Windows 32-bit

[Steve Hayes]

Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.

It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

The nearest thing I have found to that was OS/2, now more than 25
years old, which had built in emulators that ran MS-Windows better
than Windows, and MS-Dos better than DOS. But there the emulators were
integrated, so they worked well.

Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages? Is there anyone here who has had
experience of using them who would be willing to answer a few
questions?

[Marco Moock]

Post by Steve Hayes
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

Current machines have hardware that doesn't have Windows 7 drivers
support.
If you still need Windows 7, move that into a virtual machine in
VirtualBox.

Post by Steve Hayes
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

Run it with any current system, like Windows 11 or Linux and use
VirtualBox.

Post by Steve Hayes
Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages?

Virtual machines are not emulators, it is a real operating system
running separated from your normal "host" OS.

[Mark Lloyd]

On 11/17/23 07:06, Marco Moock wrote:

[snip]

Post by Marco Moock
Current machines have hardware that doesn't have Windows 7 drivers
support.

Are these programs compatible with Windows 10 32-bit?

[snip]

Post by Marco Moock
Virtual machines are not emulators, it is a real operating system
running separated from your normal "host" OS.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <sxN5N.46596$***@fx11.iad> at Fri, 17 Nov 2023
11:37:28, Mark Lloyd <***@all.invalid> writes
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

[Daniel65]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

[John Hall]

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

[Daniel65]

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

Yeap!! Many long years ago, a place I used to work required 24/7
attendance so had shift-work. On week-ends, the shifts were 12 hours
shifts, but they never referred to a shift starting at either 12:00.

It was either 11:59am or 11:59pm, no 12:00 either way!!

[Char Jackson]

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM and 12 PM to be
ambiguous. Interesting.

[John Hall]

Post by Char Jackson

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM and 12 PM to be
ambiguous. Interesting.

AM stands for "ante meridiem" and PM for "post meridiem", i.e. before
and after midday respectively. But 12 noon is neither before nor after,
so logically it should be 12 M. Midnight is both 12 hours before and 12
hours post, but I suppose it would be more logical to call it 12 PM (or
maybe 0 AM).

[Daniel65]

Post by John Hall

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 10:13:35 +0000, John Hall

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25,
2023 12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that
is 'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the
24-hour clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight")
avoids any ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM
and 12 PM to be ambiguous. Interesting.

AM stands for "ante meridiem" and PM for "post meridiem", i.e.
before and after midday respectively. But 12 noon is neither before
nor after, so logically it should be 12 M.

Don't you just hate it when someone applies LOGIC to an argument?? ;-P

Post by John Hall
Midnight is both 12 hours before and 12 hours post, but I suppose it
would be more logical to call it 12 PM (or maybe 0 AM).

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Daniel65

Post by John Hall

Post by Char Jackson

Post by John Hall
I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the
24-hour clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight")
avoids any ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM
and 12 PM to be ambiguous. Interesting.

AM stands for "ante meridiem" and PM for "post meridiem", i.e.
before and after midday respectively. But 12 noon is neither before
nor after, so logically it should be 12 M.

Don't you just hate it when someone applies LOGIC to an argument?? ;-P

I love "12 M"! At least, for those who insist on using AM/PM anyway,
it's an excellent solution. (But ...

Post by Daniel65

Post by John Hall
Midnight is both 12 hours before and 12 hours post, but I suppose it
would be more logical to call it 12 PM (or maybe 0 AM).

... that is a problem. When AM/PM was/were "invented", maybe people
weren't up at midnight so much. [What's Latin for midnight? Let me try
Google translate ... hmm, it just says media nocte, not a single word. I
suppose 12 MN would work ...])

[Mark Lloyd]

On 11/19/23 06:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I love "12 M"! At least, for those who insist on using AM/PM anyway,
it's an excellent solution. (But ...

That would be confusing. Is there a missing 'A' or a missing 'P'?
--
36 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament. The
proximity of so much uncleanliness almost forces one to do this."
[Fredrich Nietzsche]

[Bob F]

Post by John Hall

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 10:13:35 +0000, John Hall

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM and 12 PM to be
ambiguous. Interesting.

AM stands for "ante meridiem" and PM for "post meridiem", i.e. before
and after midday respectively. But 12 noon is neither before nor after,
so logically it should be 12 M. Midnight is both 12 hours before and 12
hours post, but I suppose it would be more logical to call it 12 PM (or
maybe 0 AM).

So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

[John Hall]

In message <ujdo3p$3u7fg$***@dont-email.me>, Bob F <***@gmail.com>
writes

Post by Bob F

Post by John Hall

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 10:13:35 +0000, John Hall

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM and 12 PM to be
ambiguous. Interesting.

AM stands for "ante meridiem" and PM for "post meridiem", i.e.
before and after midday respectively. But 12 noon is neither before
nor after, so logically it should be 12 M. Midnight is both 12 hours
before and 12 hours post, but I suppose it would be more logical to
call it 12 PM (or maybe 0 AM).

So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the clock. Even
when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on the clock rarely
precisely corresponds to when the sun is due south. And of course if you
went by "sun time", places on different longitudes that are currently
within the same time zone would be setting their clocks to different
times, as happened prior to the middle of the 19th century.

[Daniel65]

<Snip>

Post by John Hall

Post by Bob F
So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the clock.
Even when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on the clock
rarely precisely corresponds to when the sun is due south.

Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

Post by John Hall
And of course if you went by "sun time", places on different
longitudes that are currently within the same time zone would be
setting their clocks to different times, as happened prior to the
middle of the 19th century.

And, going the other way, isn't all of Russia (and, possibly, all of PR
of China) all on one Time setting??

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Daniel65
<Snip>

Post by John Hall

Post by Bob F
So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the clock.
Even when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on the clock
rarely precisely corresponds to when the sun is due south.

Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

Post by John Hall
And of course if you went by "sun time", places on different
longitudes that are currently within the same time zone would be
setting their clocks to different times, as happened prior to the
middle of the 19th century.

And, going the other way, isn't all of Russia (and, possibly, all of PR
of China) all on one Time setting??

I could see justification for the whole planet to use the same clock;
it'll never happen, though, as for any one suggestion, there will be far
more people/places/whatever who would have to change than not. To a
small extent, GMT (or UCT I think) _is_ that, and is used in scientific
circles.

[Daniel65]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Daniel65
<Snip>

Post by John Hall

Post by Bob F
So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the
clock. Even when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on
the clock rarely precisely corresponds to when the sun is due
south.

Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like
'due south' at Noon!! ;-P

Post by John Hall
And of course if you went by "sun time", places on different
longitudes that are currently within the same time zone would be
setting their clocks to different times, as happened prior to
the middle of the 19th century.

And, going the other way, isn't all of Russia (and, possibly, all
of PR of China) all on one Time setting??

I could see justification for the whole planet to use the same clock;
it'll never happen, though, as for any one suggestion, there will be
far more people/places/whatever who would have to change than not. To
a small extent, GMT (or UCT I think) _is_ that, and is used in
scientific circles.

GMT used in Communications cycles as well ..... and renamed to Zulu for
Military Communications as well!!

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I could see justification for the whole planet to use the same clock;
it'll never happen, though, as for any one suggestion, there will be
far more people/places/whatever who would have to change than not. To
a small extent, GMT (or UCT I think) _is_ that, and is used in
scientific circles.

GMT used in Communications cycles as well ..... and renamed to Zulu for
Military Communications as well!!

I think that originated from GMT being "+0000", or zero offset - and
zulu being the international phonetic alphabet for Z.

[Daniel65]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I could see justification for the whole planet to use the same
clock; it'll never happen, though, as for any one suggestion,
there will be far more people/places/whatever who would have to
change than not. To a small extent, GMT (or UCT I think) _is_
that, and is used in scientific circles.

GMT used in Communications cycles as well ..... and renamed to
Zulu for Military Communications as well!!

I think that originated from GMT being "+0000", or zero offset - and
zulu being the international phonetic alphabet for Z.

Correct .... but, in a Military situation, where you could be
communicating across Time Zones, without actually knowing what the
originating and destination time zones are, Zulu (i.e. GMT) was often
the reference Time zone with both ends of the Comms link making the
appropriate adjustment to 'Local' Time!!

Here in Victoria, Australia (bottom end of the globe!!), we are
currently in Daylight Savings Time, so would be using 'Lima' time
references but our 'normal' Time Zone is 'Kilo'

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Daniel65
GMT used in Communications cycles as well ..... and renamed to
Zulu for Military Communications as well!!

I think that originated from GMT being "+0000", or zero offset - and
zulu being the international phonetic alphabet for Z.

Correct .... but, in a Military situation, where you could be
communicating across Time Zones, without actually knowing what the
originating and destination time zones are, Zulu (i.e. GMT) was often
the reference Time zone with both ends of the Comms link making the
appropriate adjustment to 'Local' Time!!
Here in Victoria, Australia (bottom end of the globe!!), we are
currently in Daylight Savings Time, so would be using 'Lima' time
references but our 'normal' Time Zone is 'Kilo'

Interesting: I knew about Z for zero, but didn't know all the other time
zones had a letter too.

[Daniel65]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Daniel65
GMT used in Communications cycles as well ..... and renamed to
Zulu for Military Communications as well!!

I think that originated from GMT being "+0000", or zero offset -
and zulu being the international phonetic alphabet for Z.

Correct .... but, in a Military situation, where you could be
communicating across Time Zones, without actually knowing what the
originating and destination time zones are, Zulu (i.e. GMT) was
often the reference Time zone with both ends of the Comms link
making the appropriate adjustment to 'Local' Time!!
Here in Victoria, Australia (bottom end of the globe!!), we are
currently in Daylight Savings Time, so would be using 'Lima' time
references but our 'normal' Time Zone is 'Kilo'

Interesting: I knew about Z for zero, but didn't know all the other
time zones had a letter too.

Yeap .... 26 letters .... drop 'O' and 'I' to limit confusion with '0'
and '1' ... leaves you with 24 letters .... for 24 time zones.

[John Hall]

Post by Daniel65
<Snip>

Post by John Hall

Post by Bob F
So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the clock.
Even when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on the clock
rarely precisely corresponds to when the sun is due south.

Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>

Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

[Char Jackson]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
<Snip>

Post by John Hall

Post by Bob F
So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the clock.
Even when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on the clock
rarely precisely corresponds to when the sun is due south.

Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Char Jackson

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

It'll only be overhead if you're south of the tropic of cancer (~23½ºN),
and then on only two days a year.

[Char Jackson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Char Jackson

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

It'll only be overhead if you're south of the tropic of cancer (~23½ºN),
and then on only two days a year.

The nice thing about being well north of there is that the sun is overhead at
midday every day of the year. None of this due south business. ;-)

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Char Jackson

Post by J. P. Gilliver

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:23:45 +0000, John Hall

[]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

It'll only be overhead if you're south of the tropic of cancer (~23½ºN),
and then on only two days a year.

The nice thing about being well north of there is that the sun is overhead at
midday every day of the year. None of this due south business. ;-)

I think you're using the word "overhead" differently to me. Do you mean
"above the horizon"? I mean "directly above me", which it never is for
anyone not between the two tropics.

[Char Jackson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Char Jackson

Post by J. P. Gilliver

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:23:45 +0000, John Hall

[]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

It'll only be overhead if you're south of the tropic of cancer (~23½ºN),
and then on only two days a year.

The nice thing about being well north of there is that the sun is overhead at
midday every day of the year. None of this due south business. ;-)

I think you're using the word "overhead" differently to me. Do you mean
"above the horizon"? I mean "directly above me", which it never is for
anyone not between the two tropics.

We're definitely using 'overhead' differently. For me, it's when the sun is
approximately at its highest point in the sky for the day. Your usage doesn't
make sense to me, and I assume you'd say the same about me/mine.

[John Hall]

Post by Char Jackson

Post by J. P. Gilliver

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:12:14 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:23:45 +0000, John Hall

[]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

It'll only be overhead if you're south of the tropic of cancer (~23½ºN),
and then on only two days a year.

The nice thing about being well north of there is that the sun is overhead at
midday every day of the year. None of this due south business. ;-)

I think you're using the word "overhead" differently to me. Do you mean
"above the horizon"? I mean "directly above me", which it never is for
anyone not between the two tropics.

We're definitely using 'overhead' differently. For me, it's when the sun is
approximately at its highest point in the sky for the day. Your usage doesn't
make sense to me, and I assume you'd say the same about me/mine.

I'm with the other John on this. Would you say that an aeroplane was
"overhead" if it was merely at its highest angular elevation above your
horizon? Also, even by your definition, if you are north of the Arctic
Circle then the sun won't be "overhead" at midday every day of the year,
as for part of the year it will never be visible.

[Char Jackson]

Post by John Hall

Post by Char Jackson

Post by J. P. Gilliver

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:12:14 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:23:45 +0000, John Hall

[]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

I don't know about him but I'm in the northern hemisphere and I would describe
the sun as being overhead at midday, but I certainly wouldn't say it was due
south.

It'll only be overhead if you're south of the tropic of cancer (~23½ºN),
and then on only two days a year.

