Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #1808 > unrolled thread

Re: Lightweight Laptops???

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2013-02-20 04:08 -0800
    Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2013-02-20 18:29 -0500
      Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2013-02-20 18:40 -0800
      Re: Lightweight Laptops??? micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2013-02-21 07:05 -0500
        Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 04:49 -0800
          Re: Lightweight Laptops??? micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2013-02-21 10:41 -0500
            Re: Lightweight Laptops??? cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid> - 2013-02-21 19:53 -0800
              Re: Lightweight Laptops??? micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2013-02-22 05:08 -0500
                Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 03:07 -0800
                Re: Lightweight Laptops??? cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid> - 2013-02-22 12:13 -0800
    Re: Lightweight Laptops??? "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 15:28 +1300
      Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2013-02-23 05:08 -0800
        Re: Lightweight Laptops??? micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> - 2013-02-24 02:00 -0500
        Re: Lightweight Laptops??? "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2013-02-26 01:22 +1300
          Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you> - 2013-02-26 08:20 +0000
            Re: Lightweight Laptops??? wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2013-02-26 22:10 +0000
              Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2013-02-27 07:07 +0000
                Re: Lightweight Laptops??? wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2013-03-11 15:31 +0000
                  Re: Lightweight Laptops??? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2013-03-12 09:29 +0000
      Re: Lightweight Laptops??? wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2013-02-26 21:56 +0000
        Re: Lightweight Laptops??? "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 23:01 +1300
          Re: Lightweight Laptops??? wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2013-03-11 15:33 +0000
            Re: Lightweight Laptops??? "~misfit~" <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> - 2013-03-13 14:20 +1300

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1808 — Re: Lightweight Laptops???

On Thursday, July 16, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Chien wrote:

> Easy to carry about, and anything with a 10-11" screen on these
> tiny portables will usually give you 800x600 resolution and enough space
> to be decent under Windows 95.

David, are you sure you wanted to mention W95? WTF!
Sony stuff is all consumer-grade and way over-priced. I would check on Asus for a light weight. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1809

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Bob_Villa wrote:

> On Thursday, July 16, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Chien wrote:
>
>> Easy to carry about, and anything with a 10-11" screen on these
>> tiny portables will usually give you 800x600 resolution and enough space
>> to be decent under Windows 95.
>
> David, are you sure you wanted to mention W95? WTF! Sony stuff is all 
> consumer-grade and way over-priced. I would check on Asus for a light 
> weight.
>
Yes, he wants to run WIndows 95, it's not that old.

The post is from 1998.

Some idiot replied yet again to an old message, it seems for the purpose 
of spamming, and you fell for it, not realizing it was an old thread, even 
though you replied to the original post.

Widnows 95 isn't out of place for a 1998 computer

Any laptop today is likely going to be lighter than the laptops of 1998, 
and with a lot more capability.

But since google still hasnt' fixed the bug that allows replies to 
messages older than 30 days (they had the bug one time before, when they 
upgraded, then they fixed it, but the bug was back with the last 
"upgrade", they not caring since they are really thinking about their own 
"groups" and they see no reason to limit that, even though it is actually 
stupid), idiots can reply to old posts, and others follow, not ever 
wondering where the original post is, not looking at the date.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1811

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:29:11 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:

> 
> >
> 
> Yes, he wants to run WIndows 95, it's not that old.
> 
> 
> 
> The post is from 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> Some idiot replied yet again to an old message, it seems for the purpose 
> 
> of spamming, and you fell for it, not realizing it was an old thread, even 
> 
> though you replied to the original post.
> 
>  
> 
>    Michael

What brought it back...a time machine? I didn't search the archives...it was what appeared to be a new post!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1812

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:29:11 -0500, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Bob_Villa wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, July 16, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Chien wrote:
>>
>>> Easy to carry about, and anything with a 10-11" screen on these
>>> tiny portables will usually give you 800x600 resolution and enough space
>>> to be decent under Windows 95.
>>
>> David, are you sure you wanted to mention W95? WTF! Sony stuff is all 
>> consumer-grade and way over-priced. I would check on Asus for a light 
>> weight.
>>
>Yes, he wants to run WIndows 95, it's not that old.
>
>The post is from 1998.

I have a brand new laptop, still in the box, that's designed to run
Win 95.  Maybe he wants it. 

