Author Topic: Geekhack on the Gateway (Read 5541 times)

microsoft windows · « **on:** Sun, 07 March 2010, 20:29:25 »

See that thing? It's on the Internet now. I installed an ethernet wall port in the computer lab and now, the Gateway2000 is connected to the network. As a matter of fact, I am posting this right now on the Gateway2000 in Mozilla. It's surprising how fast the Internet is on a 200Mhz Pentium without MMX and 64MB of RAM.

It's too bad there's no telephone ports down here. It would be fun to dial up with its 28.8k modem.

kishy · « **Reply #1 on:** Sun, 07 March 2010, 20:52:23 »

I'll 1-up you soon enough.

Upcoming projects include getting my 286 online and on Geekhack.

Hubbert · « **Reply #2 on:** Sun, 07 March 2010, 22:12:15 »

Quote from: kishy;162400

I'll 1-up you soon enough.

Upcoming projects include getting my 286 online and on Geekhack.

Please keep me posted: my first computer was a 286, and I used it for 6 years. I do wish I'd kept the keyboard, though, even though it was nothing special.

kishy · « **Reply #3 on:** Sun, 07 March 2010, 22:25:40 »

Quote from: Hubbert;162423

Please keep me posted: my first computer was a 286, and I used it for 6 years. I do wish I'd kept the keyboard, though, even though it was nothing special.

Keep you posted? You'll stay posted, don't worry lol.

Just need to get TCP/IP for Win3.1 working properly and my DE-220 network card drivers...

Then find a text mode browser...

It'll happen soon enough.

If not with 3.1, I'll hack up 3.11 so it'll run on a 286 (one file needs some mods to work), then make use of the builtin TCP/IP support.

Xuan · « **Reply #4 on:** Sun, 07 March 2010, 23:54:52 »

wow, you have an iomega zip drive, that's the future dude!

elservo · « **Reply #5 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 00:21:55 »

None of you guys can beat me. I WALKED to geekhack and am writing this on its wall.

ch_123 · « **Reply #6 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 04:07:24 »

You look at Geekhack on a web browser on a computer?

Am I the only one who's missing something here?

Half-Saint · « **Reply #7 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 05:12:14 »

I COULD try to beat you with an XT but the hard drive developed bad sectors and I still haven't reformatted it

I'm just that lazy yes

trievalot · « **Reply #8 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 05:24:16 »

Quote from: ripster;162463

I can beat that. I'm chiseling this post onto a stone tablet....

AFTER somebody invents language.

Show Image

they tried cutting the TMA, but that thing is built like a model M

HaaTa · « **Reply #9 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 06:40:30 »

TI-83 Calculator...my preferred method of readership.

Well until I realized that copying out all of the articles into GeekHack BASIC was a complete waste of time.

kishy · « **Reply #10 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 07:30:44 »

Quote from: Half-Saint;162494

I COULD try to beat you with an XT but the hard drive developed bad sectors and I still haven't reformatted it I'm just that lazy yes

That's the next project after the 286.

256-640 version of the mobo is sitting in a baby AT case in my closet awaiting more time and interest. Might end up cheating and using my V20 board; supposedly they're more instruction-compatible with 286s.

ch_123 · « **Reply #11 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 14:04:55 »

I approve of the Dymo-taped drives though.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #12 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 14:26:31 »

Isn't it possible to run Windows 95 on an XT?

ch_123 · « **Reply #13 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 14:30:50 »

Nope, Windows 95 is 386 or greater, the XT would be either 8088 or 286.

Unlike modern iterations of Intel chips, there were significant differences between the first three (four if you count the 186) that meant that software optimized for one couldn't be used on an earlier model.

itlnstln · « **Reply #14 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 14:33:51 »

Quote from: ch_123;162575

Nope, Windows 95 is 386 or greater, the XT would be either 8088 or 286.

286 was AT, IIRC.

ch_123 · « **Reply #15 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 14:36:48 »

There was an XT-286 which had an updated AT-style motherboard placed into an XT case, supposedly made by IBM to clear out their stock of XT cases and parts. It was sold as a lower end complement to the AT, but (IIRC) the memory was faster, so it was in some ways better than the more expensive AT.

kishy · « **Reply #16 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 14:38:06 »

I was about to say that.

In any event, I'd be running a V20 or 8088 in my "XT" and my 286 is a 286.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #17 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 15:30:48 »

That's interesting how XT's only went up to 286's mas Windows 95 has support for 83-key PC/XT keyboards and other hardware.

ch_123 · « **Reply #18 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 15:43:00 »

The XT-286 used the Model M, so only the 8088-equipped ones had the old 83-key Model F.

If I was to guess, I'd assume that it was either included to support XT/AT switchable designs that used the old layout, left for some sort of compatibility purposes, or they just were lazy and didn't bother to remove it.

kishy · « **Reply #19 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 16:08:17 »

It's more likely because of the oddball hardware configurations you can find in industrial computers. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find a Pentium-level system with 8 bit ISA slots and possibly the XT keyboard interface, depending on what the system was intended for.