The nice thing about being well north of there is that the sun is overhead at
midday every day of the year. None of this due south business. ;-)

I think you're using the word "overhead" differently to me. Do you mean
"above the horizon"? I mean "directly above me", which it never is for
anyone not between the two tropics.

We're definitely using 'overhead' differently. For me, it's when the sun is
approximately at its highest point in the sky for the day. Your usage doesn't
make sense to me, and I assume you'd say the same about me/mine.

I'm with the other John on this.

Could be a UK thing, I suppose.

Post by John Hall
Would you say that an aeroplane was
"overhead" if it was merely at its highest angular elevation above your
horizon?

Of course, but it's not necessary to stray away from the example of the sun.
Each of us is aware that the sun rises, moves through the sky, and eventually
sets.

Post by John Hall
Also, even by, your definition, if you are north of the Arctic
Circle then the sun won't be "overhead" at midday every day of the year,
as for part of the year it will never be visible.

Another stretch.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <***@4ax.com> at Wed, 22 Nov
2023 02:38:39, Char Jackson <***@none.invalid> writes
[]

Post by Char Jackson
We're definitely using 'overhead' differently. For me, it's when the sun is
approximately at its highest point in the sky for the day. Your usage doesn't
make sense to me, and I assume you'd say the same about me/mine.

Ah. Some people add a word - "directly overhead". I'd call your version
"at its highest", not "overhead".

[Paul]

[]

Post by Char Jackson
We're definitely using 'overhead' differently. For me, it's when the sun is
approximately at its highest point in the sky for the day. Your usage doesn't
make sense to me, and I assume you'd say the same about me/mine.

Ah. Some people add a word - "directly overhead". I'd call your version "at its highest", not "overhead".

https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/sunandseasons.html

"If you live at a mid-northern latitude, you always see the noon sun somewhere in the southern sky."

There are a few terms like "zenith" and "meridian" on the diagram.

Loading Image...

The stick man in the diagram, is from a country known as Cartesia.
And he is just visiting the diagram, and does not live there. Presumably
the students in the Weber physics lecture hall, are from Cartesia too.

Paul

[Daniel65]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Daniel65
<Snip>

Post by Bob F
So how is that affected by daylight savings time?

 Not art all, since we are dealing with time as shown on the clock.
Even when daylight savings time isn't in force, noon on the clock
rarely precisely corresponds to when the sun is due south.

Bloody Hell!! I'd be in real trouble if the sun were anything like 'due
south' at Noon!! ;-P

<snip>
Presumably you're in the southern hemisphere?

Correct!! .... The Great Southern Land .... Australia

[Char Jackson]

Post by John Hall

Post by Char Jackson

Post by John Hall

Post by Daniel65

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023
12:00 AM for 1 day).

[] Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Surely one of the '12:00' would be 'AM' .... but whether that is
'Midnight' or 'Midday' ..... Pass!

I often see references to 12 AM and 12 PM, and I'm sometimes left
uncertain as to whether noon or midnight was meant. Use of the 24-hour
clock (or simply using the words "noon" and "midnight") avoids any
ambiguity.

I don't think I've ever met anyone (until now?) who found 12 AM and 12 PM to be
ambiguous. Interesting.

AM stands for "ante meridiem" and PM for "post meridiem", i.e. before
and after midday respectively. But 12 noon is neither before nor after,
so logically it should be 12 M. Midnight is both 12 hours before and 12
hours post, but I suppose it would be more logical to call it 12 PM (or
maybe 0 AM).

I think most people learned how to tell time when they were young kids, long
before any ambiguity could set in. Learning the difference between 12A and 12P
is part of that. It's like learning the difference between a red traffic light
and a green one. There's nothing inherently logical about the color assignments,
but we learn them and we carry on.

[Mark Lloyd]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Yes (<hour>:<minute><space><dayperiod>). Its the same thing people call
"midnight".
--
37 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in
its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral
progress in the world." [Bertrand Russell]

[Zaidy036]

Post by Mark Lloyd

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Yes (<hour>:<minute><space><dayperiod>). Its the same thing people call
"midnight".

that is why a military time is 0000 - 2400 and no need for AM/PM

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Zaidy036

Post by Mark Lloyd

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Yes (<hour>:<minute><space><dayperiod>). Its the same thing people call
"midnight".

that is why a military time is 0000 - 2400 and no need for AM/PM

Not only military time, but also the time in sane countries! :-)

[John Hall]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Zaidy036

Post by Mark Lloyd

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Yes (<hour>:<minute><space><dayperiod>). Its the same thing people call
"midnight".

that is why a military time is 0000 - 2400 and no need for AM/PM

Not only military time, but also the time in sane countries! :-)

I'm not sure that the UK is sane, but the 24-hour clock is used for most
bus and train timetables.

[Daniel65]

Post by Mark Lloyd

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

Yes (<hour>:<minute><space><dayperiod>). Its the same thing people
call "midnight".

that is why a military time is  0000 - 2400 and no need for AM/PM

... but, even then, did 'they ever refer to '24:00'?? 23:59 sure, 00:01
sure, but 24:00 .... I'm thinking not!

[Mark Lloyd]

that is why a military time is  0000 - 2400 and no need for AM/PM

That does have advantages, including no M (AM/PM) and using 0. 2400 is
not normally necessary, as that is 0000 the next day.
--
36 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament. The
proximity of so much uncleanliness almost forces one to do this."
[Fredrich Nietzsche]

[Keith Thompson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

12:00 AM is one minute before 12:01 AM (midnight).
12:00 PM is one minute before 12:01 PM (noon).

[John Hall]

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

12:00 AM is one minute before 12:01 AM (midnight).
12:00 PM is one minute before 12:01 PM (noon).

You could equally argue:
12:00 AM is one minute after 11:59 AM (noon)
12:00 PM is one minute after 11:59 PM (midnight).

That ambiguity is why I find it confusing.

[Keith Thompson]

Post by John Hall

Post by Keith Thompson

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Mark Lloyd
38 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

[]
Is "12:00 AM" syntactically valid?

12:00 AM is one minute before 12:01 AM (midnight).
12:00 PM is one minute before 12:01 PM (noon).

12:00 AM is one minute after 11:59 AM (noon)
12:00 PM is one minute after 11:59 PM (midnight).
That ambiguity is why I find it confusing.

The choice of whether 12am is midnight and 12pm is noon or vice versa is
fundamentally arbitrary. That choice has been made. There are probably
a number of official standards that address this (I'm too lazy to look
up any of them), and I believe they consistently say that 12am is
midnight and 12pm is noon.

I offer a rationale for that choice. All times from 12:00:00 to
12:59:59 are either all AM, or all PM. The transition from 11:NN:NN to
12:NN:NN happens at the same time as the transition from AM to PM or
vice versa. That makes more sense to me than having 12:00:00 AM
immediately followed by 12:00:01 PM.

If you still think it's ambiguous, treat my suggestion as a mnenomic.
The issue is settled, and the convention isn't going to change.

[John Hall]

Post by Keith Thompson
The choice of whether 12am is midnight and 12pm is noon or vice versa
is fundamentally arbitrary. That choice has been made. There are
probably a number of official standards that address this (I'm too lazy
to look up any of them), and I believe they consistently say that 12am
is midnight and 12pm is noon.
I offer a rationale for that choice. All times from 12:00:00 to
12:59:59 are either all AM, or all PM. The transition from 11:NN:NN to
12:NN:NN happens at the same time as the transition from AM to PM or
vice versa. That makes more sense to me than having 12:00:00 AM
immediately followed by 12:00:01 PM.
If you still think it's ambiguous, treat my suggestion as a mnenomic.
The issue is settled, and the convention isn't going to change.

Thanks. Your mnemonic will work for me, I think.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Marco Moock
Current machines have hardware that doesn't have Windows 7 drivers
support.

Are these programs compatible with Windows 10 32-bit?

I don't know, I've never tried it, but I assume that if they ran OK
under Windows 7 32-bit they would run OK under Windows 10 32-bit.

[Mark Lloyd]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Marco Moock
Current machines have hardware that doesn't have Windows 7 drivers
support.

Are these programs compatible with Windows 10 32-bit?

I don't know, I've never tried it, but I assume that if they ran OK
under Windows 7 32-bit they would run OK under Windows 10 32-bit.

Windows 10 is likely to have drivers for modern machines, that 7 doesn't.
--
36 days until the winter celebration (Monday, December 25, 2023 12:00 AM
for 1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"One does well to put on gloves when reading the New Testament. The
proximity of so much uncleanliness almost forces one to do this."
[Fredrich Nietzsche]

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means

If you mean new machines, then yes - although a 32-bit version of
Windows 10 does exist, I've never seen a new machine offered with it,
and I don't think there _is_ a 32-bit version of Windows 11.

As others have said, new machines have hardware for which '7 drivers do
not exist. Virtual machines, though, emulate hardware for which -
obviously - drivers do exist. There might be _some_ difficulty in
"passing through" the host OS, so you can access e. g. USB ports
(assuming the new machine even has any USB2 ones), though I think these
are surmountable.

When I lost my 7 machine, and replaced it (January this year IIRR), I
found a shop selling several (second-hand) Windows 7 laptops - with 32
bit as a definite option; when I asked him why, he said lots of people
were in the same situation as you, wanting to run 32-bit software or
hardware. You may find - if you can find such a dealer - such a machine
still a step-up on your old one; I have been enjoying this one (compared
to my old one, it has a bigger screen so proper keyboard, 4G [the 32-bit
maximum] instead of 3G RAM, and I think a more powerful processor).

Post by Steve Hayes
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

If/when you do get something that can run the old software, probably
worth seeing if there is a way of converting the data (presumably
involving getting an updated version of the software - maybe not the
latest version, if that can't, but a transitional version, that can read
the old and write the new; may need some digging to find).

Post by Steve Hayes
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

As others have said, it's not an emulation of the OS, it's an emulation
of a complete system - on which you can install whatever OS you like,
including of course W7-32. You'll need a valid licence to do so - as far
as MS are concerned, you're running two computers - though I believe the
activation servers for 7 are getting fairly lax in their checking now.
[]
Does what you want to do involve accessing external hardware, or just
old data (presumably on an external drive, CD, DVD, or memory stick)?

[GlowingBlueMist]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means

If you mean new machines, then yes - although a 32-bit version of
Windows 10 does exist, I've never seen a new machine offered with it,
and I don't think there _is_ a 32-bit version of Windows 11.
As others have said, new machines have hardware for which '7 drivers do
not exist. Virtual machines, though, emulate hardware for which -
obviously - drivers do exist. There might be _some_ difficulty in
"passing through" the host OS, so you can access e. g. USB ports
(assuming the new machine even has any USB2 ones), though I think these
are surmountable.
When I lost my 7 machine, and replaced it (January this year IIRR), I
found a shop selling several (second-hand) Windows 7 laptops - with 32
bit as a definite option; when I asked him why, he said lots of people
were in the same situation as you, wanting to run 32-bit software or
hardware. You may find - if you can find such a dealer - such a machine
still a step-up on your old one; I have been enjoying this one (compared
to my old one, it has a bigger screen so proper keyboard, 4G [the 32-bit
maximum] instead of 3G RAM, and I think a more powerful processor).

Post by Steve Hayes
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

If/when you do get something that can run the old software, probably
worth seeing if there is a way of converting the data (presumably
involving getting an updated version of the software - maybe not the
latest version, if that can't, but a transitional version, that can read
the old and write the new; may need some digging to find).

Post by Steve Hayes
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

As others have said, it's not an emulation of the OS, it's an emulation
of a complete system - on which you can install whatever OS you like,
including of course W7-32. You'll need a valid licence to do so - as far
as MS are concerned, you're running two computers - though I believe the
activation servers for 7 are getting fairly lax in their checking now.
[]
Does what you want to do involve accessing external hardware, or just
old data (presumably on an external drive, CD, DVD, or memory stick)?

I have a windows 10 64-bit machine and a Windows 11 64-bit machine.
Both machines are able to run licensed versions of windows 32-bit OS by
using the free version of VMWare Workstation 17.

I use VMWare Workstation 17 to run versions of XP, Windows 7, Windows 8
and Windows 10. I am able to create virtual systems using 32 or 64 bit
OS installation media.

Once you setup Workstation 17 you can create the virtual 32-bit Windows
of your choice provided you can find the proper install download of your
desired OS. Then, if you had used a Microsoft login account on your old
PC Microsoft might even "remember" you had an activated version and
re-activate your fresh install. If not, you will have to locate an old
activation key for your fresh install be it from an old PC or elsewhere.

You might want to give one of the pre-created Virtual downloads from
VMWare of Windows 7 to test things but I believe you will still need to
activate with a valid license or put up with the OS complaining it's not
activated.

https://customerconnect.vmware.com/group/vmware/get-download?downloadGroup=WKST-700-WIN

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:36:41 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means

If you mean new machines, then yes - although a 32-bit version of
Windows 10 does exist, I've never seen a new machine offered with it,
and I don't think there _is_ a 32-bit version of Windows 11.
As others have said, new machines have hardware for which '7 drivers do
not exist. Virtual machines, though, emulate hardware for which -
obviously - drivers do exist. There might be _some_ difficulty in
"passing through" the host OS, so you can access e. g. USB ports
(assuming the new machine even has any USB2 ones), though I think these
are surmountable.