A friend gave it to me, even though I didnt' want it.   His job gave
it to him about 15 years ago. 

>
>Some idiot replied yet again to an old message, it seems for the purpose 
>of spamming, and you fell for it, not realizing it was an old thread, even 
>though you replied to the original post.
>
>Widnows 95 isn't out of place for a 1998 computer
>
>Any laptop today is likely going to be lighter than the laptops of 1998, 
>and with a lot more capability.
>
>But since google still hasnt' fixed the bug that allows replies to
>messages older than 30 days (they had the bug one time before, when they 
>upgraded, then they fixed it, but the bug was back with the last 
>"upgrade", they not caring since they are really thinking about their own 
>"groups" and they see no reason to limit that, even though it is actually 
>stupid), idiots can reply to old posts, and others follow, not ever 
>wondering where the original post is, not looking at the date.
>
>   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1813

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:05:54 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:

> 
> I have a brand new laptop, still in the box, that's designed to run
> 
> Win 95.  Maybe he wants it. 
> 
> 
> 
> A friend gave it to me, even though I didnt' want it.   His job gave
> 
> it to him about 15 years ago. 
> 

Put it up on eBay?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1817

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:49:07 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
<pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:05:54 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>
>> 
>> I have a brand new laptop, still in the box, that's designed to run
>> 
>> Win 95.  Maybe he wants it. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A friend gave it to me, even though I didnt' want it.   His job gave
>> 
>> it to him about 15 years ago. 
>> 
>
>Put it up on eBay?

Yeah, I should.  I should get organized.   There was a place here that
would wrap for shipping on Ebay, but they're gone now, before I had a
chance to deal with them. .  That's what's really slowing me down,
wrapping the stuff. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1820

On 2/21/2013 7:41 AM, micky wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:49:07 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
> <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:05:54 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I have a brand new laptop, still in the box, that's designed to run
>>>
>>> Win 95.  Maybe he wants it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A friend gave it to me, even though I didnt' want it.   His job gave
>>>
>>> it to him about 15 years ago.
>>>
>>
>> Put it up on eBay?
>
> Yeah, I should.  I should get organized.   There was a place here that
> would wrap for shipping on Ebay, but they're gone now, before I had a
> chance to deal with them. .  That's what's really slowing me down,
> wrapping the stuff.
>
Yeah, I have the same problem with an old but hardly used 8-track tape 
unit. :-(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1821

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:53:38 -0800, cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2/21/2013 7:41 AM, micky wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:49:07 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
>> <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:05:54 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a brand new laptop, still in the box, that's designed to run
>>>>
>>>> Win 95.  Maybe he wants it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A friend gave it to me, even though I didnt' want it.   His job gave
>>>>
>>>> it to him about 15 years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Put it up on eBay?
>>
>> Yeah, I should.  I should get organized.   There was a place here that
>> would wrap for shipping on Ebay, but they're gone now, before I had a
>> chance to deal with them. .  That's what's really slowing me down,
>> wrapping the stuff.
>>
>Yeah, I have the same problem with an old but hardly used 8-track tape 
>unit. :-(

I had a hard time finding search words.  I tried     
    shipping service ebay       and google gave me a bunch of pages on
Ebay.com about shipping.

Eventualy I used       wrapping and shipping service        and hoped
some hits would mention Ebay, but none did.  Basicaly I got 3 hits,
UPS, Fedex and "The Packaging Store" whose closest branch is 40 miles
from here (Baltimore) and whose 3rd closest branch is in Queens NY!!!

That leaves UPS and Fedex, not all of whose locations do this stuff,
but each has one 3 or 4 miles from me,, right across the street from
each other, which I think does.   I think my computer might be worth
more than an 8-track player (no offense) so I'll take it over and try
to find out how to predict their wrapping charge, and shipping charge.

(I suppose they do as good or better a job than the one that actually
mentioned Ebay.   I sort of thought the Ebay place would walk me t
hrough it holding my hand, but I don't suppose I need that. ) 

Then I have to sign up for Paypal selling, which is probably easy.

Then I have to take pictures, which I know will annoy me. 

