Elonex 386 battery (again)

In message , Bob Eager writes

Excellent. Worth a 'last resort' try if all else fails.

That's pretty well what I suggested over a week ago. :-)

I know it was. But I remembered that there was a bit more detail around, so I took it upon me to dig it up! I had a number of PS/2 Model 55SX systems at one point.

Indeed, but, at least for me, very much a last resort! In the meantime, I have ordered a new chip as linked by Theo, and will see what happens. Worth a punt for eight pounds.

I think it must have been twenty years ago now when the Dallas clock chip issue came up. I remember perusing a circuit diagram that showed a pair of Lithium coin cells connected independently to the chip which had 'battery management' built in, presumably the later version with the additional 4K cmos ram built in.

ISTR digging away the potting compound from one of these Dallas chips, probably just out of pure curiosity rather than to effect a repair. It didn't seem too difficult a job to replace the cell(s) in one of these things, you just needed to proceed cautiously if you wanted to actually reuse it again after replacing the dead cell(s).

In message , Theo writes

Theo, you are a star. You are all stars. Chip arrived yesterday, plugged in and away! Well, almost - I had to re-enter hard and floppy disk details, but luckily, in the box [1], I found a printout from Seagate I downloaded in 1999, with full details. Updated time and date, and away we went. Booted to the DOS prompt, and I was quite pleased I could remember a few basic commands, without recourse to the manual. Typed WIN and 3.1 loaded, with much disk crunching. Rebooted this morning, and time/date still correct.

What surprised me was how little was on the disk - I must have deleted all docts etc. [2] when that PC was replaced. Turnpike (Demonites will understand) was still there, so I ran that, only to see a warning that the date was far in the future! Well, it would be. There were some newsgroups postings, but unfortunately, TP automatically deleted them as they were more than three days old - actually 20 years!

I think you could probably run PC-NFS or PC TCP on that and get an IP stack up...

Was it Windows for WorkGropes that had the first netBEUI stack? I think that Win 95 was the first native TCP/IP stack.

Those were the days of Novell Netware!

Turnpike? Very advanced. KA9Q for me when I started with Demon!

SteveW

I still have the stuff for TCP/IP, and NETBEUI.

On DOS.

Yebbut that would be post WFW.

Dos was just the 'kernel' over which win 1-3 ran IIRC.

"A Winsock package was required to support TCP/IP networking in Windows

But networking was an addon until Win 95.

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

I think I still have a couple of boxes of Novell installation disks!

Remember the fun of installing from disk? Multiple boxes of disks, inserted one by one. Such fun.

TP was standard by the time I joined Demon. Still have my original installation disks, and the orange manuals. Sending this message using TP, too.

I switched over to a Sun SPARCstation for Demon before TP came in (and wrote a FAQ for connecting Unix to them.)

How can one forget! It's been just over twenty years since I last had to do a full install of NW3.12. Checking my Banx two wide by four tall disk storage 'cabinet' I found a 19 floppy disk set for NW 3.11 and a 21 floppy disk set for NW 3.12, all 1.44MB HD floppies, along with a few extra client OS driver and utilities disks.

I persisted with NW 3.12 for nearly a decade before giving up and trying a Debian based server setup configured by my daughter?s boyfriend/fiancé, now my SiL.

The thing that had bugged me about Novell's NW 3.12 was, despite all the successive hardware upgrades from the original NEC PowerMate II 8MHz clocked 80286 powered 16MB system with 3Com 10BASE2 adapter and a 16MB RAM ISA card with a full height 5.25 inch 300MB ESDI HDD to a 486 with

I rather liked administering its setup but enough was enough (Novell had chosen to use the same business model that IBM had used with their leasing of Mainframes and Minicomputers in making their customers pay extra for upgrading the speed limit of the CPU(s), often literally simply at the flick of a switch). In this case, it was the imposition of a network connection speed limit carefully crafted into the NOS itself.

Once I had moved to a Linux based server, my network speeds shot up to

I started using FreeNAS in March 2006 after trying a few of the ready made free Server alternatives that were around at the time, none of which were any better than that Debian setup in regard of performance or consistency of performance.

Out of about three or four free server projects I'd tried out around that time, ClarkConnect is the only one I can recall by name off the top of my head right now. I tried them all before stumbling across FreeNAS which proved a very effective server all round. I've never felt any desire to move on from FreeNAS (now NAS4Free) simply because there isn't, imo, a better alternative to move on to, other than possibly its closest rival, "FreeNAS(tm iXsystems)".

Those days of feeding 19 or 21 floppy disks into the drive one by one with some of them being fed in more than once, are now long gone, never to return, thank Ghod!.

# Not linuxes weak ETHERnet performance. Just a feature of SAMBA and te SMB protocol as delievered out of te box.

I can saturate 100MBPs with NFS...