Yes, that is one of the things I want to know.

If I can find a 32-bit Win7 or Win-10 machine, that would be my
preference, but if I can't, I want to know what a Virtual Box can and
cannot do, preferably from someone who had used or is using one.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
When I lost my 7 machine, and replaced it (January this year IIRR), I
found a shop selling several (second-hand) Windows 7 laptops - with 32
bit as a definite option; when I asked him why, he said lots of people
were in the same situation as you, wanting to run 32-bit software or
hardware. You may find - if you can find such a dealer - such a machine
still a step-up on your old one; I have been enjoying this one (compared
to my old one, it has a bigger screen so proper keyboard, 4G [the 32-bit
maximum] instead of 3G RAM, and I think a more powerful processor).

My wife's Win-11 64-bit laptop is far slower than my Win7 laptop was,
and my Win 7 laptop was in turn far slower than my Win-XP 32-bit
desktop (on which I'm typing this). I blame that on bloatware.

I might ask her if I can try out one of these virtual box things on
her computer, but I don't know if that would mean repartitioning her
hard drive or something of the sort, which might make things even
worse.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Steve Hayes
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

If/when you do get something that can run the old software, probably
worth seeing if there is a way of converting the data (presumably
involving getting an updated version of the software - maybe not the
latest version, if that can't, but a transitional version, that can read
the old and write the new; may need some digging to find).

That is possible with some of it, but not all. In some cases the new
version of just one program would be prohibitively expensive, about 5
times the cost of a new laptop. I investigated that possibility about
3-4 years ago, and concluded it wasn't worth it.

I do have a Windows version of one such DOS program, and have
converted some files, but not others, as the DOS version is more
powerful and has more functionality.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Steve Hayes
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

As others have said, it's not an emulation of the OS, it's an emulation
of a complete system - on which you can install whatever OS you like,
including of course W7-32. You'll need a valid licence to do so - as far
as MS are concerned, you're running two computers - though I believe the
activation servers for 7 are getting fairly lax in their checking now.

And then the question is: how well does that complete system interact
with the host system?

Is it possible to have the programs on the emulator and the data on
the host system? Can one copy and paste between them?

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Does what you want to do involve accessing external hardware, or just
old data (presumably on an external drive, CD, DVD, or memory stick)?

I used to copy my main data files (the ones I was working on every
day) between by desktop and laptop using a USB flash drive, and a
batch file, or rather set of batch files that copied everything with
one command -- dsk2flsh, flsh2lap, lap2flsh, flsh2dsk.

One advantage of that is that our electricity supplier has periodic
load shedding when demand exceeds supply and they would turn off the
power to certain areas in rotation, and when that happened I could
just transfer the files to the laptop and carry on working.

[Paul]

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, that is one of the things I want to know.
If I can find a 32-bit Win7 or Win-10 machine, that would be my
preference, but if I can't, I want to know what a Virtual Box can and
cannot do, preferably from someone who had used or is using one.

The VirtualBox BIOS support is pretty basic, and is intended to be
a "facade of sufficient quality to fool most OSes". The legacy BIOS
boot support, I would rate as "good", while booting UEFI OSes,
the bios in VirtualBox in that case is EFI and can have issues.

VirtualBox cannot boot from an emulated USB stick or a passthru USB stick.
It can boot from CD or ISO or emulated HDD (container).

The graphics support isn't exactly something you would want.
I don't game in VirtualBox, and I would not even try that.

There were two additional graphics support mechanisms, which have
either been removed or relabeled. There was passthru video, where
an entire video card was passed to the Guest, but then you'd need
a monitor for the Guest to use. There was also "Experimental DirectX support"
where DirectX commands of some sort were passed to the Host. This
only works (if you can wedge the driver in), on Windows Guest OSes.

Post by Steve Hayes
My wife's Win-11 64-bit laptop is far slower than my Win7 laptop was,
and my Win 7 laptop was in turn far slower than my Win-XP 32-bit
desktop (on which I'm typing this). I blame that on bloatware.
I might ask her if I can try out one of these virtual box things on
her computer, but I don't know if that would mean repartitioning her
hard drive or something of the sort, which might make things even
worse.

Modern hardware uses closed loop feedback, to control clock multiplier,
VCore setting, thermal limits (throttle so CPU doesn't go over 90C or
99C or whatever), power limits (Vcore never provides more than X watts).

Yet, additional cruft can be added, to make things worse. Windows has
its own scheduler design, but other things can mess with that.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/windows-10-cpu-throttling.264008/

In the old days, everything ran open-loop. Furmark used to be able
to burn a video card. That's no longer possible, for multiple
reasons. (First reason was a driver limiter, then later the hardware
closed loop control also prevents it.) Even the fan control on a
graphics card has advanced. There was a time, where a "bad" driver,
could stop the fan entirely, causing the GPU to overheat and be
damaged. I would bet a lot of modern cards cannot be damaged that
way either. My 1050TI, the fan hardly ever spins on it, so it
does not appear to have that protection on it. There might be
hardware fan control there, but it's not possible to tell by
looking at it.

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Steve Hayes
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

You can run 64-bit Guests on 32-bit Hosts. I used to do that in WinXP (Host)
and various Guest OSes. That is possible, because the CPU supports 64-bit
instructions, and the Guest 64-bit is passing 64-bit instructions to the
CPU directly. VirtualBox as normally used, is homogenous x86-on-x86 so
a lot of instructions are passed without interpretation, right to the CPU.
If you do an RDTSC (privileged instruction?), maybe that is handled manually
by the VirtualBox software.

You can also run a 64-bit Host OS and run 32-bit Guest OSes.

In other words, you are absolutely limited on homogenous, if the CPU is 32-bit
instructions only (AthlonXP 3200). if the CPU is 64-bit, just about all
combinations are supported.

Heterogenous, like x86-on-Sparc at work, runs at 0.1 to 0.01 of normal speed.
It allows just about anything, subject to the software developer coding support
for it. Whereas VirtualBox (x86-on-x86) runs at 0.9 or 90% of normal speed (or so).

[Picture] Win7 x32 Enterprise (a Microsoft-prepped VM!) on Win11 x64 Host
VirtualBox 6.1.44

Loading Image...

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. P. Gilliver
As others have said, it's not an emulation of the OS, it's an emulation
of a complete system - on which you can install whatever OS you like,
including of course W7-32. You'll need a valid licence to do so - as far
as MS are concerned, you're running two computers - though I believe the
activation servers for 7 are getting fairly lax in their checking now.

And then the question is: how well does that complete system interact
with the host system?
Is it possible to have the programs on the emulator and the data on
the host system? Can one copy and paste between them?

Once the Guest OS has the "VirtualBox Additions" file executed, that
adds Copy/Paste integration, as well as Drag&Drop file copying. The cursor
will have a (+) symbol which indicates you are over something where
a file drop will work. If the "stop sign" is on the cursor, it means
the Drag&Drop subsystem is currently disabled for some reason.

The VirtualBox Additions also provides a graphics driver for the emulated
graphics. While there is "experimental graphics acceleration", where
the graphics card in the Host provides some help with the graphics,
you will get used to the thing not having acceleration after a while.
That's when having a faster CPU helps with the experience.

OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 12.0.0 128 bits) v: 4.5 Mesa 21.2.6 # unaccelerated
OpenGL: renderer: SVGA3D; build v: 2.1 Mesa 21.2.6 # VBox Additions for Linux guest

GLXGears 300 frames per second animation # unaccelerated (CPU driven by Windows)
GLXGears 400 frames epr second animation # Vbox Additions in Guest (CPU driven...)
GLXGears 9000 frames per second animation # Ubuntu with NVidia driver, native test,
# showing how fast graphics would have been with good support

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Does what you want to do involve accessing external hardware, or just
old data (presumably on an external drive, CD, DVD, or memory stick)?

I used to copy my main data files (the ones I was working on every
day) between by desktop and laptop using a USB flash drive, and a
batch file, or rather set of batch files that copied everything with
one command -- dsk2flsh, flsh2lap, lap2flsh, flsh2dsk.
One advantage of that is that our electricity supplier has periodic
load shedding when demand exceeds supply and they would turn off the
power to certain areas in rotation, and when that happened I could
just transfer the files to the laptop and carry on working.

Our outages here are "one second or one week", and a computer UPS handles
the former and not the latter :-) It takes quite a bit of battery
in a UPS, to hide load-shedding at a power company. Whole house
batteries are around $10K a pop, and a configuration of two of them
is recommended by the maker. Poorly constructed whole house
power, is either in charging mode (giving no house power) or in run mode
(house power, but cannot incorporate solar PV output). Typical inverter
capability never seems to pass the 3kW to 6kW range (some have "short
term burst" and that's how they hit the 6kW operating point). You can
run small electric motors with a little luck :-) The burst mode helps spin
up the motor. Maybe it will run 6kW output for ten seconds.

Paul

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

If so, tell us a bit what kind of software/programs those are, so
maybe 'we' can suggest other methods than setting up a Windows 7 (or 8?
or 10?) virtual machine.

Post by Steve Hayes
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.
The nearest thing I have found to that was OS/2, now more than 25
years old, which had built in emulators that ran MS-Windows better
than Windows, and MS-Dos better than DOS. But there the emulators were
integrated, so they worked well.
Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages? Is there anyone here who has had
experience of using them who would be willing to answer a few
questions?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

Yes, and 8-bit ones too. 32-bit Windows runs those just fine, at least
all the ones I use regularly. There are some it doesn't, but that's a
hardware rather than an O/S problem, something to do with clock speed.
Programs written in TurboPascal, for example, won't run on faster
machines.

Post by Frank Slootweg
If so, tell us a bit what kind of software/programs those are, so
maybe 'we' can suggest other methods than setting up a Windows 7 (or 8?
or 10?) virtual machine.

InMagic and askSam text databases are the main ones, XyWrite word
processor, which I use, inter alia, for converting files from other
old word processing programs, and for reporting from the text
databases.

It's not easily possible to print reports from the text database
programs to Windows printers, but one can easily design reports that
include XyWrite formatting commands, import the report into XyWrite,
export it as RTF, and load it into a Windows word processor to produce
formatted reports, though short reports can juse be copy/pasted.
XyWrite formatting commands work in the same way as HTML ones, though
the commands themselves are not the same.

Just to give an example of copy/pasting, here:

Best books read in 2023, sorted by rating:

87 Lewis, C.S. 1965 [1952] The voyage of the Dawn Treader.

85 Cooper, Susan. 2010 [1965] Over sea, under stone.

84 Carlisle, Clare. 2020. Philosopher of the Heart.

83 Tudor, C.J. 2017. The Chalk Man.

82 Hughes, Richard. 1964. The Fox in the Attic.

82 Robotham, Michael. 2009. Shatter.

82 Shaik, Moe. 2020. The ANC Spy Bible: Surviving across Enemy
Lines.

81 Barrows, Annie. 2015. Magic in the Mix.

81 Erlings, Fridrik. 2006. Benjamin Dove.

81 Greene, Graham. 1975 [1938] Brighton Rock.

78 King, Stephen. 2000. On writing: a memoir.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

Yes, and 8-bit ones too. 32-bit Windows runs those just fine, at least
all the ones I use regularly. There are some it doesn't, but that's a
hardware rather than an O/S problem, something to do with clock speed.
Programs written in TurboPascal, for example, won't run on faster
machines.

"8-bit ones" sounds a bit strange, because all (IBM-like) PCs have
always been 16-bit. But perhaps you mean byte-level interpretive code or
some such. Can you give some more details about these "8-bit ones"?

Anyway, about this software, has it been written for Windows 1.x, 2.x,
3.0, 3.1, etc. and was running on 32-bit Windows 7? If so, WineVDM
mentioned by Ralph Fox may be a solution. Like Ralph, I have no
experience with WineVDM, but looking at the documentation, it seems that
it might fit the bill.

Another question: Are these really windows programs, i.e. GUI programs
which actually use windows and run in windows (note: lower case 'w',
i.e. the technology, not the (Microsoft) prodoct) or are they programs
which may use graphics, but run in a Command Prompt window?

If the latter, then I think these will run on 64-bit Windows as well.
I have no such graphics programs, but my non-graphics programs just run
(in a Command Prompt window) on my 64-bit Windows 11 system as they did
on my 32-bit XP and Vista systems (and 32-bit 8.1 system)

[Rest left for completeness:]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg
If so, tell us a bit what kind of software/programs those are, so
maybe 'we' can suggest other methods than setting up a Windows 7 (or 8?
or 10?) virtual machine.

