"Tasword PC" Anyone ?

[WiZard]

[meow2222]

Yes. By run I mean more than one app/window, puppy, antix etc can do a single window on 96M.

If you look at apps & applets on say windows 2, they're tiny compared to today's software. It can be done - DSL is a desktop linux on a 50M disc with over 100 apps. But dsl still needs a lot of ram.

Well, all I can say is my linux attempts did poorly with under 128M.

OTOH my first '98 machine with 32M ram managed even with opera & 30+ tabs open. One thing I don't like about modern software/oses is its endless bloat. I remember all the talk of 98 being bloated, but its anorexic compared to today's OSes.

NT

[mick]

Have you tried Enlightenment? That can run with very little memory.

By the time you get a couple of applications loaded and part of the RAM stolen by the graphics system you can expect problems with low memory. X is nice, but is rather big. You need a leaner window manager than that.

[The Natural Philosopher]

indeed. because frankly ram is cheap

really trying to run modern oses on REALLY old hardware is a bit of an exercise in futility.

If you want to run legacy DOS apps run em on dos boxes on a VM.

On slightly old hardware you do better with linux than trying to put new windows on though.

stuff designed for windows XP runs much better on linux than Vista/win7 IF you can crank the RAM up to a GB or so.

mainly because the manufacturers often didn't write new drivers for older hardware.

[The Natural Philosopher]

X is not a window manger.

Its a graphics interface system.

[mick]

Correct. Sorry. I can only claim confusion due to becoming ancient. :)

Enlightenment E17 should still be good, running directly on top of X. I doubt if there is much smaller than that. Whether it does enough is something else.

[The Natural Philosopher]

but if all you want is a DOS program running on a minimal platform, its easy enough to run a dos emulator, or in a virtualbox.

Linux without a window system will chirp in 64-128MB ram fine.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

It's a hoot, seeing how fast DOS boxes come and go on a modern system. Sometimes they don't, as their writers never thought they'd be running at such speeds, so they go in a sulk.

[meow2222]

bs open. One thing I don't like about modern software/oses is its endless b loat. I remember all the talk of 98 being bloated, but its anorexic compare d to today's OSes.

yup, it does eat cpu cycles too.

Programming's expensive, hardware cheap. The downside is we have systems to day that are in principle of awesome performance, but which are bogged down with grossly bloated OSes and apps. Sometimes I wish it weren't so. Admitt edly I wouldnt want to go back to 98 though.

NT

[ghzputers]

Tasword PC was available, as was Tasword PC 2. One was very similar to Tas word 128 (ZX Spectrum) the other quite different in many respects. My Fath er and I used these programs extensively back in the early 1990's and I sho uld still have a copy of Tasword PC on an old hard drive somewhere.

Note: This is a proper MS DOS version, not a Zx Spectrum emulation.

[Brian Gaff]

Good grief that goes back a way, even for 2012. I used to have the software on a Spectrum back in the 80s and also had the pc version which ran on dos. It was fine as far as it went but it is not a what you see is what you get program, you still need control characters and it used epson control codes on dot matrix printers so could not print to modern printers at all, not even in 2012, I know cos i tried it.

I'd suggest anyone who wants to save memory looks at Jarte by Caroliner Road Software instead. And this is today in 2016. Brian