But it's not fair for me to hog this thing when someone might really
want it.   Has its own nylon carry bag, all the instructions.   I'm so
short of time these days, but if after two or three sales, I can get
the posting time down to 10 minutes, 10 minutes to drop off the item,
the shipping address and a handwritten invoice (or a copy of what Ebay
sends me.) and 10 minutes to watch the auction procede, heck that is
still too much.         I also need the space at home. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1822

On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:08:15 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:53:38 -0800, cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid>
> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >On 2/21/2013 7:41 AM, micky wrote:
> 
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:49:07 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
> 
> >> <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:05:54 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>> I have a brand new laptop, still in the box, that's designed to run
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>> Win 95.  Maybe he wants it.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>> A friend gave it to me, even though I didnt' want it.   His job gave
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>> it to him about 15 years ago.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> Put it up on eBay?
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Yeah, I should.  I should get organized.   There was a place here that
> 
> >> would wrap for shipping on Ebay, but they're gone now, before I had a
> 
> >> chance to deal with them. .  That's what's really slowing me down,
> 
> >> wrapping the stuff.
> 
> >>
> 
> >Yeah, I have the same problem with an old but hardly used 8-track tape 
> 
> >unit. :-(
> 
> 
> 
> I had a hard time finding search words.  I tried     
> 
>     shipping service ebay       and google gave me a bunch of pages on
> 
> Ebay.com about shipping.
> 
> 
> 
> Eventualy I used       wrapping and shipping service        and hoped
> 
> some hits would mention Ebay, but none did.  Basicaly I got 3 hits,
> 
> UPS, Fedex and "The Packaging Store" whose closest branch is 40 miles
> 
> from here (Baltimore) and whose 3rd closest branch is in Queens NY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> That leaves UPS and Fedex, not all of whose locations do this stuff,
> 
> but each has one 3 or 4 miles from me,, right across the street from
> 
> each other, which I think does.   I think my computer might be worth
> 
> more than an 8-track player (no offense) so I'll take it over and try
> 
> to find out how to predict their wrapping charge, and shipping charge.
> 
> 
> 
> (I suppose they do as good or better a job than the one that actually
> 
> mentioned Ebay.   I sort of thought the Ebay place would walk me t
> 
> hrough it holding my hand, but I don't suppose I need that. ) 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have to sign up for Paypal selling, which is probably easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I have to take pictures, which I know will annoy me. 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not fair for me to hog this thing when someone might really
> 
> want it.   Has its own nylon carry bag, all the instructions.   I'm so
> 
> short of time these days, but if after two or three sales, I can get
> 
> the posting time down to 10 minutes, 10 minutes to drop off the item,
> 
> the shipping address and a handwritten invoice (or a copy of what Ebay
> 
> sends me.) and 10 minutes to watch the auction procede, heck that is
> 
> still too much.         I also need the space at home.

And yet...you had time to write all this! ^L^

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1823

On 2/22/2013 2:08 AM, micky wrote:
> I think my computer might be worth
> more than an 8-track player (no offense)

Not if my 8-track is treated as a museum piece and your laptop is not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1824

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bob_Villa wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16, 1998 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Chien wrote:
>
>> Easy to carry about, and anything with a 10-11" screen on these
>> tiny portables will usually give you 800x600 resolution and enough
>> space to be decent under Windows 95.
>
> David, are you sure you wanted to mention W95? WTF!
> Sony stuff is all consumer-grade and way over-priced. I would check
> on Asus for a light weight.

I am still to find a compelling reason to upgrade my 'ultraportable' machine 
from the 2005 IBM X32 I currently use.

It has a 1.8GHz Pentium M [Dothan - 2MB L2], is maxed at 2GB RAM, has a 
160GB IDE HDD, 11" screen (1024x768) and is light and lasts for hours on a 
battery. (I have a half-dozen spare bats of varying capacities.)

It's all titanium, magnesium alloy and fibre-reinforced plastic and is just 
great. Classic pre-Lenovo IBM build quality. It came with XP Pro but I have 
Win 7 in a dual-boot config. The only thing that bugs me a bit about it is 
the wireless is linited to 'g', you can't get 'n' mini-PCI adaptors 
(TTBOMK).
-- 
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a 
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1825

On Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28:35 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
The only thing that bugs me a bit about it is 
> 
> the wireless is limited to 'g', you can't get 'n' mini-PCI adaptors 
> 

Shaun, seriously, it's all bragging rights anyway! "g" is still plenty fast...and you never know if you're notched back to a slower speed anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1827

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 05:08:13 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa
<pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28:35 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
>The only thing that bugs me a bit about it is 
>> 
>> the wireless is limited to 'g', you can't get 'n' mini-PCI adaptors 
>> 
>
>Shaun, seriously, it's all bragging rights anyway! "g" is still plenty fast...and you never know if you're notched back to a slower speed anyway.