Even XP still included PC/XT keyboard support.

ch_123 · « **Reply #20 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 16:27:14 »

Running Windows 95 on a mission critical computer? =P

In the license for Windows 95, it specifically states that it should not be used for (including other purposes) nuclear reactors, missile guidance, and bio-chemical weapon development.

ricercar · « **Reply #21 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 16:36:23 »

When I worked the semiconductor biz, our RAM was not authorized for use in "life support or life endangering" applications. People didn't even use our RAM in our company machines. I did; I maxxed out all my home machines for free.

ch_123 · « **Reply #22 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 17:03:22 »

Let me guess, the life support machines had gold contacts and your company's RAM had tin?

ricercar · « **Reply #23 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 18:13:44 »

It kinda tells you a lot about a company that won't use its own product.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #24 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 19:56:34 »

I always got a good chuckle whenever I see Windows Mobile being used on the little checkout thingies at the Apple Store. Now there's a place that won't use its own PDA's...

sethstorm · « **Reply #25 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 20:14:26 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;162637

I always got a good chuckle whenever I see Windows Mobile being used on the little checkout thingies at the Apple Store. Now there's a place that won't use its own PDA's...

That's what happens when you don't target the business market as much as your competitors.

Xuan · « **Reply #26 on:** Mon, 08 March 2010, 23:28:09 »

Quote from: ricercar;162602

When I worked the semiconductor biz, our RAM was not authorized for use in "life support or life endangering" applications. People didn't even use our RAM in our company machines. I did; I maxxed out all my home machines for free.

So do many things, like google apps. It's some law ****.

Quote from: ch_123;162606

Let me guess, the life support machines had gold contacts and your company's RAM had tin?

Two 2001 references in the same thread

hyperlinked · « **Reply #27 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 03:07:21 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;162637

I always got a good chuckle whenever I see Windows Mobile being used on the little checkout thingies at the Apple Store. Now there's a place that won't use its own PDA's...

Their Windows Mobile handheld checkout devices have since been replaced with versions that run off of the iPod... and they work better now. I haven't had a problem with my card going through since they switched though it could also be explained rather simply by that their Windows Mobile versions used aging hardware that goes through a lot of daily wear and tear.

ch_123 · « **Reply #28 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 08:04:30 »

Given some of the horror stories with Windows Mobile, I think anything would be an improvement...

microsoft windows · « **Reply #29 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 14:48:23 »

Windows CE is a much better system than Windows Mobile.

ricercar · « **Reply #30 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 14:55:22 »

Windows Mobile 5, 6, 7, IS WindowsCE 5, 6, 7.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #31 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 15:05:29 »

Didn't Windows Mobile supercede CE? I don't think Microsoft called it CE. It's kind of like comparing Windows XP with Windows NT in a way, I guess.

ricercar · « **Reply #32 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 15:17:06 »

I don't disagree. But there was never a windows mobile 1-4, and there was never a CE 5-7.

Mobile adds a lot of cruft in my non-trivial experience. I've rarely had my CE 1-2 devices (Philips Velo 1, Pencentra 130, Clio 1000 & 1050) choke on me. My Mobile 5 & 6 devices (Mot Q9 & Q9C, Treo 700w) always seems to need a reboot or power cycle to restore performance.

kishy · « **Reply #33 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 17:05:05 »

Mobile? What?

CE is Windows Embedded, somewhat of a crappy parallel to XP Embedded (which I'm presently investigating as a possibility for a bastardish little thin client I'm turning into a web server).

CE is nice from a security/stability standpoint because...well...it can't be changed or altered. OS modifications, good or bad, require re-flashing the entire image.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #34 on:** Tue, 09 March 2010, 17:43:51 »

I like to use the Windows Embedded theme sometimes, but that's about it.

Mr.6502 · « **Reply #35 on:** Wed, 10 March 2010, 08:20:11 »

Quote from: ricercar;162814

I don't disagree. But there was never a windows mobile 1-4, and there was never a CE 5-7.

Mobile adds a lot of cruft in my non-trivial experience. I've rarely had my CE 1-2 devices (Philips Velo 1, Pencentra 130, Clio 1000 & 1050) choke on me. My Mobile 5 & 6 devices (Mot Q9 & Q9C, Treo 700w) always seems to need a reboot or power cycle to restore performance.

There wasn't a Mobile 1-4 because they changed the name of it a couple of times. Windows Mobile used to be called PocketPC.

PocketPC 2000, PocketPC 2002, Windows Mobile 2003 and Windows Mobile 2003 SE were the 4 versions of it that came out before they released Windows Mobile 5.

And the current version of Windows Embedded CE is 6.0 R3.

For the X-men fans, Windows Mobile 5 was codenamed "Magneto," which is the only reason I remember its history at all :-)

ricercar · « **Reply #36 on:** Wed, 10 March 2010, 14:50:23 »

There's a lot of obfuscation, but it appears that WinCE is PocketPC in some products/docs. My Philips Velo is Windows CE 1.x (and 2.x), and also PocketPC. Windows CE 2.1 is also Windows Mobile 2000 according to my Fujitsu Pencentras.