InMagic and askSam text databases are the main ones, XyWrite word
processor, which I use, inter alia, for converting files from other
old word processing programs, and for reporting from the text
databases.
It's not easily possible to print reports from the text database
programs to Windows printers, but one can easily design reports that
include XyWrite formatting commands, import the report into XyWrite,
export it as RTF, and load it into a Windows word processor to produce
formatted reports, though short reports can juse be copy/pasted.
XyWrite formatting commands work in the same way as HTML ones, though
the commands themselves are not the same.
87 Lewis, C.S. 1965 [1952] The voyage of the Dawn Treader.
85 Cooper, Susan. 2010 [1965] Over sea, under stone.
84 Carlisle, Clare. 2020. Philosopher of the Heart.
83 Tudor, C.J. 2017. The Chalk Man.
82 Hughes, Richard. 1964. The Fox in the Attic.
82 Robotham, Michael. 2009. Shatter.
82 Shaik, Moe. 2020. The ANC Spy Bible: Surviving across Enemy
Lines.
81 Barrows, Annie. 2015. Magic in the Mix.
81 Erlings, Fridrik. 2006. Benjamin Dove.
81 Greene, Graham. 1975 [1938] Brighton Rock.
78 King, Stephen. 2000. On writing: a memoir.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

Yes, and 8-bit ones too. 32-bit Windows runs those just fine, at least
all the ones I use regularly. There are some it doesn't, but that's a
hardware rather than an O/S problem, something to do with clock speed.
Programs written in TurboPascal, for example, won't run on faster
machines.

"8-bit ones" sounds a bit strange, because all (IBM-like) PCs have
always been 16-bit. But perhaps you mean byte-level interpretive code or
some such. Can you give some more details about these "8-bit ones"?

I think early programs running on IBM PC DOS or MS DOS were 8-bit,
running on 8088 processors. The 286 and 386 ones were 16-bit.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Anyway, about this software, has it been written for Windows 1.x, 2.x,
3.0, 3.1, etc. and was running on 32-bit Windows 7? If so, WineVDM
mentioned by Ralph Fox may be a solution. Like Ralph, I have no
experience with WineVDM, but looking at the documentation, it seems that
it might fit the bill.
Another question: Are these really windows programs, i.e. GUI programs
which actually use windows and run in windows (note: lower case 'w',
i.e. the technology, not the (Microsoft) prodoct) or are they programs
which may use graphics, but run in a Command Prompt window?

Now sure what you mean there.

One Windows program, a Calendar program, which runs in 32-bit Windows,
but not 64-bit, so it must have been written for 16-bit Windows.

Anyway, I have now acquired a 2nd-hand Dell with a 30-bit Windows 10
OS, and my DOS programs appear to run on it, so I'm not going to need
VirtualBox just yet.

But thanks to everyone who replied on the Windows question (the time
discussion was less useful).

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

Yes, and 8-bit ones too. 32-bit Windows runs those just fine, at least
all the ones I use regularly. There are some it doesn't, but that's a
hardware rather than an O/S problem, something to do with clock speed.
Programs written in TurboPascal, for example, won't run on faster
machines.

"8-bit ones" sounds a bit strange, because all (IBM-like) PCs have
always been 16-bit. But perhaps you mean byte-level interpretive code or
some such. Can you give some more details about these "8-bit ones"?

I think early programs running on IBM PC DOS or MS DOS were 8-bit,
running on 8088 processors. The 286 and 386 ones were 16-bit.

The usual confusion about the 'bit-ness'! :-)

The 8088 is actually a 16-bit processor, because it has 16-bit
registers, etc.. But the width of the *data* bus is 8-bit. The
instruction set is named 'x86-16'.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088>

Likewise, the 80286 is also a 16-bit processor, but with a 16-bit data
bus and also a 'x86-16' instruction set (with extensions).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80286>

The 80386 is a 32-bit processor, with a 16-bit or 32-bit databus and a
'x86-32' instruction set.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>

As far as I know, none of the x86 processors were 8-bit processors.

So consequently, also the IBM PC DOS and MS-DOS programs were 16-bit.

[No longer relevant stuff deleted.]

Post by Steve Hayes
Anyway, I have now acquired a 2nd-hand Dell with a 30-bit Windows 10
OS, and my DOS programs appear to run on it, so I'm not going to need
VirtualBox just yet.

Great! Good outcome!

Post by Steve Hayes
But thanks to everyone who replied on the Windows question (the time
discussion was less useful).

You're welcome.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

Yes, and 8-bit ones too. 32-bit Windows runs those just fine, at least
all the ones I use regularly. There are some it doesn't, but that's a
hardware rather than an O/S problem, something to do with clock speed.
Programs written in TurboPascal, for example, won't run on faster
machines.

"8-bit ones" sounds a bit strange, because all (IBM-like) PCs have
always been 16-bit. But perhaps you mean byte-level interpretive code or
some such. Can you give some more details about these "8-bit ones"?

I think early programs running on IBM PC DOS or MS DOS were 8-bit,
running on 8088 processors. The 286 and 386 ones were 16-bit.

The usual confusion about the 'bit-ness'! :-)
The 8088 is actually a 16-bit processor, because it has 16-bit
registers, etc.. But the width of the *data* bus is 8-bit. The
instruction set is named 'x86-16'.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088>

I'm pretty sure the original IBM PC used the 8086, which was a 16-bit
processor (though in some incarnations took two goes to get 16-bit data
or instructions, over an 8-bit bus). The 8086 came _after_ the 8088; not
sure what the 8088 was. The 6 in 8086 meant 16 bit, I'm pretty sure.

The 80186 was a rare beast - I don't think the core processor was much
if any more powerful (by whatever mention you like), but the chip had
some on-board bits that were normally implemented externally. The BBC
Micro "second processor" board used it, offering a weird sort of PC
(using Dr. DOS, IIRR); I don't know any other machine that used it.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Likewise, the 80286 is also a 16-bit processor, but with a 16-bit data
bus and also a 'x86-16' instruction set (with extensions).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80286>
The 80386 is a 32-bit processor, with a 16-bit or 32-bit databus and a
'x86-32' instruction set.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>
As far as I know, none of the x86 processors were 8-bit processors.

For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX" meant; on
one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a floating-point maths
co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On the other, SX meant it had a
half-width (so 16?) bus outside the chip (so requiring two fetches to
get a word), DX had more pins on the chip. Motherboards for the one that
might or might not have the co-processor on chip often had a socket for
an external co-processor - I think that was the '387, so it's probably
the 3 series that was that. There were rumours as the time that 386SX
and 387 chips were actually 386DX chips that had failed at final test
but where the main processor or the co-processor part had passed; I've
no idea if there was any truth in that. (Certainly, a few years earlier,
the same sort of principle _had_ been used with SRAM chips - ones of a
certain size were available in two versions, one with one of the enable
pins active high and one active low, which were actually SRAMs of twice
the size which had failed final test but either the upper or lower half
worked.)

Post by Frank Slootweg
So consequently, also the IBM PC DOS and MS-DOS programs were 16-bit.
[No longer relevant stuff deleted.]

Post by Steve Hayes
Anyway, I have now acquired a 2nd-hand Dell with a 30-bit Windows 10
OS, and my DOS programs appear to run on it, so I'm not going to need
VirtualBox just yet.

Great! Good outcome!

Indeed! (32 bit I presume!)

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
But thanks to everyone who replied on the Windows question (the time
discussion was less useful).

You're welcome.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.

64-bit Windows systems can run 32-bit software/programs just fine, so
I think you mean you (also) have *16-bit* software/programs which you
need to run. Correct?

Yes, and 8-bit ones too. 32-bit Windows runs those just fine, at least
all the ones I use regularly. There are some it doesn't, but that's a
hardware rather than an O/S problem, something to do with clock speed.
Programs written in TurboPascal, for example, won't run on faster
machines.

"8-bit ones" sounds a bit strange, because all (IBM-like) PCs have
always been 16-bit. But perhaps you mean byte-level interpretive code or
some such. Can you give some more details about these "8-bit ones"?

I think early programs running on IBM PC DOS or MS DOS were 8-bit,
running on 8088 processors. The 286 and 386 ones were 16-bit.

The usual confusion about the 'bit-ness'! :-)
The 8088 is actually a 16-bit processor, because it has 16-bit
registers, etc.. But the width of the *data* bus is 8-bit. The
instruction set is named 'x86-16'.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088>

I'm pretty sure the original IBM PC used the 8086, which was a 16-bit
processor (though in some incarnations took two goes to get 16-bit data
or instructions, over an 8-bit bus).

I commented on the 8088, because that's what Steve mentioned, not
specifically in the context of the IBM PC. But read on! :-)

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The 8086 came _after_ the 8088; not
sure what the 8088 was. The 6 in 8086 meant 16 bit, I'm pretty sure.

Nope, as to be expected, the 8088 came after the 8086. For a quick
explanation of the differences and timeline, hover over '8086' on the
(start of the) second line of the first paragraph on
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088>

BTW, this popup and the 'Selection for use in the IBM PC' says that
the original IBM PC used the 8088, not the 8086 as you thought.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The 80186 was a rare beast - I don't think the core processor was much
if any more powerful (by whatever mention you like), but the chip had
some on-board bits that were normally implemented externally. The BBC
Micro "second processor" board used it, offering a weird sort of PC
(using Dr. DOS, IIRR); I don't know any other machine that used it.

Post by Frank Slootweg
Likewise, the 80286 is also a 16-bit processor, but with a 16-bit data
bus and also a 'x86-16' instruction set (with extensions).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80286>
The 80386 is a 32-bit processor, with a 16-bit or 32-bit databus and a
'x86-32' instruction set.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>
As far as I know, none of the x86 processors were 8-bit processors.

For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX" meant; on
one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a floating-point maths
co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On the other, SX meant it had a
half-width (so 16?) bus outside the chip (so requiring two fetches to
get a word), DX had more pins on the chip. Motherboards for the one that
might or might not have the co-processor on chip often had a socket for
an external co-processor - I think that was the '387, so it's probably
the 3 series that was that. There were rumours as the time that 386SX
and 387 chips were actually 386DX chips that had failed at final test
but where the main processor or the co-processor part had passed; I've
no idea if there was any truth in that. (Certainly, a few years earlier,
the same sort of principle _had_ been used with SRAM chips - ones of a
certain size were available in two versions, one with one of the enable
pins active high and one active low, which were actually SRAMs of twice
the size which had failed final test but either the upper or lower half
worked.)

If you or anyone want(s) to know which is which, just type the numbers
into the Wikipedia search box and all will be revealed! :-)

BTW, my first PC had a (16 MHz) 386DX, which had a 32-bit data bus
(instead of 16-bit for the 386SX).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386>

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Frank Slootweg
So consequently, also the IBM PC DOS and MS-DOS programs were 16-bit.
[No longer relevant stuff deleted.]

Post by Steve Hayes
Anyway, I have now acquired a 2nd-hand Dell with a 30-bit Windows 10
OS, and my DOS programs appear to run on it, so I'm not going to need
VirtualBox just yet.

Great! Good outcome!

Indeed! (32 bit I presume!)

Nah, it's one of them newfangled 30-bit ones! Runs all software ever
written and to be written and cleans the kitchen sink while doing it!

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Frank Slootweg

Post by Steve Hayes
But thanks to everyone who replied on the Windows question (the time
discussion was less useful).

You're welcome.

[Tim Slattery]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX" meant; on
one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a floating-point maths
co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On the other, SX meant it had a
half-width (so 16?) bus outside the chip (so requiring two fetches to

The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor
onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they
produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that the
numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip had an
empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a coproc. So
once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use it elsewhere,
right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those machines
wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing nothing.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by J. P. Gilliver
For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX" meant; on
one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a floating-point maths
co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On the other, SX meant it had a
half-width (so 16?) bus outside the chip (so requiring two fetches to

The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor
onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they
produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that the
numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip had an
empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a coproc. So
once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use it elsewhere,
right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those machines
wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing nothing.

Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the
disabled part, or make it work without the other?

[Paul]

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by J. P. Gilliver
For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX" meant; on
one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a floating-point maths
co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On the other, SX meant it had a
half-width (so 16?) bus outside the chip (so requiring two fetches to

The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor
onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they
produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that the
numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip had an
empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a coproc. So
once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use it elsewhere,
right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those machines
wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing nothing.

Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the disabled part, or make it work without the other?

You will remember that these were simpler times.

Intel has much better mechanisms "to enforce this or that" today.

https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=68471

Today we have sharks with lasers on their heads. Back then,
all we had was sharks.

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Paul

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Tim Slattery
The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor
onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they
produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that the
numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip had an
empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a coproc. So
once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use it elsewhere,
right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those machines
wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing nothing.

Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the
disabled part, or make it work without the other?

You will remember that these were simpler times.
Intel has much better mechanisms "to enforce this or that" today.
https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=68471
Today we have sharks with lasers on their heads. Back then,
all we had was sharks.
Paul

Reading that reminds me that about then was the start of different clock
speeds internally and externally - the DX2 variant.

[Daniel65]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by J. P. Gilliver
For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX"
meant; on one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a
floating-point maths co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On
the other, SX meant it had a half-width (so 16?) bus outside the
chip (so requiring two fetches to

The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor
onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they
produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that
the numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip
had an empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a
coproc. So once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use
it elsewhere, right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those
machines wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing
nothing.

Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the
disabled part, or make it work without the other?