Verizon is trying to promote Fios by saying you can dl a movie in 2
minutes.  So what.?  It still takes 90 minutes or more to watch it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1836

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Bob_Villa wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28:35 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:
> The only thing that bugs me a bit about it is
>>
>> the wireless is limited to 'g', you can't get 'n' mini-PCI adaptors
>
> Shaun, seriously, it's all bragging rights anyway! "g" is still
> plenty fast...and you never know if you're notched back to a slower
> speed anyway.

Yeah, it's not about the speed. Because this is my portable machine I've run 
into problems a couple times. At least once was because they'd only got 'n' 
enabled in the 5GHz band as the 2.4GHz was overcrowded and other times I've 
hit range / sensitivity issues.

At home, with my own WAP it's absolutely fine. :)  Heh, s'funny when I take 
my X32 out in public. In a place where most everything else is silver or 
grey and widescreen it really draws attention. Some people stare at it, 
others try to glance when they think I'm not looking and others comment on 
it. Comments like "Good to see a real laptop" or "You're into old-school 
gear huh?". Feedback is universally positive, odd when, with computers it's 
usually about the latest and greatest, newest and niftiest - I always get 
positive feedback and I'm using tech that's near a decade old.

I think it's mostly that classic ThinkPad black finish and the 
red/green/blue IBM logo. LOL, here in NZ I can pick up an entry-level small 
laptop new for >NZ$500 now yet the X32 when new sold for over three grand!

I love my X32 (well, X32s as I have two of them). They're about the rarest 
ThinkPad made in the last decade. IBM were discontinuing the [Banais 
powered] X31 and had bought out the X40, a slightly thinner Dothan powered 
ultraportable. However they'd gone for low-speed ULV CPUs and dog-slow 1.8" 
4,200rpm HDDs and some of their biggest customers complained. In response 
IBM did a limited run of uprated X31s, only for about six months, concurrent 
with their X40 range. They fitted what were fast and powerful CPUs for 
ultraportables (full speed Dothans rather than the ULV chips usually fitted 
to the smallest laptops) and called them X32s. (The CPUs are soldered to the 
planar, they're too thin to use a socket.)

Sorry, got a bit OT there. G'nite.
-- 
/Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a 
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1837

On 25 Feb 2013, ~misfit~ wrote:

> At home, with my own WAP it's absolutely fine. :)  Heh,
> s'funny when I take my X32 out in public. In a place where
> most everything else is silver or grey and widescreen it
> really draws attention. Some people stare at it, others try
> to glance when they think I'm not looking and others
> comment on it. Comments like "Good to see a real laptop" or
> "You're into old-school gear huh?". Feedback is universally
> positive, odd when, with computers it's usually about the
> latest and greatest, newest and niftiest - I always get 
> positive feedback and I'm using tech that's near a decade
> old. 

Well that's strange. My "new laptop" is circa around 2002 and if 
someone commented on its age, I'd probably be taken aback 
(though the BIOS battery died a couple of days ago, so I guess I 
might qualify it as getting on a bit now).

Another laptop I make regular use of is my Toshiba 1910CS from 
1993. No really, I do. I used this at the local library for 
quite some time as I attempted to get it to work with the Wifi 
there (no I'm not being stupid, I had it working with another, 
almost brand new wireless router, but I never could get it to 
connect at the library for some reason). Now I had many people 
pass me by during that time, want to guess how many commented 
that I was using a yellowed twenty year old laptop? ONE! 
Actually he thought it was some kind of modification.

I do actually have more modern laptops, albeit in various states 
of disrepair. But I hate how they turn into furnaces on your lap 
after less than an hour's work, while my T1910CS rarely gets 
warm, and it doesn't even have a fan.

> I think it's mostly that classic ThinkPad black finish and
> the red/green/blue IBM logo. LOL, here in NZ I can pick up
> an entry-level small laptop new for >NZ$500 now yet the X32
> when new sold for over three grand! 

