Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Nostalgia

Reply
Thread Tools

Nostalgia

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2006
Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...

You know what?

At the root directory of the drive I found:

AUTOEXEC.BAT
and its brother
CONFIG.SYS

The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
FILES=40

Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...

Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the
Microsoft Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.

jacob

P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint. I
find this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to
become what it is now.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2006
Yes, I aggree completely. I have not seen it yet, but I am not the least bit
surprised. Like you say - it's reassuring, somehow. The value of 40,
however, probably isn't all that important - in DOS you actually ran out of
space if you opened that many files - from Win3.1 I believe it became an
initial value, if you used it the system spawned another 40 I think. At the
time I used to experiment a lot but then the value stopped having any
apparent influence. Except the system slowly ran out of user resources, and
if you kept opening more files, it would run out sooner, but until going
down the respons of the system didn't seem to be affected by the files
value. (My observation!)


Tony. . .


"jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:erExn$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...
>
> You know what?
>
> At the root directory of the drive I found:
>
> AUTOEXEC.BAT
> and its brother
> CONFIG.SYS
>
> The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
> FILES=40
>
> Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...
>
> Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the Microsoft
> Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.
>
> jacob
>
> P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint. I find
> this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to become
> what it is now.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Tony, Jacob:
Speaking of nostalgia I can also recall the buffers setting, which acted as
disk cache grandfather. Disk cache father was smartdrv.
Also the environment setting which I had to set to E=1024.
That alchemy seemed to make windows 3.1 more stable.
Carlos

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> Yes, I aggree completely. I have not seen it yet, but I am not the least bit
> surprised. Like you say - it's reassuring, somehow. The value of 40,
> however, probably isn't all that important - in DOS you actually ran out of
> space if you opened that many files - from Win3.1 I believe it became an
> initial value, if you used it the system spawned another 40 I think. At the
> time I used to experiment a lot but then the value stopped having any
> apparent influence. Except the system slowly ran out of user resources, and
> if you kept opening more files, it would run out sooner, but until going
> down the respons of the system didn't seem to be affected by the files
> value. (My observation!)
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:erExn$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...
> >
> > You know what?
> >
> > At the root directory of the drive I found:
> >
> > AUTOEXEC.BAT
> > and its brother
> > CONFIG.SYS
> >
> > The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
> > FILES=40
> >
> > Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...
> >
> > Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the Microsoft
> > Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.
> >
> > jacob
> >
> > P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint. I find
> > this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to become
> > what it is now.

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Yes, Andre - I do remember the tweeking, although what I was most happy with
was when I wrote my own animated start menu in 'batch and ansi' and had
discreet configurations tweeked for each menu item.

I vividly recall those days when I tried to find the optimal setting for
'Links' - by a long shot the most demanding game that I knew at the time.
I'd set it up such that the machine re-booted when calling a menu-item and
when I left the game it re-booted again into a default configuration, back
to the menu. Very complex, and very, very satisfying! Lots of people was
thinking, much of all this couldn't be done at all!

I cannot remember my Environment value, 1024 seem rather high but I think I
ended up doubling the default whatever that was. Maybe that was because I
had started setting up a sort of 'sub-routines' in my batch files which
meant that each one had a new copy of the environment, and the script didn't
suffer that much as a consequence. But the RAM Disks! Man-oh-man - that was
a minor science of it's own!

Thanks, guys for reminding me!


Tony. . .


"Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tony, Jacob:
> Speaking of nostalgia I can also recall the buffers setting, which acted
> as
> disk cache grandfather. Disk cache father was smartdrv.
> Also the environment setting which I had to set to E=1024.
> That alchemy seemed to make windows 3.1 more stable.
> Carlos
>
> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>
>> Yes, I aggree completely. I have not seen it yet, but I am not the least
>> bit
>> surprised. Like you say - it's reassuring, somehow. The value of 40,
>> however, probably isn't all that important - in DOS you actually ran out
>> of
>> space if you opened that many files - from Win3.1 I believe it became an
>> initial value, if you used it the system spawned another 40 I think. At
>> the
>> time I used to experiment a lot but then the value stopped having any
>> apparent influence. Except the system slowly ran out of user resources,
>> and
>> if you kept opening more files, it would run out sooner, but until going
>> down the respons of the system didn't seem to be affected by the files
>> value. (My observation!)
>>
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:erExn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...
>> >
>> > You know what?
>> >
>> > At the root directory of the drive I found:
>> >
>> > AUTOEXEC.BAT
>> > and its brother
>> > CONFIG.SYS
>> >
>> > The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
>> > FILES=40
>> >
>> > Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...
>> >
>> > Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the
>> > Microsoft
>> > Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.
>> >
>> > jacob
>> >
>> > P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint. I
>> > find
>> > this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to
>> > become
>> > what it is now.