"487"?? All DuckDuckGo shows seems to concern a Californian Penal Code
clause 487!! ;-P

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by J. P. Gilliver
For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX"
meant; on one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a
floating-point maths co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On
the other, SX meant it had a half-width (so 16?) bus outside the
chip (so requiring two fetches to

The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor
onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they
produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that
the numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip
had an empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a
coproc. So once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use
it elsewhere, right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those
machines wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing
nothing.

Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the
disabled part, or make it work without the other?

"487"?? All DuckDuckGo shows seems to concern a Californian Penal Code
clause 487!! ;-P

Maybe it was 486DX as Tim says. I had _thought_ the '387 was the
co-processor for that series.

I'm not sure when they started to drop the "80" from (e. g.) 80386. I
know they started using names around the time of the '586, alias
Pentium, because someone in charge of the administration of trademarks
said, basically, no more trademarking just numbers. (It wasn't just
Intel - other manufacturers had to invent names too; I remember one chip
called "roboclock"; I think it was Maxim or IDT.) Presumably that's why
things moved to Pentium II, etc., rather than 686.

[Paul]

Maybe it was 486DX as Tim says. I had _thought_ the '387 was the co-processor for that series.
I'm not sure when they started to drop the "80" from (e. g.) 80386. I know they started using names around the time of the '586, alias Pentium, because someone in charge of the administration of trademarks said, basically, no more trademarking just numbers. (It wasn't just Intel - other manufacturers had to invent names too; I remember one chip called "roboclock"; I think it was Maxim or IDT.) Presumably that's why things moved to Pentium II, etc., rather than 686.

It's possible for a company to continue using its old
numbering scheme, for labeling at chip level.

Here, the lucky 8 is still in usage, for a part of it. Southbridges.
These chips did not typically need heatsinks, so you could spot
a part number like this on your Pentium 4 motherboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%2FO_Controller_Hub

82801ER (ICH5R) RAID

*******

Someone has saved the musty old books. Good on 'em.
That means these are likely scanned by hand. The topical
ones for this discussion, would have to be carefully picked,
to get a good cross-section of parts in use. At one time,
things like the timer chip, were a separate chip. Whereas
today, an emulation of the chip is inside a Southbridge or
a PCH. Just as the Southbridge has a gate level emulation
of a Motorala clock chip (the RTC time section).

http://www.bitsavers.org/components/intel/_dataBooks/

I used to collect those, early on, but later it did not
align with what I was doing.

Once the industry became more adept at using PDF, the
fascination with catalogs disappeared. We actually had
several very large rooms, with all those databooks collected
in them. But that library was too far from me, to be
of any practical use.

I still have a databook from 1972 here. The sentimental
aspect was, as a kid, I wrote a letter to Fairchild, asking
them if I could have a databook. And they actually sent
me a databook! Surprised the hell out of me. I think it
cost them $4.00 in postage to send that. That was the 7400
series of TTL or so. I still have a few bins of the critters.
A number of the companies from that era, did not survive.
Texas Instruments is still around.

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Paul

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Maybe it was 486DX as Tim says. I had _thought_ the '387 was the
co-processor for that series.
I'm not sure when they started to drop the "80" from (e. g.) 80386. I
know they started using names around the time of the '586, alias
Pentium, because someone in charge of the administration of trademarks
said, basically, no more trademarking just numbers. (It wasn't just
Intel - other manufacturers had to invent names too; I remember one
chip called "roboclock"; I think it was Maxim or IDT.) Presumably
that's why things moved to Pentium II, etc., rather than 686.

It's possible for a company to continue using its old
numbering scheme, for labeling at chip level.
Here, the lucky 8 is still in usage, for a part of it. Southbridges.
These chips did not typically need heatsinks, so you could spot
a part number like this on your Pentium 4 motherboard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%2FO_Controller_Hub

Wow, that's an amazing resource!

Post by Paul
82801ER (ICH5R) RAID
*******
Someone has saved the musty old books. Good on 'em.

[]

Post by Paul
I used to collect those, early on, but later it did not
align with what I was doing.
Once the industry became more adept at using PDF, the
fascination with catalogs disappeared. We actually had
several very large rooms, with all those databooks collected
in them. But that library was too far from me, to be
of any practical use.
I still have a databook from 1972 here. The sentimental
aspect was, as a kid, I wrote a letter to Fairchild, asking
them if I could have a databook. And they actually sent
me a databook! Surprised the hell out of me. I think it
cost them $4.00 in postage to send that. That was the 7400
series of TTL or so. I still have a few bins of the critters.

I used to collect the TTL books - had quite a large collection of them,
and knowledge of the numbering too. I only got round to throwing them
out about a year ago - I kept the earliest, as I'd actually bought it
(most of the others I'd got from work, either "acquired" or rescued when
being thrown out), and _one or two_ others (and wallcharts).

Post by Paul
A number of the companies from that era, did not survive.
Texas Instruments is still around.

Initially I associate it with National (Semiconductor) - blue books, and
Texas Instruments (yellow or orange). Mullard the 11000 (centre power)
series, IDT the clever ones and also low-power-but-still-fast ACT
competitors to CMOS 4000 (which use a _lot_ less power and could be run
on a wide range of voltages, but weren't much for speed). Ah, happy
times ... oh, and - I forget who did them - somebody did single gates,
so you didn't have to have the four (etc.) you got in a 7400.

Post by Paul
Paul

John

[Mark Lloyd]

On 12/31/23 13:15, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I used to collect the TTL books - had quite a large collection of them,
and knowledge of the numbering too. I only got round to throwing them
out about a year ago - I kept the earliest, as I'd actually bought it
(most of the others I'd got from work, either "acquired" or rescued when
being thrown out), and _one or two_ others (and wallcharts).

I have an Intel CPU data book that is older than the 80486. One CPU I
hadn't heard of before was the 80376. It's a version of the 80386
without real mode.

[Frank Slootweg]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I used to collect the TTL books - had quite a large collection of them,
and knowledge of the numbering too. I only got round to throwing them
out about a year ago - I kept the earliest, as I'd actually bought it
(most of the others I'd got from work, either "acquired" or rescued when
being thrown out), and _one or two_ others (and wallcharts).

I have an Intel CPU data book that is older than the 80486. One CPU I
hadn't heard of before was the 80376. It's a version of the 80386
without real mode.

Correct:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80376>

"The Intel 80376, introduced January 16, 1989, was a variant of the
Intel 80386SX intended for embedded systems. It differed from the 80386
in not supporting real mode (the processor booted directly into 32-bit
protected mode)[1] and having no support for paging in the MMU. The 376
was available at 16 or 20 MHz clock rates."

[Daniel65]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver
writes

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by J. P. Gilliver
For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX"
meant; on one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a
floating-point maths co-processor on board, DX meant it did.
On the other, SX meant it had a half-width (so 16?) bus
outside the chip (so requiring two fetches to

The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric
coprocessor onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price
point, so they produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the
DX except that the numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines
sold with this chip had an empty socket where you could plug in
a 486DX chip to get a coproc. So once you did that, you could
unplug the SX chip and use it elsewhere, right? WRONG!!! It was
set up so that the DX in those machines wouldn't work unless
the SX was plugged in, doing nothing.

Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable
the disabled part, or make it work without the other?

"487"?? All DuckDuckGo shows seems to concern a Californian Penal
Code clause 487!! ;-P

Maybe it was 486DX as Tim says. I had _thought_ the '387 was the
co-processor for that series.
I'm not sure when they started to drop the "80" from (e. g.) 80386. I
know they started using names around the time of the '586, alias
Pentium, because someone in charge of the administration of
trademarks said, basically, no more trademarking just numbers. (It
wasn't just Intel - other manufacturers had to invent names too; I
remember one chip called "roboclock"; I think it was Maxim or IDT.)
Presumably that's why things moved to Pentium II, etc., rather than
686.

(Rumour-mung Rumour-mung) The story I was told, way-back-when, was that
in an effort to wipe out Apple and Commodore, etc, Intel virtually gave
anybody the Rites and the Chip designs to produce the 80186, 80286,
80386 and 80486 Chips.

Then, having effectively achieved their Aim, when Intel produced the
80586, a.k.a. the Pentium chip, IBM required Royalties-type stuff (shut
the gate), so some manufactures (AMD, etc.) continued development
independently, to produce the 586 and 686 chips.

It may have also been the case that, as seperate companies were doing
their own development, some 586/686 chips had different pin-outs and/or
Op-Codes to other 586/686 chips!!

Something like that.

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the
 disabled part, or make it work without the other?

"487"?? All DuckDuckGo shows seems to concern a Californian Penal Code
clause 487!! ;-P

80487. The add-on FPU for the 80486sx, that was actually a 486dx.

[Paul]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by Daniel65

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the
 disabled part, or make it work without the other?

"487"?? All DuckDuckGo shows seems to concern a Californian Penal Code
clause 487!! ;-P

80487. The add-on FPU for the 80486sx, that was actually a 486dx.

These may have worked via F line.

"$Fxxx, F-Line instructions, emulating co-pro on the systems w/o FPU,
or propagating directly to the real co-pro on systems with FPU in the socket."

The accelerator, may have been watching the bus as the main processor
accessed stuff. And if an instruction with an F in the appropriate place
showed up, the FPU knew it had a job to do. That was part of the coordination.
But I never worked on anything like that, and that info likely came
from one of my magazines at the time.

For a thing like that to work, the CPU could only have the one core.
Back in those days, instruction traces were a wee bit easier to arrange,
than they are on modern CPU sockets.

Paul

[Tim Slattery]

Post by Steve Hayes
I think early programs running on IBM PC DOS or MS DOS were 8-bit,
running on 8088 processors. The 286 and 386 ones were 16-bit.

Not so. The original IBM-PCs were 16-bit machines. They used a kludge
to implement a 20-bit address space, allowing access to one megabyte
of RAM. You may remember that 340KB of that was reserved for the
operating system, leaving 640KB for user program.

1970's vintage machines, such as Cromemco, Zylog, etc, etc, were 8
bits. I'm a bit foggy on their addressing schemes, but at least some
of them could switch between banks of 64KB each.

The 80286 was basically 16-bits, but implemented "protected mode"
which allowed access to 16MB. Windows programers (if they're old
enough) may remember using "GlobalAlloc" and "GlobalFree" calls. Those
manipulated the Global Allocation Table, a 80286 protected mode
hardware kludge that kept track of all that RAM.

The 80386 was Intel's first true 32-bit machine. Windows 3.0 386
version ran in 16-bit 80286 protected mode though. It took a while for
Windows to catch up with 32-bit processors.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:31:31 -0500

Post by Tim Slattery

Post by Steve Hayes
I think early programs running on IBM PC DOS or MS DOS were 8-bit,
running on 8088 processors. The 286 and 386 ones were 16-bit.

Not so. The original IBM-PCs were 16-bit machines. They used a kludge
to implement a 20-bit address space, allowing access to one megabyte
of RAM. You may remember that 340KB of that was reserved for the
operating system, leaving 640KB for user program.

No to that 2nd sentence; the upper address space was used for direct
addressing the screen buffer (0xB000 for mono, 0xB800 for text/CGA, 0xA000+
for higher modes)), extension card interfaces, and ROM (E000 & F000) - I
suppose you could argue that a ROM BASIC is an operating system, but I
wouldn't accept that. Certainly user programs were only allowed a max
memory footprint of 640k - in practice much less due to DOS overhead.

Post by Tim Slattery
1970's vintage machines, such as Cromemco, Zylog, etc, etc, were 8
bits. I'm a bit foggy on their addressing schemes, but at least some
of them could switch between banks of 64KB each.
The 80286 was basically 16-bits, but implemented "protected mode"
which allowed access to 16MB. Windows programers (if they're old
enough) may remember using "GlobalAlloc" and "GlobalFree" calls. Those
manipulated the Global Allocation Table, a 80286 protected mode
hardware kludge that kept track of all that RAM.
The 80386 was Intel's first true 32-bit machine. Windows 3.0 386
version ran in 16-bit 80286 protected mode though. It took a while for
Windows to catch up with 32-bit processors.
--
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

[😉 Good Guy 😉]

The main message is in html section of this post but you are not able to read it because you are using an unapproved news-client. Please try these links to amuse youself:

<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>

[Paul]

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.
The nearest thing I have found to that was OS/2, now more than 25
years old, which had built in emulators that ran MS-Windows better
than Windows, and MS-Dos better than DOS. But there the emulators were
integrated, so they worked well.
Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages? Is there anyone here who has had
experience of using them who would be willing to answer a few
questions?

Based on my experience, I would recommend you put the extra work
into finding just the right laptop setup.

While VMs are fun, you sound like someone who actually
needs this stuff to work. You would be much more productive
without the VM.

*******

VirtualBox has USB passthru. This allows a Guest OS to run a GPS,
operate a webcam, operate a scanner, and so on, as long as they're USB.
Some of the competitors, only allow certain "classes" of USB devices
to work (maybe USB sticks and USB hard drives). VirtualBox on the
other hand, is a "USB packet router", and works at the packet level
to "pass" a device inside to the Guest. That is one of its best features.

