What OS version to run on a DEC 3000-M600

  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I recently 
picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the 
preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent, 
I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from 
experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS 
version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.

Thanks!

-- 
James
http://www.e-host-direct.com
Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
0
Reply semaj (77) 7/16/2007 3:43:01 PM

See related articles to this posting


"Slor" <semaj@rols.ten> schreef in bericht
news:Xns996F775E38D4Aemuslor@216.196.97.136...
> Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I
recently
> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the
> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent,
> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from
> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS
> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- 
> James
> http://www.e-host-direct.com
> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.

James, a 3000-600 will run most versions of VMS. There is no reason why you
shouldn't run V8.3. Later versions of VMS are performance oriented and even
a 3000-600 my actually benefit. Of course Digital's time honoured advice
applies to you as well: "buy more memory":-)
Other versions that are quite stable: V7.3-2 and V7.2 or V7.1. I run 7.3 on
a Multia. It is usable, and stable.
Hans


0
Reply hvlems (931) 7/16/2007 4:29:23 PM

Slor wrote:
> Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I recently 
> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the 
> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent, 
> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from 
> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS 
> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

It originally came out with 6.1 if I remember correctly. Any version 
later than that will run on it. The memory is on the lower side, but if 
you don't plan to run graphics nor heavy applications, it'll work 
sufficiently. If you can find memory to upgrade to 256MB or more, you 
can do a lot of things with it. You need to add memory in sets of eight 
(8) SIMMs. You'll find hardware documentation at http://vt100.net/manx
VMS V8.3 will work fine depending on what you will do with the machine. 
It is not significantly more resource hog than the earlier versions. 
What you install and run affects the resources more than the basic O/S.

You might have a 1GB system disk there, but 2GB or larger would be best. 
Newer 4GB or larger disks are faster and will help the machine to 
perform better, too.

You cannot expect that the machine with its 175MHz will be a blazing 
speed demon, but for exploring VMS it is a nice piece of hardware. Btw. 
the case is one of the sturdiest I've seen.

When using the latest version of VMS you also have the widest selection 
of features.


Regards,

Kari

0
Reply uusimaki (21) 7/16/2007 4:52:19 PM

Slor wrote:
> I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I recently 
> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the 
> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent, 
> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from 
> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS 
> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.

I'd go for the latest available version that you can get your hands on, 
whether it's the hobbyist V7.3-1 distro, V7.3-2 or (for the most 
features and such) the current V8.3 distro.

The OpenVMS Alpha releases that still see ECOs released are V6.2, 
V6.2-1H3, V7.3-2, V8.2 and V8.3.  I'd not tend to prefer to use other 
releases.

Do get a CD distro here; don't try to load this box via any other means 
-- at least until you have some experience with loading OpenVMS through 
"creative" means, or another OpenVMS box running locally.  Using Linux, 
Mac OS X or some other operating system other than OpenVMS itself to 
load a VAX, Alpha or Integrity box is comparatively tricky.  The CD (or 
DVD, in the case of OpenVMS I64) makes this far easier.  Alternative 
initial system loading techniques are a comparatively advanced topic 
when you're dealing with a file system that most other operating systems 
do not recognize.

OpenVMS has always liked more RAM.  64 MB is a minimal configuration for 
an older OpenVMS Alpha box (even for an early V6.2 release); I'd tend to 
look to get a half-gig or more, or whatever the box itself supports.

High-level technical configuration details for this and other 
equivalent-vintage VAX and Alpha boxes  -- such as how much memory you 
can stuff into the box, and the associated part numbers -- are typically 
in the DIGITAL Systems and Options Catalog (SOC) documents, which are 
available via the http://www.hp.com/go/productbulletin web site.

There's a hobbyist intro here: http://64.223.189.234/node/6

-- 
www.HoffmanLabs.com
Services for OpenVMS
0
Reply hoff13 (384) 7/16/2007 5:57:42 PM

In 2000, I had a M500 (same memory SIMMs but only takes half as many
as the M600) that came with 32MB, and I added 64MB (which displaced
16MB) and VMS 7.2 (?), giveing me 90MB.
It was much happier ... until I tried to start DECnet Plus.