Wow, I think that's more than the T1910CS sold for over a decade 
earlier (though I got it second hand). And you bought two! No 
wonder you're still using them.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1839

In article <XnsA173C4B7CDB3BCSKJHNMW985780A@94.75.214.90>,
Computer Nerd Kev  <not@telling.you> wrote:
>
>Another laptop I make regular use of is my Toshiba 1910CS from 
>1993. No really, I do. I used this at the local library for 

	Well, I'm all for repurposing supposedly obsolete equipment,
but, really, a 486?  With, what, a whole 4 MB of ram?  What do you
run on the thing?  It's a PIA even getting Linux on one of those because
it's hard to find a useful distribution that will boot from floppy.  

	Hey, here's a cheap way to boost disc space:  get a couple of those
old 1" Seagate or Hitachi compact flash format disc drives.  They used them
in handhelds circa 2000.  Now a simple CF to IDE adapter and your 200 MB
hard disc morphs into an actually useful 5GB!  It's way easier than trying
to find a modern drive big enough to fit the carrier but small enough so that
the BIOS recognizes it.

PS- just superglue the CF adapter to the carrier :-)

>after less than an hour's work, while my T1910CS rarely gets 
>warm, and it doesn't even have a fan.

	Where do you get batteries for the thing???

	My favorite obsolete laptop is a Tadpole, an actual miniature Sparc
workstation with I think an 85Mhz SPARC running SunOS 4.2...  The batteries
are these giant NiCad rods...  Long ago kaput.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1840

On 27 Feb 2013, the wharf rat wrote:

> In article <XnsA173C4B7CDB3BCSKJHNMW985780A@94.75.214.90>,
> Computer Nerd Kev  <not@telling.you> wrote:
>>
>>Another laptop I make regular use of is my Toshiba 1910CS
>>from 1993. No really, I do. I used this at the local
>>library for 
> 
>      Well, I'm all for repurposing supposedly obsolete
>      equipment, 
> but, really, a 486?  With, what, a whole 4 MB of ram?  What
> do you run on the thing?

Pah, 4MB RAM of course one could never put up with such a puny 
amount. Naturally I have the 4MB RAM expansion that opens your 
computing the world to the vast spaces of 8MB RAM.

Naturally with such vast amounts of working space, there are 
practically no limits to what my 33MHz 486 can process. Forget 
the dark days of DOS, that is relegated to a mere boot option, 
now the wonders of Windows 95 can be thrust onto the "CS" 
model's Colour Screen.

WordPad, IrfanView (ahh, beautiful pictures destroyed by a 16 
colour display) and Tetris. Even a spell checker it took me 
ages to find, all are at my fingertips as they rest on the 
keys of this marvelous, cream coloured machine.

> It's a PIA even getting Linux on
> one of those because it's hard to find a useful
> distribution that will boot from floppy.

I say, do you mean that such wondrous distributions such as 
Basic Linux are of no use? Why, when booted from DOS, even the 
4MB of a standard T1910 can support such wondrous applications 
as terminal based word processors and Email software. It may 
even bask the user in the wondrous World Wide Web in its text 
mode rendition granted by the all powerful "Links" Web 
Browser.

Not even an X windows system is beyond its reach! Err, as long 
as you have a spare quarter hour for it to load.

>      Hey, here's a cheap way to boost disc space:  get a
>      couple of those 
> old 1" Seagate or Hitachi compact flash format disc drives.

Yep, that can be a great solution for old machines, especially 
where the HDD has died. But there are a few reasons why I 
didn't do that with this machine:

1. I'm something of a collector of old computers, portables in 
particular (earliest one is 1986, but I'd love to get and old 
8-bit one). As a result, I like to use the original (130MB in 
my case) HDD.
2. I use my trusty PCMCIA to CF adapter to keep large, 
irregularly used programs and save documents. This way, it's 
easy to share documents between computers and also change 
software.
3. I've got 10MB left on the HDD at the moment. Now that may 
sound appalling, but I'm only ever likely to add RTF when I 
don't have a CF card, and on rare occasions, tiny, kilobyte 
range, programs. This set-up has been the same for over a year 
now and its worked fine.

>      Where do you get batteries for the thing???

Well I replaced the BIOS battery a few years ago with a new 
NiMH coin cell that I bought from a specialty battery store. 
That was quite a guessing game without the service manual I'll 
tell you (I still wonder how you were meant to remove the 
motherboard). There was also a "backup" battery that looked 
like a AA rechargeable, but I couldn't find out the specs so I 
couldn't replace it (turns out it was only needed for the 
"resume" function anyway).