On W10 and W11, there is an inverted hypervisor, and VirtualBox staff
had to change how their product worked, and it is now a "client" of
the Windows hypervisor. VirtualBox is no longer as "smooth" as it once
was, it's a bit slower, and it freezes on occasion. If you ran VirtualBox
on a Linux laptop, your Windows 7 session would then work better. In Linux,
the hypervisor is still conventional in nature. And many releases of
VirtualBox, worked in that conventional environment.

VirtualBox has always needed hand tuning. Before they can release a
new version, it has to be tested against all the "supported" Guest OSes.
For example, just about every second release, had a problem with Windows 2000
and multiple cores. A core on the machine would "rail", due to the fact
Windows 2000 had a crude first-gen ACPI implementation. And the Virtualbox
people used to "do something" to make it work properly :-) So when
VirtualBox release notes tell you "what OSes are supported", it simply
means they have run the Guests and made sure nothing weird happened.
If you insist on running old stuff (say Win98), there is no way to know
whether it is fixed or busted on a given new release. And the list of
OSes they "support", gets shorter on each new release.

VMWare Workstation is full of "quirks". They do stuff just so it
can "be the VMWare way". What they do, doesn't have to make sense.
For example, in their support forum, a user admitted to writing a
piece of software, to get around a pretty egregious interface choice,
and begged them to take his source, at least look at it, and incorporate
the function in the next version of Workstation. Of course they just
ignored him. Even if some low-level "official response" offered
one of those "we will consider this, as a feature request", that
would be a polite response. Feature requests are frequently entirely
ignored, but "classifying" your input as an FR is a way of saying
"of course we're going to ignore you, but thanks for thinking about us".

Hyper-V is a product from Microsoft, which is a follow-in to VirtualPC.
Originally, Microsoft bought a portion of Connectix, and acquired
Connectix Virtual PC. Virtual PC worked on only one CPU core, and
used a conventional hypervisor. But because it worked on only one
CPU core, it was "buttery smooth". As Windows 7 booted in there,
the animation was perfect. When any VM switches to multiple core
support, there is usually some amount of less-ideal behavior, that
gives away you're in a VM. Hyper-V as a product, is patronizing,
and does not offer the "easy interface" that Virtual PC had. Versions
of Virtual PC only work in one OS version, so no, the Win7 version
of Virtual PC won't run in W10 or W11, and the OS won't even allow
you to try to install it.

Hyper-V runtime interface (so you can run Guests), should be
available in Win10 Pro or Win11 Pro. A lot of plain laptops
at the computer store, come with Win10 Home or Win11 Home.
And that removes the opportunity to use a Microsoft hosting software.

In W11Home, I can show you a bunch of stuff that looks like
Hyper-V is supported, but the interface to run Guests is missing.

[Picture]

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

On W11Pro, when I tried to create a VM, using the x32 DVD for Win7,
it couldn't even "see" the disc. It refused it, since the disc is
not a hybrid as far as I know, and only supports legacy boot.

The second attempt was with a Win7 x64 DVD, and that started to load,
suggesting it was hybrid. How the Win7 normally works, is it
sucks in the entire boot.wim into RAM, and sets up a RAM disk in
memory with the file contents. Then the Win7 animation starts to play,
while the OS is booting. Well, the animation did not start, and the
machine appeared frozen.

It's pretty hard to tell someone to run off and buy a copy of Pro,
just for Hyper-V, after that little demo. Sure, if I'd tried some
other DVD, I'm sure it would spring to life like a trooper. But it's
a pretty expensive "hobby" if it does not give results. VirtualBox
won't do that. While Virtualbox does have sucky bits, you can get
a result out of it. The legacy boot is good. The EFI boot is "meh",
but I have managed to get something running. For Windows 7, you'd be
doing a legacy boot.

Summary: I don't think you need a new hobby, you need something that
works, and that is physical hardware with Win7 on it.
Skylake is the last processor that officially supports Win7.
I don't really know how "close" the later processors get to working.

The W10 x32 might work, but then, it would be W10.
Refurbs might have W10 x64, but you could download a W10 x32
and do a clean install of that (write down the key you find in
the x64, as the same key will install x32 or x64). If you were
going to do that, download the W10 x32 ISO first, so you can be
assured of having media for the job.

Paul

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.

<snip>

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes
Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages? Is there anyone here who has had
experience of using them who would be willing to answer a few
questions?

Based on my experience, I would recommend you put the extra work
into finding just the right laptop setup.
While VMs are fun, you sound like someone who actually
needs this stuff to work. You would be much more productive
without the VM.

<snip>

Post by Paul
Summary: I don't think you need a new hobby, you need something that
works, and that is physical hardware with Win7 on it.
Skylake is the last processor that officially supports Win7.
I don't really know how "close" the later processors get to working.
The W10 x32 might work, but then, it would be W10.
Refurbs might have W10 x64, but you could download a W10 x32
and do a clean install of that (write down the key you find in
the x64, as the same key will install x32 or x64). If you were
going to do that, download the W10 x32 ISO first, so you can be
assured of having media for the job.

Thanks very much for that -- best advice I've seen so far.

I'll print it out, show it to my local computer shop, and ask if he
can give me a quote for replacement, including a new copy of an O/S
for a Virtual Machine it a replacement for the original can't be got,
and pass it on to the insurance, but it may prove that the old machine
is irreplaceable, which has some very nasty implications for all the
people who have been advocating the digitisation of archival records
and destruction of the originals to save space.

[Paul]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.

<snip>

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes
Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages? Is there anyone here who has had
experience of using them who would be willing to answer a few
questions?

Based on my experience, I would recommend you put the extra work
into finding just the right laptop setup.
While VMs are fun, you sound like someone who actually
needs this stuff to work. You would be much more productive
without the VM.

<snip>

Post by Paul
Summary: I don't think you need a new hobby, you need something that
works, and that is physical hardware with Win7 on it.
Skylake is the last processor that officially supports Win7.
I don't really know how "close" the later processors get to working.
The W10 x32 might work, but then, it would be W10.
Refurbs might have W10 x64, but you could download a W10 x32
and do a clean install of that (write down the key you find in
the x64, as the same key will install x32 or x64). If you were
going to do that, download the W10 x32 ISO first, so you can be
assured of having media for the job.

Thanks very much for that -- best advice I've seen so far.
I'll print it out, show it to my local computer shop, and ask if he
can give me a quote for replacement, including a new copy of an O/S
for a Virtual Machine it a replacement for the original can't be got,
and pass it on to the insurance, but it may prove that the old machine
is irreplaceable, which has some very nasty implications for all the
people who have been advocating the digitisation of archival records
and destruction of the originals to save space.

To make a Win7 VM, I recommend getting media and installing
in VirtualBox and making your own, personal, virtual machine.
For patching it up, you can use wsusoffline preparation software
(there's a version just for doing Windows 7 prep work).

Getting media is tricky. It used to be easy. We would abuse DigitalRiver
download links, which had Win7 media (ISO files) for the grabbing.

I discovered, while trying to figure out a solution for you, that archive.org
seems to have placed a 2GB file limit on downloads. If I try to download
a virtual machine file which is archived on the site (some of those are 5GB),
the download stops at 2GB. I tried about three different files, and the
response was the same. I used aria2c downloader (which has restart capability),
and if you try to restart a download at the 2GB mark, archive.org refuses to
respond.

That told me that using archive.org as a source of media, is now out of the
question. I was thinking of digging up an archived W7 and
giving you the link to that, to get media.

W7 has probably been removed entirely from Techbench and MSDN subscriptions
(Microsoft sources).

And I don't know where else to try, except a computer store with old stock.
For example, the chinese guys store down town, I know he has a cabinet
with Refurbisher hologram DVDs in it, but those are all 64 bit and there
are absolutely no 32 bit in the display case. The refurbisher DVD is just like
a retail one. But refurbs only seemed to come with 64-bit OSes on them.

This is a hell of a time to be trying to "raise W7 from the dead", so to speak :-)
A hell of a time. It will be easier to fly to Mars, than to get a 32-bit DVD now.

The problem with me giving you en-us ISO files, is during activation,
the media may use geolocation, and sometimes it does not "like" the
location doing the activation, to "not be en-us". Someone was complaining
they took valid en-us media on a trip to China with them, installed an OS,
and they could not get it to activate while they were sitting in China.
At the time, VPNs were not a thing, or someone would have suggested that.

*******

Also, if you go the virtual machine route, you have to be careful to
make backups of your virtual machine file. Microsoft does not provide
high quality support for activation issues with virtual machines. You
can ask the poster "T" (todd), regarding what happened to his
virtual machine that was activated. He could not get Microsoft to help
him, and restore his activation. Backing up the container,
is to provide a means to roll back and regain your activation.
Not all activation issues can be fixed that way, but some of them can.

Absolutely none of my VMs are activated with paid licenses. Neither
do I dabble in Daz Loader as a solution (that's a crack for activation).

Archive.org is *full* of copies of media. But the recent stoppage of
downloads at the 2GB mark, makes a collection like this one, useless.
You see, someone even uploaded the digitalriver collection.

https://archive.org/download/digital_river

At least the Index file works :-)

https://ia801300.us.archive.org/30/items/digital_river/xxx17index_file.txt

Paul

[Java Jive]

Post by Paul
I discovered, while trying to figure out a solution for you, that archive.org
seems to have placed a 2GB file limit on downloads. If I try to download
a virtual machine file which is archived on the site (some of those are 5GB),
the download stops at 2GB. I tried about three different files, and the
response was the same. I used aria2c downloader (which has restart capability),
and if you try to restart a download at the 2GB mark, archive.org refuses to
respond.

I always hesitate to disagree with you, Paul, but IME today the above is
NOT true. I set the download service on my QNAP NAS to download ...

https://archive.org/download/digital_river/x17-58996.iso

... and it downloaded successfully. In particular, I watched it roll
over the 2GB downloaded mark with no perceptible glitch, the resulting
file size is the advertised 2.39 GB, the ISO opens successfully in
7-zip, and its SHA1 agrees with that given for it on the parent
directory/page.

I think you must have a different problem somewhere?

[Paul]

Post by Paul
I discovered, while trying to figure out a solution for you, that archive.org
seems to have placed a 2GB file limit on downloads. If I try to download
a virtual machine file which is archived on the site (some of those are 5GB),
the download stops at 2GB. I tried about three different files, and the
response was the same. I used aria2c downloader (which has restart capability),
and if you try to restart a download at the 2GB mark, archive.org refuses to
respond.

I always hesitate to disagree with you, Paul, but IME today the above is NOT true.  I set the download service on my QNAP NAS to download ...
    https://archive.org/download/digital_river/x17-58996.iso
... and it downloaded successfully.  In particular, I watched it roll over the 2GB downloaded mark with no perceptible glitch, the resulting file size is the advertised 2.39 GB, the ISO opens successfully in 7-zip, and its SHA1 agrees with that given for it on the parent directory/page.
I think you must have a different problem somewhere?

I tried two different tools.

Web browser.

Aria2c (since it supports reliable transfer).

And no, there is no FAT32 on the machine or the like.
No obvious excuses for the behavior.

I haven't had this problem in the past. This is new-to-me behavior.

Paul

[Paul]

Post by Paul
I discovered, while trying to figure out a solution for you, that archive.org
seems to have placed a 2GB file limit on downloads. If I try to download
a virtual machine file which is archived on the site (some of those are 5GB),
the download stops at 2GB. I tried about three different files, and the
response was the same. I used aria2c downloader (which has restart capability),
and if you try to restart a download at the 2GB mark, archive.org refuses to
respond.

I always hesitate to disagree with you, Paul, but IME today the above is NOT true.  I set the download service on my QNAP NAS to download ...
    https://archive.org/download/digital_river/x17-58996.iso
... and it downloaded successfully.  In particular, I watched it roll over the 2GB downloaded mark with no perceptible glitch, the resulting file size is the advertised 2.39 GB, the ISO opens successfully in 7-zip, and its SHA1 agrees with that given for it on the parent directory/page.
I think you must have a different problem somewhere?

I have a theory.

It's possible that archive.org , archived some of the downloads
when the Microsoft servers had the "download bug". There was a
period of time, where Microsoft servers were truncating downloads.
A symptom, is both parties to the download are satisfied the download
is complete. But the file can be short, by up to a gigabyte.

I've just started downloading a digitalriver sample, like yourself,
and when I get back, we'll see whether this one is "regular size".

The damage then, could actually be recorded on the server that way.

If you believe the left column is size-in-bytes here, then this
list is anomalous as well, and may be stored (incorrectly) on the
server like that. Maybe these weren't DigitalRiver, but were
TechBench or similar. The collection may be "digital_river", but
that does not mean Archive.org crawled digitalriver.com itself. Some
user uploaded these as far as I know.

https://ia801300.us.archive.org/30/items/digital_river/xxx17index_file.txt

So rather than a protocol error, the content on the server may
simply be damaged, and I've misinterpreted this as a protocol problem.

Paul

[Java Jive]

Post by Paul

Post by Paul
I discovered, while trying to figure out a solution for you, that archive.org
seems to have placed a 2GB file limit on downloads. If I try to download
a virtual machine file which is archived on the site (some of those are 5GB),
the download stops at 2GB. I tried about three different files, and the
response was the same. I used aria2c downloader (which has restart capability),
and if you try to restart a download at the 2GB mark, archive.org refuses to
respond.