I got the memory through ELI.COM for about $150 (MS15-DA), which they
currently list for $145.
The next size up, MS15-EA for 128MB, they list for $545: the larger
capacity SIMMs were rare and therefore expensive.  With the M600 you
should be able to get a respectable amount of memory without getting
into the larger SIMMs.

Here's thier table for the 3000 series (I don't work for them, just
thought I'd pass along there experence...)
http://eli.com/Alpha3000400-900Series.cfm?c=112&a=category


Sean

On Jul 16, 8:43 am, Slor <se...@rols.ten> wrote:
> Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I recently
> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the
> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent,
> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from
> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS
> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Jameshttp://www.e-host-direct.com
> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.


0
Reply sean80 (130) 7/16/2007 8:06:13 PM

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:06:13 -0700, <sean@obanion.us> wrote:

> In 2000, I had a M500 (same memory SIMMs but only takes half as many
> as the M600) that came with 32MB, and I added 64MB (which displaced
> 16MB) and VMS 7.2 (?), giveing me 90MB.
> It was much happier ... until I tried to start DECnet Plus.
>
> I got the memory through ELI.COM for about $150 (MS15-DA), which they
> currently list for $145.
> The next size up, MS15-EA for 128MB, they list for $545: the larger
> capacity SIMMs were rare and therefore expensive.  With the M600 you
> should be able to get a respectable amount of memory without getting
> into the larger SIMMs.
>
> Here's thier table for the 3000 series (I don't work for them, just
> thought I'd pass along there experence...)
> http://eli.com/Alpha3000400-900Series.cfm?c=3D112&a=3Dcategory
>
>
> Sean
>
> On Jul 16, 8:43 am, Slor <se...@rols.ten> wrote:
>> Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I  =

>> recently
>> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the
>> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too  =

>> recent,
>> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from=

>> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specif=
ic  =

>> OS
>> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Jameshttp://www.e-host-direct.com
>> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
>
>



-- =

PL/I for OpenVMS
www.kednos.com
0
Reply tom298 (791) 7/16/2007 8:35:35 PM

Hi,

<sean@obanion.us> wrote in message 
news:1184616373.784320.185070@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> In 2000, I had a M500 (same memory SIMMs but only takes half as many
> as the M600) that came with 32MB, and I added 64MB (which displaced
> 16MB) and VMS 7.2 (?), giveing me 90MB.
> It was much happier ... until I tried to start DECnet Plus.
>
[snip]

I'd go with 8.3 too but would avoid DECnet Plus, going instead with DECnet 
Phase IV. Or, if you don't need/want it, don't install DECnet at all.

Paul 


0
Reply PEN 7/16/2007 9:42:49 PM

In article <Xns996F775E38D4Aemuslor@216.196.97.136>,
 Slor <semaj@rols.ten> wrote:

> Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I recently 
> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the 
> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent, 
> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from 
> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS 
> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.
> 
> Thanks!

I tested V8.3 with this system, with less than 64 MB.  IIRC, I started 
having some startup problems when I got a bit below 40 MB.

I had DECnet-plus and TCPIP configured with 64 MB and they both worked.  
I don' believe I configured DECwindows.

This was only a sanity check with minimum memory; I didn't run extensive 
tests, nor was I worrying about performance.

64 MB really is a practical minimum for V8.3.  You'd do better with 128 
MB or more.  Even 96 MB would be a noticeable improvement over 64MB.

64 MB kits were plentiful back in the day, and shouldn't cost much.  The 
128 and 25 MB kits were considerably rarer, and will be more expensive 
when they appear in the used market.

V7.3-2 was the last to support some of the high-end turbochannel 
graphics cards (via the Open3D layered product).  Support for the base 
graphics cards is included in the OS and is still there in V8.3.