>>
>>
>>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Sorry, getting the name wrong was a mental typo, Carlos.

Tony. . .


"Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes, Andre - I do remember the tweeking, although what I was most happy
> with was when I wrote my own animated start menu in 'batch and ansi' and
> had discreet configurations tweeked for each menu item.
>
> I vividly recall those days when I tried to find the optimal setting for
> 'Links' - by a long shot the most demanding game that I knew at the time.
> I'd set it up such that the machine re-booted when calling a menu-item and
> when I left the game it re-booted again into a default configuration, back
> to the menu. Very complex, and very, very satisfying! Lots of people was
> thinking, much of all this couldn't be done at all!
>
> I cannot remember my Environment value, 1024 seem rather high but I think
> I ended up doubling the default whatever that was. Maybe that was because
> I had started setting up a sort of 'sub-routines' in my batch files which
> meant that each one had a new copy of the environment, and the script
> didn't suffer that much as a consequence. But the RAM Disks! Man-oh-man -
> that was a minor science of it's own!
>
> Thanks, guys for reminding me!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Tony, Jacob:
>> Speaking of nostalgia I can also recall the buffers setting, which acted
>> as
>> disk cache grandfather. Disk cache father was smartdrv.
>> Also the environment setting which I had to set to E=1024.
>> That alchemy seemed to make windows 3.1 more stable.
>> Carlos
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I aggree completely. I have not seen it yet, but I am not the least
>>> bit
>>> surprised. Like you say - it's reassuring, somehow. The value of 40,
>>> however, probably isn't all that important - in DOS you actually ran out
>>> of
>>> space if you opened that many files - from Win3.1 I believe it became an
>>> initial value, if you used it the system spawned another 40 I think. At
>>> the
>>> time I used to experiment a lot but then the value stopped having any
>>> apparent influence. Except the system slowly ran out of user resources,
>>> and
>>> if you kept opening more files, it would run out sooner, but until going
>>> down the respons of the system didn't seem to be affected by the files
>>> value. (My observation!)
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony. . .
>>>
>>>
>>> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:erExn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> > Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...
>>> >
>>> > You know what?
>>> >
>>> > At the root directory of the drive I found:
>>> >
>>> > AUTOEXEC.BAT
>>> > and its brother
>>> > CONFIG.SYS
>>> >
>>> > The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
>>> > FILES=40
>>> >
>>> > Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...
>>> >
>>> > Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the
>>> > Microsoft
>>> > Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.
>>> >
>>> > jacob
>>> >
>>> > P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint. I
>>> > find
>>> > this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to
>>> > become
>>> > what it is now.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
Yeah, that usually happens when you belong to the "Frequent Poster Program".
Carlos

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> Sorry, getting the name wrong was a mental typo, Carlos.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Yes, Andre - I do remember the tweeking, although what I was most happy
> > with was when I wrote my own animated start menu in 'batch and ansi' and
> > had discreet configurations tweeked for each menu item.
> >
> > I vividly recall those days when I tried to find the optimal setting for
> > 'Links' - by a long shot the most demanding game that I knew at the time.
> > I'd set it up such that the machine re-booted when calling a menu-item and
> > when I left the game it re-booted again into a default configuration, back
> > to the menu. Very complex, and very, very satisfying! Lots of people was
> > thinking, much of all this couldn't be done at all!
> >
> > I cannot remember my Environment value, 1024 seem rather high but I think
> > I ended up doubling the default whatever that was. Maybe that was because
> > I had started setting up a sort of 'sub-routines' in my batch files which
> > meant that each one had a new copy of the environment, and the script
> > didn't suffer that much as a consequence. But the RAM Disks! Man-oh-man -
> > that was a minor science of it's own!
> >
> > Thanks, guys for reminding me!
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> > "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Tony, Jacob:
> >> Speaking of nostalgia I can also recall the buffers setting, which acted
> >> as
> >> disk cache grandfather. Disk cache father was smartdrv.
> >> Also the environment setting which I had to set to E=1024.
> >> That alchemy seemed to make windows 3.1 more stable.
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, I aggree completely. I have not seen it yet, but I am not the least
> >>> bit
> >>> surprised. Like you say - it's reassuring, somehow. The value of 40,
> >>> however, probably isn't all that important - in DOS you actually ran out
> >>> of
> >>> space if you opened that many files - from Win3.1 I believe it became an
> >>> initial value, if you used it the system spawned another 40 I think. At
> >>> the
> >>> time I used to experiment a lot but then the value stopped having any
> >>> apparent influence. Except the system slowly ran out of user resources,
> >>> and
> >>> if you kept opening more files, it would run out sooner, but until going
> >>> down the respons of the system didn't seem to be affected by the files
> >>> value. (My observation!)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tony. . .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>> news:erExn$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>> > Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...
> >>> >
> >>> > You know what?
> >>> >
> >>> > At the root directory of the drive I found:
> >>> >
> >>> > AUTOEXEC.BAT
> >>> > and its brother
> >>> > CONFIG.SYS
> >>> >
> >>> > The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
> >>> > FILES=40
> >>> >
> >>> > Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...
> >>> >
> >>> > Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the
> >>> > Microsoft
> >>> > Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.
> >>> >
> >>> > jacob
> >>> >
> >>> > P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint. I
> >>> > find
> >>> > this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to
> >>> > become
> >>> > what it is now.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>