I always hesitate to disagree with you, Paul, but IME today the above is NOT true.  I set the download service on my QNAP NAS to download ...
    https://archive.org/download/digital_river/x17-58996.iso
... and it downloaded successfully.  In particular, I watched it roll over the 2GB downloaded mark with no perceptible glitch, the resulting file size is the advertised 2.39 GB, the ISO opens successfully in 7-zip, and its SHA1 agrees with that given for it on the parent directory/page.
I think you must have a different problem somewhere?

I have a theory.
It's possible that archive.org , archived some of the downloads
when the Microsoft servers had the "download bug". There was a
period of time, where Microsoft servers were truncating downloads.
A symptom, is both parties to the download are satisfied the download
is complete. But the file can be short, by up to a gigabyte.
I've just started downloading a digitalriver sample, like yourself,
and when I get back, we'll see whether this one is "regular size".
The damage then, could actually be recorded on the server that way.
If you believe the left column is size-in-bytes here, then this
list is anomalous as well, and may be stored (incorrectly) on the
server like that. Maybe these weren't DigitalRiver, but were
TechBench or similar. The collection may be "digital_river", but
that does not mean Archive.org crawled digitalriver.com itself. Some
user uploaded these as far as I know.
https://ia801300.us.archive.org/30/items/digital_river/xxx17index_file.txt

Yes, agreed so far ...

The number against the file I downloaded successfully - which, I
forgot to mention, is the one the OP would need to create a 32-bit W7 VM
from scratch: Windows 7 Home Premium x86 English SP1 - is
2,147,483,647, which is one byte less than 2 GB = 2,147,483,648, whereas
the actual file size should be 2.38 GB = 2,564,476,928 (I misread it
when I quoted 2.39 GB earlier)

Post by Paul
So rather than a protocol error, the content on the server may
simply be damaged, and I've misinterpreted this as a protocol problem.

No, I don't think so, because what is supposedly the size is wrong for
the file I downloaded, yet I was able to download it in full, so either:

1) The index has the wrong sizes;

... and ...

2) SOME of the files, but fortunately not the one the OP would need,
were uploaded incorrectly, and truncated thereby;

... and these two things happened more or less independently of each
other, because my test earlier showed that there isn't a one-for-one
correspondence between the supposed incorrect sizes in the index and
whether the file downloads correctly, or ...

3) You have some other problem.

To move this forward, perhaps if you give here some of the exact links
you tried to download, I and others could try downloading them to see if
we get the same results?

[Paul]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Paul

Post by Paul
I discovered, while trying to figure out a solution for you, that archive.org
seems to have placed a 2GB file limit on downloads. If I try to download
a virtual machine file which is archived on the site (some of those are 5GB),
the download stops at 2GB. I tried about three different files, and the
response was the same. I used aria2c downloader (which has restart capability),
and if you try to restart a download at the 2GB mark, archive.org refuses to
respond.

I always hesitate to disagree with you, Paul, but IME today the above is NOT true.  I set the download service on my QNAP NAS to download ...
     https://archive.org/download/digital_river/x17-58996.iso
... and it downloaded successfully.  In particular, I watched it roll over the 2GB downloaded mark with no perceptible glitch, the resulting file size is the advertised 2.39 GB, the ISO opens successfully in 7-zip, and its SHA1 agrees with that given for it on the parent directory/page.
I think you must have a different problem somewhere?

I have a theory.
It's possible that archive.org , archived some of the downloads
when the Microsoft servers had the "download bug". There was a
period of time, where Microsoft servers were truncating downloads.
A symptom, is both parties to the download are satisfied the download
is complete. But the file can be short, by up to a gigabyte.
I've just started downloading a digitalriver sample, like yourself,
and when I get back, we'll see whether this one is "regular size".
The damage then, could actually be recorded on the server that way.
If you believe the left column is size-in-bytes here, then this
list is anomalous as well, and may be stored (incorrectly) on the
server like that. Maybe these weren't DigitalRiver, but were
TechBench or similar. The collection may be "digital_river", but
that does not mean Archive.org crawled digitalriver.com itself. Some
user uploaded these as far as I know.
https://ia801300.us.archive.org/30/items/digital_river/xxx17index_file.txt

Yes, agreed so far ...
The number against the file I downloaded successfully  -  which, I forgot to mention, is the one the OP would need to create a 32-bit W7 VM from scratch: Windows 7 Home Premium x86 English SP1  -  is 2,147,483,647, which is one byte less than 2 GB = 2,147,483,648, whereas the actual file size should be 2.38 GB = 2,564,476,928 (I misread it when I quoted 2.39 GB earlier)

Post by Paul
So rather than a protocol error, the content on the server may
simply be damaged, and I've misinterpreted this as a protocol problem.

1)  The index has the wrong sizes;
... and ...
2)  SOME of the files, but fortunately not the one the OP would need, were uploaded incorrectly, and truncated thereby;
... and these two things happened more or less independently of each other, because my test earlier showed that there isn't a one-for-one correspondence between the supposed incorrect sizes in the index and whether the file downloads correctly, or ...
3)  You have some other problem.
To move this forward, perhaps if you give here some of the exact links you tried to download, I and others could try downloading them to see if we get the same results?

This one seems to be more than 2GB, so is OK.

https://ia801300.us.archive.org/30/items/digital_river/x17-58997.iso

Name: x17-58997.iso
Size: 3320903680 bytes (3167 MiB)
SHA256: C10A9DA74A34E3AB57446CDDD7A0F825D526DA78D9796D442DB5022C33E3CB7F

*******

While these are in pairs, I think one of the links might redirect to the other,
and these could be some 2GB ones. I also tried with aria2c.exe but since I did
that in command prompt, there's no history. Powershell keeps a history.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip

https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip

The first would be, for running under Hyper-V, like on Win10 Pro Host.

The second would be, for Virtualbox. And that would give a Win7 x32 Enterprise running under some Windows or Linux host.

The benefit of the Enterprise one, is at the end of the grace period (30 days/90 days),
it switches to running for 30 minutes before it shuts down on you. This allows you
to do short conversion tasks, without a license. I was doing MinGW compiles that
way (keeping the MinGW tree off the main C: ).

Paul

[Java Jive]

Post by Paul
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip

I've left them going on my NAS, will report back to-morrow.

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Paul
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip

I've left them going on my NAS, will report back to-morrow.

All failed, at least one I checked was indeed around the 2GB mark.

[Java Jive]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Java Jive

Post by Paul
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20191216124401if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211320if_/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip

I've left them going on my NAS, will report back to-morrow.

All failed, at least one I checked was indeed around the 2GB mark.

We seem to need more information to find out what really has gone / is
going wrong here, so ...

1) The logical approach:

The following link gives us the captures for these URLS ...

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102*

... and for the first file of your two pairs of download links above ...

https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip

... there were 2 captures - Dec 16, 2019 and Jul 12, 2022 - with 0
duplicates and 2 uniques, so an alternative URL for the same file is ...

https://web.archive.org/web/20220712131421/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/HyperV/IE11/IE11.Win7.HyperV.zip

... but that failed immediately.

Similarly, for the second file ...

https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip

.. there were 8 captures with 6 duplicates and 2 uniques, so alternative
URLs for the same download are ...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190824211351/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190830062021/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190830062208/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190830105630/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20190831051451/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20191127032205/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip
https://web.archive.org/web/20220712131429/https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/VMBuild_20180102/VirtualBox/IE11/IE11.Win7.VirtualBox.zip

... of which the last also failed immediately.

So, in short, it doesn't look as though any of these so-called captures
actually worked, and the resulting downloads are corrupt and useless.

2) The brain-storm approach, wherein I throw a thought out there in
case someone else can pick it up and run with it:

It's not going to help with the now corrupted downloads, but if, as
claimed by the index, the truncated files are exactly 2GB-1 bytes long,
how did that happen? If it had been 4GB-1 then that would have been
explicable as someone using a FAT32 storage media somewhere in the
chain, but 2GB-1? I know of no disk format or other simple explanation
for that. For reference, the maximum file sizes supported by different
disk formats are listed here ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_size#Maximum_size

... but while there are 2GB limits - FAT16 without LFS, HFS, and HPFS
- there are no 2GB-1 limits.

ISTR that Samba on Linux had a 2GB or so file size limit in v2, but that
was over a decade ago, maybe even two decades ago, surely no-one in any
serious setup would still be using v2?

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Paul
Also, if you go the virtual machine route, you have to be careful to
make backups of your virtual machine file. Microsoft does not provide
high quality support for activation issues with virtual machines. You
can ask the poster "T" (todd), regarding what happened to his
virtual machine that was activated. He could not get Microsoft to help
him, and restore his activation. Backing up the container,
is to provide a means to roll back and regain your activation.
Not all activation issues can be fixed that way, but some of them can.

Once again, thanks for all the information, and especially this. Saved
for if I ever have to go the VM route.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <***@4ax.com> at Sun, 19 Nov
2023 07:41:18, Steve Hayes <***@telkomsa.net> writes
[]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Paul
Based on my experience, I would recommend you put the extra work
into finding just the right laptop setup.
While VMs are fun, you sound like someone who actually
needs this stuff to work. You would be much more productive
without the VM.

That was my feeling. Things may be different where you are (or from the
situation as it was in January this year); although it took me _some_
digging, I did find a W7-32 laptop then without _too_ much difficulty.
Let me have a quick look at ebay ... hmm, I wasn't expecting as many to
come up! And from 29.99 pounds plus postage! Obviously some of these
will be underpowered, which would be a pain to use (probably upgraded
from XP) - that bottom one is 2G/160G, and just says "AMD CPU". There
are quite a few "Toughbooks" - for example "Panasonic Toughbook Cf-19 MK
5 Core i5 Win 7 Or Win 10 32-bit 5 Year Warranty", "174.99 to 314.99";
it's one of those listings with drop-down select, but 4G/500G/W7-32
shows 239.99 pounds; an i5 should be more than adequate (I'm using an i3
and am quite happy with it). So I'm very surprised at how many machines
are available. Obviously that's UK, but hopefully you _can_ manage to
find something. (At worst, finding one in UK and paying through the nose
for shipping. I suspect many UK suppliers would be a bit nervous about
shipping to SA, though I may be wrong. You may not want UK keyboard
etc., too.)

Post by Steve Hayes
<snip>

Post by Paul
Summary: I don't think you need a new hobby, you need something that
works, and that is physical hardware with Win7 on it.
Skylake is the last processor that officially supports Win7.

Does "Skylake" translate into a number (something like i312345)? (Mine -
in Control Panel | System - shows as "i3-2350M", and I haven't had any
problems with it.)

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Paul
I don't really know how "close" the later processors get to working.
The W10 x32 might work, but then, it would be W10.
Refurbs might have W10 x64, but you could download a W10 x32
and do a clean install of that (write down the key you find in
the x64, as the same key will install x32 or x64). If you were
going to do that, download the W10 x32 ISO first, so you can be
assured of having media for the job.

Thanks very much for that -- best advice I've seen so far.

And check that the drivers for the various bits of its hardware are
available in 32-bit form (display, sound, network [ethernet], wifi, USB,
...)

Post by Steve Hayes
I'll print it out, show it to my local computer shop, and ask if he
can give me a quote for replacement, including a new copy of an O/S
for a Virtual Machine it a replacement for the original can't be got,
and pass it on to the insurance, but it may prove that the old machine

Try also (for something to show them)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p4432023.m570.l1311&_
nkw=windows+7+32+bit+laptop&_sacat=0 - that's ebay.co.uk with "windows 7
32 bit laptop" in the search box.

Post by Steve Hayes
is irreplaceable, which has some very nasty implications for all the
people who have been advocating the digitisation of archival records
and destruction of the originals to save space.

If it's scanning to digital image, then I think the JPEG, GIF, and
probably PNG formats will now survive indefinitely. (I know JPEG is in
theory inherently lossy, but - and I do genealogy as a hobby - I can
honestly say I've never encountered an image of an ancient document
where JPEG artefacts have been a problem, or even visible. It's the
ancient handwriting - of a presumably underpaid cleric, trying to save
paper too - that's usually the problem!) Yes, I would agree, if
"digitisation" is into some database format, then periodic refurbishment
_is_ advisable, but the first stage of most digitisation is - or should
be - into image.

[Java Jive]

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.
The nearest thing I have found to that was OS/2, now more than 25
years old, which had built in emulators that ran MS-Windows better
than Windows, and MS-Dos better than DOS. But there the emulators were
integrated, so they worked well.
Do today's third-party emulators work as well as the OS/2 ones, or do
they have hidden disadvantages? Is there anyone here who has had
experience of using them who would be willing to answer a few
questions?

I'm late into this discussion, but from a skim through just now, I don't
think the following has been asked:

Have you any disk-image style back-up of your previous system that was
stolen - eg an image made by Ghost, Clonezilla, etc?

If you have, using that as the source to make a working Virtual Machine
(VM, and I'm using the term generically rather than implying any brand)
should be easier than trying to re-install your original system and all
its software from scratch, even supposing that you actually have every
single installation media involved and that they all still work.

