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."
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: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: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: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.
uh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
get a life
Seen this on Tech TV a while ago
by
qurob
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
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
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!"
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.
Out of all the OS's he is runnning... He's not running GNU/HURD:)
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: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.
Slashdot Mirror
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...
Two links from his techtv page:
:)
OS Files
FreeByte
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?
sPh
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
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.
get a life
This guy was on Tech TV the other day.
http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/st
There's a link to the article
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
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!"
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.
Out of all the OS's he is runnning... He's not running GNU/HURD :)
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.
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.
Buy VMware and not only have 37 operating systems, but run several simultaneously.