• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

What's the WORST setup you've ever done/used/seen?

arrow_runner

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
530
Location
Cincinnati Ohio
A little bit after Windows 98 came out, I installed Windows 95 on my Packard Bell 386SX 16MHz. I think it had 4 or 8mb ram and a 40mb hard drive. It was pretty much my only computer at the time so I got the Win95 upgrade for my birthday for $100. The 98 upgrade was only $90 but I knew it wouldn't work.

Holy. Crap. What a mistake that was...
 
Holy. Crap. What a mistake that was...

I notice that most discarded computers have an "upgraded" OS. If they originally came with 95 they now have 98. If they came with XP, they now have Vista. Always, people ignore the hardware and end up with a machine that is barely (if at all) workable. That's when they get a new one - right according to plan. :) A serious computerist will change the hardware to match the OS, or change the OS to match the hardware.
 
Ole, I don't think you can upgrade W95 to W98 on a 386SX. FWIW, I'm still running W95 on a 386DX16 with 13MB of memory. It's very slow...

But for me, hands down, it's trying to do real work on a CDC STAR-1B.
 
Ole, I don't think you can upgrade W95 to W98 on a 386SX.

Oops. I bet one can't either. After that spaghetti dinner, I'm not playing with a full deck. :) Yep, I missed the 386SX bit and proceeded right to my usual rant. :)

But for me, hands down, it's trying to do real work on a CDC STAR-1B.

Now that's right on topic - and impressive. My worst experience is much more benign - trying to run a usable Firefox on a PII-266 with 64MB ram. It works, but there's no flash for FF versions less than 3.0 and I found I had to go to (the otherwise very good) version 1.5 to match the hardware. Debian runs fine, but browsing without flash is difficult if it isn't for just the text - and sometimes even then.
 
I bet if the 386sx16 was running dos and Geoworks may have pleasurable experience.

The silly things we do when we are young. Mind you my 286/16 with 4 mb of ram ran win3.1 ok.

Running RH 7.3 on a P200mmx was painful until I ditched Gnome/Nautilus as the default desktop setup. Went to Window Maker with some carefully selected Gnome 1.x programs, some terminal programs along with Opera and it was a lot better. Still is and can give some later systems a good run. On the bright side it correctly detected all the hardware on the machine as well.
 
Last edited:
I think the worst setup experience that I can remember (there's probably something worse lurking around in my brain that's been blanked out, I'll wager) was related to setting up a prog we'd "developed".
(I say "developed", because the prog was fairly simple in that it moved a bunch of bytes around, resequenced some stuff, and shot it out the T1/E1 end.)
This was a while ago. It dealt with ISA-based Dialogic 4-channel voice boards, and ISA based Dialogic T1/E1 boards.
If you've never worked with the old Dialogic stuff, well, the configuration files they required were kinda fussy, and the boards wanted an external process to push the program into firmware before the board actually came alive.
Not too weird, except the configuration files were *very* hardware and locale specific, down to such oddities as to what the expected noise level of the line, in dB/m was, and so on.
They can't really be rolled out, someone has to fuss with them on site.
This tale has to do with Puerto Rico, and I don't speak a lick of Puerto-Rican.
Now, the sensible thing to do would have been to send me, or someone else, over, to do the magic twiddling, aided by various dohickies to determine the line quality. Really more of an issue on the T1 part of it.
But that was a no-go because of policy.
So, we spent *years* winding our non-Puerto-Rican speaking way through non-English speaking users on the telephone, getting them to try editing various config files, trying to figure out (remotely) just in what custodian's closet the secret DSU was in, trying to understand exactly how the phone system works, yada..yada...

