China DOS Union

RPL & PXE diskless has limited performance.
Commercially, some use WinCE to boot clients. If mini win98 includes the TCP/IP protocol within a size of a little over ten megabytes, then it could use a small piece of software to connect to winxp and run programs on winxp.

At least two advantages:
1. Old machines at home could all be put to use, able to go online, do office work, even run any winxp program.
2. No need for the cumbersome setup of RPL & PXE diskless booting; it boots locally. mini win98 can be customized by yourself, selecting only the needed drivers. You can keep the hard disk, or take it under winxp and use software RAID to improve read/write performance.

RPL & PXE diskless has limited performance.
Commercially, some use WinCE to boot clients. If mini win98 includes the TCP/IP protocol within a size of a little over ten megabytes, then it could use a small piece of software to connect to winxp and run programs on winxp.
limit


Level: Newbie
Posts: 10
Credits: 72
Registered: 2003-2-
At least two advantages:
1. Old machines at home could all be put to use, able to go online, do office work, even run any winxp program.
2. No need for the cumbersome setup of RPL & PXE diskless booting; it boots locally. mini win98 can be customized by yourself, selecting only the needed drivers. You can keep the hard disk, or take it under winxp and use software RAID to improve read/write performance.

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Use a remote terminal? Then there's no need to use mini98 either! win3.1 or dos would do!

I can do it with dos6.22, connecting from the Internet to win2000server and running the programs in it, with true color and sound, and the running speed is just as fast as the server!

This is the terminal using dos6.22:

The following is quoted from 007cf at 2003-10-7 22:50:32:
I can do it with DOS 6.22 — connect over the Internet to a Win2000 Server and run the programs on it, with true color, with sound, and the running speed is just as fast as on the server itself!

Why is the DOS version so old? Are you really still using DOS 6.22 now instead of a newer DOS version?

Old has its own advantages! Old wine is more fragrant! As long as it can connect to the server over the network, any dos will do!

The following is quoted from 007cf at 2003-10-7 22:55:06:
这就是从用dos6.22的终端：

This P133 notebook can play CS?

"dos6.22 connecting from the Internet to win2000server and running the programs in it, with true color and sound"----------

DOS as a terminal can have true color and sound? Could you explain in a bit more detail? What connection software are you using?

This way, a single floppy disk could run programs under win2000!

The following is quoted from 007cf at 2003-10-8 0:29:37:
Old has its old-time virtues! Like wine, the older it is, the better it smells! As long as it can connect to the server over the network, any DOS will do!

I never said DOS was old, and naturally even very old versions of DOS can handle this most basic function. DOS represents freedom, openness, and development; it has a very wide range of uses, and its future is bright as well. But the DOS version you're using really is too old, only 6.22. It doesn't support large hard disks, large memory, long file names, FAT16X/FAT32/FAT32X drives, and other features that are currently the most useful (you could even say essential). But newer DOS versions, such as MS-DOS 7.10 and ROM-DOS 7.10, support all of these. Old DOS versions should be abandoned, and newer DOS versions should be used, moving toward a new era of DOS, so that DOS can truly be further promoted, advanced, and developed.

The following is quoted from Wengier at 2003-10-8 9:48:44:

The following is quoted from 007cf at 2003-10-8 0:29:37:
The old has its old virtues! Old wine is fragrant! As long as it can connect to the server over the network, any DOS will do!

I never said DOS is old, and of course even very old versions of DOS can handle this most basic function. DOS stands for freedom, openness, and development; it has a very wide range of uses, and its future is bright as well. But the DOS version you're using is really too old, only 6.22. It doesn't support any of the most useful features at present (you could even say essential ones), such as large hard disks, large memory, long filenames, FAT16X/FAT32/FAT32X drives, and so on. But newer DOS versions, such as MS-DOS 7.10 and ROM-DOS 7.10, support all of these. Old versions of DOS should be abandoned, newer versions of DOS should be used, and we should move toward a new DOS era. Only then can DOS truly be further popularized, promoted, and developed.

As a system for connecting to terminal services, what do you need all those messy features for? As long as it's streamlined enough and can connect to the terminal server over the network, that's enough!!!!

Support for large hard disks is a "messy function"??? Then what are the large hard disks we use now for???

The following is quoted from Wengier at 2003-10-8 23:42:54:
Support for large hard disks is a “mess of useless features”??? Then what are the large hard disks we use now for???

Sheesh, why is nobody reading carefully, just taking things out of context.

The premise is connecting to terminal services. In that case, do you need large hard disk support, large memory support, or long filename support???? As long as it can connect to the network, the smaller the better, so it's convenient to write it into certain ROMs.

So it turns out that the original idea of the tiny Windows97-on-CD actually has so much spark in common with everyone's ideas about mini98. Truly, the benevolent see benevolence, the wise see wisdom.
At first, the mini97 I made for myself was not slim enough, and was actually 40M; later I gradually reduced and improved it, and now I use mini98 instead (around 20M, though of course it can't connect to the network). My main purpose is repairing computers. The CD can hold a large number of maintenance tools, especially maintenance tools that run in the Windows9x interface, such as: KV Repair King / recoverNT / WINRAR and so on. Of course, I don't understand LANs/protocols and such very well, but for repairing a standalone machine with this mini98, it is more than enough. Hehe.

Personally I think the main role of Mini98 is still maintaining standalone machines.
As for the rest, the main issue is drivers. Of course, if you add generic drivers for 8139 and the like into this Mini98, it's not that it can't be done, but the biggest problem with 98 is rebooting... After a system on CD or virtual disk reboots, what meaning does it still have....
Besides, this world doesn't have only one kind of 8139, right.

Honestly, the reason I prefer WinPE more is that it supports more devices. With 800M of CD space, a little luxury should be allowed...

The following is quoted from cn_archer at 2003-10-9 23:58:14:

To be honest, the reason I prefer WinPE more is that it supports more devices. With 800M of CD space, a bit of luxury is acceptable...

Getting Simplified Chinese WINPE down to around 80M is no problem! I've seen people abroad get it to 40~50M already. Actually this has nothing to do with size. The key is the virtual DISK used as TEMP. Right now, the RAM disks produced by several methods can't work with the hard disk disabled, including the recent RAMDISKXP. If this problem is solved, PE will be much more useful. But strangely, disks made under 98 can do it!
But a flower vase can only be used to hold things; aside from showing off a bit in front of newbies, it's of no use at all.