Anyone else here tried to use 20-year old floppies recently? No, I
thought not, most won't even have access to a floppy drive any more! I
can't remember details now, but a few months ago I was trying to create
a W98 boot USB stick for running imaging software, and for some obscure
reason now forgotten needed to perform a 'sys' command to do it, and
*none* of the many W98 boot floppies I had still worked! Eventually I
found just one floppy disk that still worked well enough to allow an old
floppy boot image to be written to it, so that I could boot from it and
run the 'sys' command.

Home-made CDs & DVDs tend to degrade over time too.

Some of your other questions seem to have been answered, but
particularly I can confirm that through the VM you can access USB and
network hardware, etc, and areas of the host hard disk outside of the
VM, though you may have to alter some settings from their defaults to do
so. However, I only ever used a VM to test my website on old browsers,
which is hardly going to test the sort of functionality that you need,
so I'll stop around here.

Note Paul's point though, that if you want to use the in-built Microsoft
VM functionality, you need to be running a Pro version of W10 or W11,
not a Home version.

[Ralph Fox]

Post by Java Jive
Anyone else here tried to use 20-year old floppies recently? No, I
thought not, most won't even have access to a floppy drive any more!

Two months ago I booted a new VMware virtual machine from a virtual
floppy, to install a new OS. Booting from a virtual floppy (mapped
to a *.flp file on the host) is not much different to booting from
a virtual CD (mapped to a *.iso file on the host).

[Sjouke Burry]

Post by Ralph Fox

Post by Java Jive
Anyone else here tried to use 20-year old floppies recently? No, I
thought not, most won't even have access to a floppy drive any more!

Two months ago I booted a new VMware virtual machine from a virtual
floppy, to install a new OS. Booting from a virtual floppy (mapped
to a *.flp file on the host) is not much different to booting from
a virtual CD (mapped to a *.iso file on the host).

I did yesterday.
Had to repeat the test a few times, I think the floppy
reader heads were not very clean or the repeated read
cleared away some dust.
3'rth try succeeded (win 98 boot floppy).
Also tested a floppy floppy (the larger ones), worked fine.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Java Jive

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

I'm late into this discussion, but from a skim through just now, I don't
Have you any disk-image style back-up of your previous system that was
stolen - eg an image made by Ghost, Clonezilla, etc?
If you have, using that as the source to make a working Virtual Machine
(VM, and I'm using the term generically rather than implying any brand)
should be easier than trying to re-install your original system and all
its software from scratch, even supposing that you actually have every
single installation media involved and that they all still work.

Yes, I do have a couple of Acronis backups. I'll try to keep them in
case I ever do have to try to install them on a vitrual machine.

Post by Java Jive
Anyone else here tried to use 20-year old floppies recently? No, I
thought not, most won't even have access to a floppy drive any more! I
can't remember details now, but a few months ago I was trying to create
a W98 boot USB stick for running imaging software, and for some obscure
reason now forgotten needed to perform a 'sys' command to do it, and
*none* of the many W98 boot floppies I had still worked! Eventually I
found just one floppy disk that still worked well enough to allow an old
floppy boot image to be written to it, so that I could boot from it and
run the 'sys' command.

When I got a Win 98 machine back in 1999 I copied all the floppies and
stiffies I could find to a CD-ROM, and I think I have a copy of that
in a directory on the hard drive of my XP machine!

Oh, and the 2nd-hand Win 10 32-bit machine I goes (see earlier
messages) *does* have a DVD drive, which my wife's Windows 11 machine
doesn't have, so that's a big plus. Om the other hand, it doesn't have
a card slot, so getting photos off my camera will be a bit of a
schlep.

Post by Java Jive
Home-made CDs & DVDs tend to degrade over time too.
Some of your other questions seem to have been answered, but
particularly I can confirm that through the VM you can access USB and
network hardware, etc, and areas of the host hard disk outside of the
VM, though you may have to alter some settings from their defaults to do
so. However, I only ever used a VM to test my website on old browsers,
which is hardly going to test the sort of functionality that you need,
so I'll stop around here.
Note Paul's point though, that if you want to use the in-built Microsoft
VM functionality, you need to be running a Pro version of W10 or W11,
not a Home version.

[Paul]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Java Jive

Post by Steve Hayes
Someone stole my laptop computer, and I'm beginning to be concerned
that it may be irreplaceable.
It was running Windows 7, 32-bit, and it seems that most, if not all,
laptops sold nowadays with Windows installed are 64-bit, which means
they won't run a lot of my software, and that means that they won't
allow me to access a lot of the research data I have collected over
the last 30 years.
People have told me that it is possible to run a virtual machine on a
Win 64-bit computer that will emulate a 32-bit OS, but before I spend
money on a computer that might not work for me, I'd like to hear from
someone who has had experience in running such things, to find out how
well they work.

I'm late into this discussion, but from a skim through just now, I don't
Have you any disk-image style back-up of your previous system that was
stolen - eg an image made by Ghost, Clonezilla, etc?
If you have, using that as the source to make a working Virtual Machine
(VM, and I'm using the term generically rather than implying any brand)
should be easier than trying to re-install your original system and all
its software from scratch, even supposing that you actually have every
single installation media involved and that they all still work.

Yes, I do have a couple of Acronis backups. I'll try to keep them in
case I ever do have to try to install them on a vitrual machine.

Post by Java Jive
Anyone else here tried to use 20-year old floppies recently? No, I
thought not, most won't even have access to a floppy drive any more! I
can't remember details now, but a few months ago I was trying to create
a W98 boot USB stick for running imaging software, and for some obscure
reason now forgotten needed to perform a 'sys' command to do it, and
*none* of the many W98 boot floppies I had still worked! Eventually I
found just one floppy disk that still worked well enough to allow an old
floppy boot image to be written to it, so that I could boot from it and
run the 'sys' command.

When I got a Win 98 machine back in 1999 I copied all the floppies and
stiffies I could find to a CD-ROM, and I think I have a copy of that
in a directory on the hard drive of my XP machine!
Oh, and the 2nd-hand Win 10 32-bit machine I goes (see earlier
messages) *does* have a DVD drive, which my wife's Windows 11 machine
doesn't have, so that's a big plus. Om the other hand, it doesn't have
a card slot, so getting photos off my camera will be a bit of a
schlep.

You can get SD card readers, in the form of USB sticks with a "hole in the side".
That's what I use for my camera. Mine will only read media up to 32GB in size.

Loading Image...

For a desktop computer, you can also get tray mount card readers, and those
have more holes in front, for more kinds of media. This one would fit, where the
floppy drive used to go. The connector on the end, fits over a 2x5 USB2 header
on the motherboard (9 gold pins, one location blank for keying purposes).

Loading Image...

You can move files between machines, via file sharing.

You can also do point to point transfer with Bluetooth nano transmitters (plug
into a USB slot). That transfer is 75KB per second, which is roughly the
speed of the old floppies :-) I've even managed to set up a network connection
(with file sharing!) between two Bluetooth nano. I've been waiting years for
them to make that work, and I finally got a demo of it working here. This is not
a very practical hardware type (a kind of joke), but I wanted to see it work.

If you own Wifi modules and have no Wifi router, you can do point-to-point
transfer with Wifi Direct. On Windows 10, you click a button labeled "Mobile Hotspot",
and that makes one machine a kind of Wifi server. A second machine connects to it
using an SSID. The fun part, is figuring out what the randomly generated password
is for the Hotspot. The dialog with the information, would not appear at first,
but I eventually tracked the stupid thing down, and that gave the eight character
password. That might transfer at 7MB/sec, not exactly fast, but if you have no
other wiring for the computers, it is better than nothing.

For a slightly better transfer rate between PCs, the AQC107 is available now,
a 10GbE card, and you can do point to point wiring between two desktops with
these cards. This gives on the order of 1250 MB/sec or roughly "a CD per second"
transfer rate. Needs a PCI Express x4 slot in the PC (which many PCs will have).
Many PCs have an x16 slot for the video card and an x4 slot for toys. On an Optiplex,
you can't put your new network card, into the video slot (BIOS complains about your
taste in hardware).

https://www.sybausa.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=985

Windows 10 allows bridging from your Internet connection hardware, to
a second card like one of those. Then, either machine can reach the Internet
at the Internet relatively-slow speed. But if you want to connect private
files between machines at lightning speed, that is what those cards are for.

You might ask "why did you stop there?". Well, it's because 100 GbE cards (12GByte/sec)
are likely to be more expensive still, and at some point, the computer can
only absorb information so fast. Whereas those AQC107 break the $500 barrier
and finally provide cards at a better price. A typical usage scenario might be,
you are doing backups on one machine, and the backup drive is on the other
computer at the moment. The 10GbE link is easily fast enough for backups.

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by Paul

Post by Steve Hayes
Oh, and the 2nd-hand Win 10 32-bit machine I goes (see earlier
messages) *does* have a DVD drive, which my wife's Windows 11 machine
doesn't have, so that's a big plus. Om the other hand, it doesn't have
a card slot, so getting photos off my camera will be a bit of a
schlep.

Is it a laptop? If so, look very hard: they often _do_ have an SD slot,
but often recessed from the edge a bit, on the underside. I've known
people who own such a laptop and didn't know it had such a slot.

Post by Paul
You can get SD card readers, in the form of USB sticks with a "hole in the side".
That's what I use for my camera. Mine will only read media up to 32GB in size.
https://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductImageCompressAll1280/20-208-939-05.jpg

I used to use such for my old (but with a good lens) camera, that used
XD cards. (I _have_ seen such USB-stick-like things with multiple
slots.)

Post by Paul
For a desktop computer, you can also get tray mount card readers, and those
have more holes in front, for more kinds of media. This one would fit, where the
floppy drive used to go. The connector on the end, fits over a 2x5 USB2 header
on the motherboard (9 gold pins, one location blank for keying purposes).
https://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductImageCompressAll1280/20-192-038-S01.jpg

They often have a USB slot in them too, so you aren't "wasting" a USB
header.
[]

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
They often have a USB slot in them too, so you aren't "wasting" a USB
header.

The headers usually provide 2 ports. The card reader just needs 1 so its
not too hard to extend the other one to the outside of the case.

[Paul]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

They often have a USB slot in them too, so you aren't "wasting" a USB header.

The headers usually provide 2 ports. The card reader just needs 1 so its not too hard to extend the other one to the outside of the case.

You can sometimes purchase equipment that has a 1x5 connector.
But the odds are slim, of purchasing a second device that also has a 1x5
to sit next to it on a header.

You can see the header rows, aren't exactly the same. If an equipment
has a plastic facade on the front, it *might* be using Shield Ground for its Shield Ground :-)

Loading Image...

If your equipment has a 2x5 on the end, then the details are taken care
of for you, whatever electrical connection they want to use for grounding.

Grounding to chassis, is done best if done near the faceplate.
(Metal on your new toy, touches metal on the chassis.)
Otherwise, an ESD discharge goes down the S-Ground wire and the
field couples into the other wires in the cable assembly,
and could cause an upset.

This is why, if someone has the choice of working on the front
of the computer, or on the back, I tell them to use the back, because
the shield grounding scheme on the back is normally a better one.
Some of the setups on the front of the computer, no electrical engineer
helped the fools design it. Some computer case manufacturers have only
"metal bashers" on staff, and they've made some pretty bad mistakes
on port wiring and setup on case fronts. Antec has had a few incidents (mis-wired
interfaces, strangely none of the errors made, guaranteed destruction :-) ).
This is one of the reasons, if I received an Antec case years ago,
I ripped the front panel wiring out, as the "first step". That's because
I did not want to use a multimeter to check the wiring. I have better
things to do.

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Paul

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

They often have a USB slot in them too, so you aren't "wasting" a USB header.

The headers usually provide 2 ports. The card reader just needs 1 so
its not too hard to extend the other one to the outside of the case.

You can sometimes purchase equipment that has a 1x5 connector.
But the odds are slim, of purchasing a second device that also has a 1x5
to sit next to it on a header.

[]
Sometimes you get a 2×5 connector which you can _see_ is only wired
along one side; the provider chose to use that to ensure you plug it in
the right way round. You can then - if there is room adjacent to the
header on the board - plug it in offset by one, leaving the other port
still usable (though not by another offset plug if the header is wired
as per the header Paul has linked to, unless it happens to have used the
other row).

[Mark Lloyd]

On 12/30/23 02:30, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Sometimes you get a 2×5 connector which you can _see_ is only wired
along one side; the provider chose to use that to ensure you plug it in
the right way round. You can then - if there is room adjacent to the
header on the board - plug it in offset by one, leaving the other port
still usable (though not by another offset plug if the header is wired
as per the header Paul has linked to, unless it happens to have used the
other row).

I have seen one device like that (uses only one port, but still has a
2x5 connector). This was a CPU cooler with LEDs on it that an be
controlled through USB.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Paul
You can get SD card readers, in the form of USB sticks with a "hole in the side".
That's what I use for my camera. Mine will only read media up to 32GB in size.
https://c1.neweggimages.com/ProductImageCompressAll1280/20-208-939-05.jpg

Thanks very much, I'll look for such a thing.