Needless to say, we never got it wired up.
It also led me to the conclusion that if the Puerto Ricans want to form there own country, great, more power to them. It's gotta suck living in this half-shadow U.S. Territory/Possession status.

patscc
 
The worst I ever had to use professionally was a phone prompt system that was centered around an IBM AT with 1.5 MB memory running OS/2 1.0. The software for the menu prompting was running into memory limits and each change had to be carefully modified to prevent swapping; the interactive voice files took too long to load; and the system needed to boot into the DOS compatibility box weekly in order to import files from the 9-track to the DBASE files that provided the values the phone system gave to callers. That system also had to be used for development because the interactive voice programming system only ran on a system that had the specific cards installed. Writing code on-site for a system that was easily a decade out of date for its targeted usage with no chance to test or design in a safe environment was not ideal.
 
krebizfan gripped
from the 9-track to the DBASE files
That just kinda gives you a real kick, pain-waise, in the you-know-what below the belt stuff where,'pon receiving said kick, 'bout half the population kinda starts to howl.
'atscc
 
my worst was an AST PC with a pentium 133 running windows 95. I seemed to always be having some kind of problem with that thing. me and my friends ended up saying AST must of stood for "Advanced Satanic Torture"

my second worst was the PC i had in the early 2000's. a generic 1ghz pent 3 compaq running windows ME, kind with the coloered cheap plastic front plate. it did its job well enough i suppose but it was just so..."meh" and really didn't have many upgrade or expansion possibilities.
 
My dad got a free PC from etrade back in the late 90s, and gave it to me. It was a PII based Celeron 400 on an i810 chipset. No discrete graphics. I played halflife on that thing, it was awful. For a few years it was essentially an irc and nesticle machine. I was eventually able to get a geforce 2mx for it, which made it slightly more useful but the CPU was underpowered by that time. I was really happy the day I was able to strip it and dump it on the curb.
 
Ah, Win95 on an original 386. IMO the unfortunate thing is that it took *10 years* after Intel launched the 386 for 32-bit programming to finally become popular with Win95 (partly thanks to the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco, see my comments on os2museum blog, and look up "MS OS/2 2.0 SDK" and "Microsoft Munchkins"). And as you can see, MS dropped support for the 386 with Win98 and NT4 soon afterwards leaving it unable to run most modern Win32 programs. Ah well, too late... The x64 transition went much better, needless to say.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if I would term it popular. More of a shot-gun wedding. Does anyone remember thunking ?
Ah, thunking and the Win16Mutex. Win95's Win32 implementation could be considered a much better version of Win32s, and was what made Win32 popular. This reminds me of PX00307 (these MS anti-trust exhibits have many emails discussing the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco). Notice that Paul Maritz thought that Windows "32-bit extenders" such as the aforementioned Win32s could replace OS/2 2.0, missing the fact that they have problems such as no memory protection and no multithreading. Win95's Win32 implementation fixed some but not all of these problems. For example, while preemptive multitasking and multithreading was supported, the aforementioned Win16Mutex refers to how Win9x executed Win16 code which expected cooperative multitasking which was done by taking a single lock that was shared across the whole system (and even Win32 programs thunked to Win16 or otherwise took the lock sometimes like when calling USER32). OS/2 did have the SIQ but that was much easier to fix (IBM later did it in a FixPak for Warp 3).
 
Last edited:
MS dropped support for the 386 with Win98
http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/386vers.htm Seems it can run on a 386. Probably painful though. Really whether it does or not run on a 386 is quite a mute point as Pentium class PCs were in full production by the time Win98 and NT4 came out along with the PCI bus.

FWIW I wouldn't run OS/2 v3 or 4 on a 386. Or NT 3.x for that matter.
 
Last edited:
I think Microsoft simply stopped bothering to check if systems much more than 5 years old could run an upgrade. Win 3 had problems with some early 386 motherboards; 486 motherboards tended to be a little more standarised.

But some of these discussions should focus more on the hardware available at the time. Memory protection is much easier to justify when you have lots of cheap memory to waste; when protecting each application would need an extra 4MB of RAM and RAM cost $100 per megabyte, unprotected DOS extenders sharing a common memory space is about the only way to keep a system affordable. Even for OS/2 2.0 several years later, it was common for magazines to suggest using shared Win-OS/2 sessions to keep the memory requirements below what could be installed in the system.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top