> >
> >

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
hehe
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yeah, that usually happens when you belong to the "Frequent Poster
> Program".
> Carlos
>
> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>
>> Sorry, getting the name wrong was a mental typo, Carlos.
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Yes, Andre - I do remember the tweeking, although what I was most happy
>> > with was when I wrote my own animated start menu in 'batch and ansi'
>> > and
>> > had discreet configurations tweeked for each menu item.
>> >
>> > I vividly recall those days when I tried to find the optimal setting
>> > for
>> > 'Links' - by a long shot the most demanding game that I knew at the
>> > time.
>> > I'd set it up such that the machine re-booted when calling a menu-item
>> > and
>> > when I left the game it re-booted again into a default configuration,
>> > back
>> > to the menu. Very complex, and very, very satisfying! Lots of people
>> > was
>> > thinking, much of all this couldn't be done at all!
>> >
>> > I cannot remember my Environment value, 1024 seem rather high but I
>> > think
>> > I ended up doubling the default whatever that was. Maybe that was
>> > because
>> > I had started setting up a sort of 'sub-routines' in my batch files
>> > which
>> > meant that each one had a new copy of the environment, and the script
>> > didn't suffer that much as a consequence. But the RAM Disks!
>> > Man-oh-man -
>> > that was a minor science of it's own!
>> >
>> > Thanks, guys for reminding me!
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony. . .
>> >
>> >
>> > "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> Tony, Jacob:
>> >> Speaking of nostalgia I can also recall the buffers setting, which
>> >> acted
>> >> as
>> >> disk cache grandfather. Disk cache father was smartdrv.
>> >> Also the environment setting which I had to set to E=1024.
>> >> That alchemy seemed to make windows 3.1 more stable.
>> >> Carlos
>> >>
>> >> "Tony Sperling" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Yes, I aggree completely. I have not seen it yet, but I am not the
>> >>> least
>> >>> bit
>> >>> surprised. Like you say - it's reassuring, somehow. The value of 40,
>> >>> however, probably isn't all that important - in DOS you actually ran
>> >>> out
>> >>> of
>> >>> space if you opened that many files - from Win3.1 I believe it became
>> >>> an
>> >>> initial value, if you used it the system spawned another 40 I think.
>> >>> At
>> >>> the
>> >>> time I used to experiment a lot but then the value stopped having any
>> >>> apparent influence. Except the system slowly ran out of user
>> >>> resources,
>> >>> and
>> >>> if you kept opening more files, it would run out sooner, but until
>> >>> going
>> >>> down the respons of the system didn't seem to be affected by the
>> >>> files
>> >>> value. (My observation!)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Tony. . .
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >>> news:erExn$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >>> > Recently, I installed Longhorn 64 bits in my machine and...
>> >>> >
>> >>> > You know what?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > At the root directory of the drive I found:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > AUTOEXEC.BAT
>> >>> > and its brother
>> >>> > CONFIG.SYS
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The config.sys of Longhorn took care of specifying
>> >>> > FILES=40
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Yeah, 40 files will be enough for longhorn of course...
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Ahh the roots of the company are still there. Decades later the
>> >>> > Microsoft
>> >>> > Disk Operating System still ticks at the heart of it all.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > jacob
>> >>> >
>> >>> > P.S. This is not meant as a pejorative message or even a complaint.
>> >>> > I
>> >>> > find
>> >>> > this care of supporting old applications has allowed Microsoft to
>> >>> > become
>> >>> > what it is now.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >

>>
>>
>>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: A little nostalgia this morning tony cooper Digital Photography 24 07-07-2010 12:15 PM
Re: A little nostalgia this morning Peter Digital Photography 6 07-03-2010 04:18 PM
Intense Nostalgia - Livid -- Paul -- Computer Support 5 05-06-2006 07:42 PM
00257 1950's Retro Nostalgia 00257 50's Retro Computer Support 0 01-20-2005 08:24 PM
Re: Nostalgia - Most memorable things in the VR Proudly Anonymous Digital Photography 1 10-24-2003 06:25 AM



Advertisments