Mr.6502 · « **Reply #37 on:** Wed, 10 March 2010, 19:23:23 »

Quote from: ricercar;162976

There's a lot of obfuscation, but it appears that WinCE is PocketPC in some products/docs. My Philips Velo is Windows CE 1.x (and 2.x), and also PocketPC. Windows CE 2.1 is also Windows Mobile 2000 according to my Fujitsu Pencentras.

The naming in the actual products can get very bizarre. Especially since they would rename versions of the operating systems based on the capabilities of the devices they were installed onto.

The names I listed are the ones that always seemed to be the actual different versions of the PocketPC/Mobile line. There were dozens of flavors of them though, which definitely makes it annoying to figure out which is which.

I have a Voq phone that displays "Windows Smartphone 2003" on the device. I've not encountered that precise name on any other device. It is actually Windows Mobile 2003 for Smartphones based on Windows CE 4.2. But that's only apparent when you dump the software off the phone and look through it on a computer. If it were on a different phone, it could have nearly identical features but be called something different. Like if it was on something considered a PDA with Phone capabilities but not a smartphone (without a touchscreen) it would probably be Windows Mobile 2003 For PocketPC Phone Edition.

It seems like the PocketPC/Mobile version is a more narrowly focused system built on top of Windows CE. It uses the CE kernel plus some of the CE components and adds a batch of its own support apps that results in the version that is designed specifically for PDAs, PDAs with phone support, and SmartPhones.

CE as a whole is much much larger than PocketPC/Mobile versions ever seemed to be. The last version of CE I messed with (testing it for a friend interested in building some kiosks) had Win32 application support with 2 gigs addressable memory for every app. Those features in a real-time OS that is compatible with x86, ARM and MIPS is pretty damned handy.

I consider CE and PocketPC/Mobile to be something similar to how the Xbox OS and Windows for Warships were both based on Windows 2000 but were clearly separated from 2000 by their different focus.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #38 on:** Sat, 13 March 2010, 21:44:55 »

Windows CE is very much still alive.

Windows CE 1, 2, and 3 are usually the only OSes you see on a consumer device advertised as Windows CE, though.

Windows CE 1 was sold on "Handheld PCs."

Windows CE 2 was sold on both HPCs and "Palm-size PCs."

Windows CE 3 was sold on HPCs, some Casio devices that were similar to Palm-size PCs.

Microsoft released an OS known as Pocket PC 2000 that used the Windows CE 3 kernel, but was not Windows CE 3.

Pocket PC 2002 (and Pocket PC Phone Edition) and Smartphone 2002 later came out. They also use the CE 3 kernel.

Windows CE 4 (aka CE .net) was used on some HPC-like devices, and added a few other profiles.

After CE 4 came out, Microsoft rebranded the Pocket PC and Smartphone products as Windows Mobile, and released Pocket PC and Smartphone versions, based on CE 4.2.

Windows CE 5 came out, and was also used on a couple HPC-like devices and some other embedded stuff. In fact, you can still get some Chinese netbooks that use 5.2.

Windows Mobile 5 (again, both Pocket PC and Smartphone) uses CE 5, I believe 5.1.

Windows Mobile 6, 6.1, and 6.5 all use CE 5.2.

I believe Windows Phone 7 will use CE 6, which is a DRASTIC revamp of CE. And, WP7 isn't even backwards compatible with Windows Mobile, making it a new platform (but not a new OS - it's still CE underneath) altogether.

So, moral of the story: CE isn't Windows Mobile/Pocket PC. They aren't CE, but they're based on CE. Sorta like how Ubuntu isn't Debian, but it's based on it.

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #39 on:** Sat, 13 March 2010, 22:37:22 »

My SCH-i760 has Windows Mobile 6 on it and it is CE OS 5.2.979. I should update to 6.1 but I don't feel like adding all my stuff to it again.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #40 on:** Sat, 13 March 2010, 22:48:45 »

I'm running 6.5 on my Touch Pro. (Of course, 6.5.3 is current, but hey.) It's better than Sprint's stock 6.1 build, that's pretty much all I can say.

spolia optima · « **Reply #41 on:** Sun, 14 March 2010, 16:29:58 »

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #42 on:** Sun, 14 March 2010, 17:15:45 »

Is it possible to flash the ROM in an old pocket PC in order to upgrade it? I already think I know the answer to this question but I think it is worth asking. I have an old NEC MobilePro 770 running Windows CE 2.11 and I would like to upgrade it to a newer version of CE.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #43 on:** Mon, 15 March 2010, 00:08:09 »

Depends on the device. Some can be upgraded with a flash, some can be upgraded with a ROM swap, some can't be upgraded. I don't believe there's any upgrades available for that, though - HPC2000 would be the next step, and I think you have to go to the MobilePro 900 to get that. (And, CE .NET 4.2 runs on the 900c, which is otherwise the same.)

Generally, the manufacturer has to supply an upgrade, although most Windows Mobile 5 and newer devices have enough of a community to build "cooked" third-party ROMs of newer versions.

News:

Author Topic: Geekhack on the Gateway (Read 5541 times)