Now as for what you really mean, the main laptop battery, a 
weighty NiMH. This was of course dead and I put it aside some 
years ago for the aim of cutting it open, replacing the cells 
inside (if they weren't too expensive) and gluing it back 
together again. Problem is, I lost the battery and after some 
years, I still can't find it for the life of me. Hence, I just 
use the machine with the AC transformer. In fact the battery 
in my ThinkPad R31 is dead too, so it can seem a strange 
sensation for me to use a laptop without a cable running to 
the wall.

>      My favorite obsolete laptop is a Tadpole, an actual
>      miniature Sparc 
> workstation with I think an 85Mhz SPARC running SunOS
> 4.2...  The batteries are these giant NiCad rods...  Long
> ago kaput.

Oh, that does sound like fun. I have a business targeted x86 
laptop from the same era with a 100MHz 486, but that 
"Tadpole" really is something special.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1842

In article <XnsA174B8651240DCSKJHNMW985780A@94.75.214.90>,
Computer Nerd Kev  <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>I say, do you mean that such wondrous distributions such as 
>Basic Linux are of no use? Why, when booted from DOS, even the 

	Yeah, I wanted a real linux that booted from the hard drive.  Finally
went with an old Slackware distribution.  After I found a couple of those
playing card size CF'ish memory upgrades on line somewhere I even had
enough memory to run X.


>Not even an X windows system is beyond its reach! Err, as long 
>as you have a spare quarter hour for it to load.

	I swapped out the teeny little hard drive for a 2GB ZIF SDD
plugged into an adaptor. It helped.  Still, compared to my (relatively)
brand new Dell C400 it was hardly worth the mWh it took to boot it... :-)

>Oh, that does sound like fun. I have a business targeted x86 
>laptop from the same era with a 100MHz 486, but that 
>"Tadpole" really is something special.

	Yeah, uses a little Apple scsi disc and cost something like
10 grand when it was new.  Looks like a Thinkpad.  In fact, Tadpole bought
unlabeled Thinkpad cases (and keyboards) from IBM to put its little Suns
into.

	I'm more of a hacker than collector, and spend too much time trying to
"upgrade" ancient stuff so I can say I'm still using it :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1844

On 12 Mar 2013, the wharf rat wrote:

> In article <XnsA174B8651240DCSKJHNMW985780A@94.75.214.90>,
> Computer Nerd Kev  <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>I say, do you mean that such wondrous distributions such as
>>Basic Linux are of no use? Why, when booted from DOS, even
>>the 
> 
>      Yeah, I wanted a real linux that booted from the hard
>      drive.  Finally 
> went with an old Slackware distribution.  After I found a
> couple of those playing card size CF'ish memory upgrades on
> line somewhere I even had enough memory to run X.

I was going to install Basic Linux to the HDD but things got 
too tight trying to make the partitions. In the end I figured 
why not just leave it to live with W95? I set it up to boot 
into DOS so I just type the relevant word to bring up my 
desired OS.

>>Oh, that does sound like fun. I have a business targeted
>>x86 laptop from the same era with a 100MHz 486, but that 
>>"Tadpole" really is something special.
> 
>      Yeah, uses a little Apple scsi disc and cost something
>      like 
> 10 grand when it was new.  Looks like a Thinkpad.  In fact,
> Tadpole bought unlabeled Thinkpad cases (and keyboards)
> from IBM to put its little Suns into.

Ahh, I think you just set me up for false hope whenever I see 
an old ThinkPad!

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1838

In article <kg99ep$osf$1@dont-email.me>,
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I am still to find a compelling reason to upgrade my 'ultraportable' machine 
>from the 2005 IBM X32 I currently use.
>
>It has a 1.8GHz Pentium M [Dothan - 2MB L2], is maxed at 2GB RAM, has a 
>160GB IDE HDD, 11" screen (1024x768) and is light and lasts for hours on a 
>battery. (I have a half-dozen spare bats of varying capacities.)
>

	Lol, practically the same machine I use.  Does everything I need and
it has a serial port. (Well, on the "media slice"...) I tried X40's and
51's but ended up back with this one...  An X40 with an ssd is another good
choice; the trick is to get a regular format 1.8" and use a converter instead
of paying for that wierd sideways drive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops

csiph-web