsd occupy 6 gigs
together in the space between the 2 gig and 12 gig windows
drives. qnx and beos are on the 12 gig windows drive too.
the last big partition is a linux extended, type 85 with 12
partitions of linux, bootable from my nt4 boot loader.
the 12 gig drive starts at cylinder 1000 to make it bootable by
win95. i boot them all with freebsd's booteasy, a master
boot record partition booter, and create the the chain by
putting lilo in each linux partition's root partition then
something like dd if=/dev/hda12 of=/mnt/hda1/boot/loaderfile
bs=512 count=1, then add that entry to the nt4 boot.ini
anyway, i've been doing this for years, and know bunches
of tricks.
by the way, solaris will hose your partition table, and you
have to fix it with linux, but solaris will still work.
They where different versions of DOS if i remember correctly. Win 95 had like DOS 7 or something. So IF your counting different versions of DOS then they are still seperate for sure. Read the post above that explains how 95 did not run on DOS it just had DOS in it.
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
I need it badly too! been looking all over for it.
email me at lars_olsen(AT)yahoo.com. thanks!
Microsoft BOB.
He asked "before it starts getting redundant" :-)
Buy VMware and not only have 37 operating systems, but run several simultaneously.
Nice One!
Fair play to him..but the jury isn't convinced...
I'm not woefully impressed with his method....
11 versions of linux.....(wonder what file systems..)
3 versions of Beos (all 5.??)(BeFS - this to me counts as one)
2 versions of QNX (6.1, 6.2) (again 1)
4 versions of dos.....(fat16) (again 1)
3 installations of Windows 98 (fat32) (again 1)
The following are dosshells.... (don't count at all)
Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3.1
1. he's used 5 separate boot menus....
2. he's used logical partitions.....(yuk)
3. One of the oses is emulated....
Taking the above into account....
-10 for linux oses....
-2 for beos oses....
-1 for QNX os...
-3 for dos os...
-2 for windows 98 os...
-3 for the windows ?.?? shells....
-1 for the emulated os...
Total -22 oses leaving 15 oses....
Some of the other listed oses i'm not familiar with so I can't comment?
Sorry to be a nit picker.
Mind you there's nothing about networking, internet access, email configs, crossing file systems etc...
At the same time he deserves credit...
I've managed the following.....
Dos 6.22 (fat16)
Windows 98 SE (fat32)
Windows XP (ntfs V5.1)
Windows NT 3.1 (ntfs V3)
Windows NT 4.00 (ntfs V4)
Windows 2000 Server (ntfs V5)
OS/2 Warp 3 (hpfs)
Netware 4.11 (volume)
QNX 6.0 (ifs)
Beos 5.0 (BeFS)
Suse Linux 7.3 (ext3)
OpenBSD
FreeBSD
All the other Windows OSes are just variants so should not be interpreted as an independent os. Same applies to Linux.
Emulating is cheating when one makes a claim for multiple os installation.
XOSL, the boot manager he used has an ADDON which is used in the context of booting atapi cdroms on machines whose bios does not support cdrom booting. It in itself is an independent boot manager called "Smart Boot Manager" and the creator deserves acknowledgement for his technical ability.
Fair play to him.. but the jury isn't convinced...
I'm not woefully impressed with his method....
11 versions of linux.....(wonder what file systems..)
3 versions of Beos (all 5.??)(BeFS - this to me counts as one)
2 versions of QNX (6.1, 6.2) (again 1)
4 versions of dos.....(fat16) (again 1)
3 installations of Windows 98 (fat32) (again 1)
The following are dosshells.... (don't count at all)
Windows 1.01
Windows 2.03
Windows 3.1
1. he's used 5 separate boot menus....
2. he's used logical partitions.....(yuk)
3. One of the oses is emulated....
Taking the above into account....
-10 for linux oses....
-2 for beos oses....
-1 for QNX os...
-3 for dos os...
-2 for windows 98 os...
-3 for the windows ?.?? shells....
-1 for the emulated os...
Total -22 oses leaving 15 oses....
Sorry to be a nit picker.
Mind you there's nothing about networking, internet access, email, file systems, partitions,
does all hardware work in all OSes etc...
At the same time he deserves credit...
No, he'd forgive the trolls. That's probably why most people here are athiest.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I asked the engineer who designed the communication terminal's keyboards
why these were not manufactured in a central facility, in view of the
small number needed [1 per month] in his factory. He explained that this
would be contrary to the political concept of local self-sufficiency.
Therefore, each factory needing keyboards, no matter how few, manufactures
them completely, even molding the keypads.
-- Isaac Auerbach, IEEE "Computer", Nov. 1979
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...