  -- Robert
0
Reply rdeininger3 (78) 7/17/2007 2:37:52 AM

Slor schrieb:
> 
> Also, if increasing the RAM would help it be more suited for a specific OS 
> version, I can consider looking for more memory as well.
> 

there's this guy, Ben Myers (ben_myers@charter.net),
who posts on comp.sys.dec every now and then.
A couple of months ago he had a pile of old DEC memory on sale,
including MS15-DA IIRC. About $2 per 8MB or so.

0
Reply M.Kraemer (2048) 7/17/2007 7:42:13 AM

I have OpenVMS 8.3 running on a DEC 3000-M600 with 64MB and a PMGD-BA
(a 24 bit 3D graphics card). It was very easy to install. The box was
running tru64 V5.0.

If you need help obtaining media for OpenVMS 8.3 let me know, I may be
able to help.

Regards,

Mark

0
Reply mark525 (244) 7/17/2007 7:59:30 AM

Thanks guys for all the feedback.

-- 
James
http://www.e-host-direct.com
Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
0
Reply semaj (77) 7/18/2007 5:26:44 PM

On Jul 18, 12:26 pm, Slor <se...@rols.ten> wrote:
> Thanks guys for all the feedback.
>
> --
> Jameshttp://www.e-host-direct.com
> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.

James,
     if you don't mind saying, are you in the US?

Rich

0
Reply jordan (1228) 7/19/2007 3:50:02 PM

In article <Xns996F775E38D4Aemuslor@216.196.97.136>, Slor
<semaj@rols.ten> writes: 

> Hello everyone.  I have a pretty newbie question for the group - I recently 
> picked up a 3000-M600 with 64MB of RAM, and I'm wondering what the 
> preferred OpenVMS version would be for that machine.  If I go too recent, 
> I'm concerned I might suffer performance issues, so any opinions from 
> experience with such as system would be greatly appreciated.

I'm running 7.3-2 on one and will probably move to 8.3 soon.  8.3 is 
supported on this machine.  Minimum memory requirements have increased 
over the years.  I believe 7.3-2 officially requires 64 MB.  I did run 
it (but did not install it---I swapped the system disk) on a machine 
with 48 MB, but performance was lacking.

I have 192 MB of memory in mine.  It can even run CSWB, but quite
slowly.  I would recommend more memory and installing 8.3.

0
Reply helbig (5064) 7/19/2007 9:29:06 PM

Despite all prevention efforts, Rich Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote in 
news:1184860202.907167.195300@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 18, 12:26 pm, Slor <se...@rols.ten> wrote:
>> Thanks guys for all the feedback.
>>
>> --
>> Jameshttp://www.e-host-direct.com
>> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
> 
> James,
>      if you don't mind saying, are you in the US?
> 
> Rich
> 

Yep, I'm in the US.

-- 
James
http://www.e-host-direct.com
Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
0
Reply semaj (77) 7/23/2007 4:17:13 PM

Despite all prevention efforts, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip
Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in news:f7ol32$b4u$2@online.de: 

> 
> I have 192 MB of memory in mine.  It can even run CSWB, but quite
> slowly.  I would recommend more memory and installing 8.3.
> 

This, unsurprisingly, seems to be the recurring theme.  So far, I have yet 
to track anyone down who has memory for this system.  I tried the person 
that was recommended in one of the post, but he has long since parted with 
the memory he was selling.  Anyone here happen to have any to part with or 
know someone who might?

thanks

-- 
James
http://www.e-host-direct.com
Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
0
Reply semaj (77) 7/23/2007 4:19:04 PM

Slor wrote:
> Despite all prevention efforts, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip
> Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in news:f7ol32$b4u$2@online.de: 
> 
> 
>>I have 192 MB of memory in mine.  It can even run CSWB, but quite
>>slowly.  I would recommend more memory and installing 8.3.
>>
> 
> 
> This, unsurprisingly, seems to be the recurring theme.  So far, I have yet 
> to track anyone down who has memory for this system.  I tried the person 
> that was recommended in one of the post, but he has long since parted with 
> the memory he was selling.  Anyone here happen to have any to part with or 
> know someone who might?
> 
> thanks
> 

Try "Memory World".  ISTR buying Alpha compatible memory from them once 
upon a time.  Genuine DEC parts may be hard to come by but there should 
be lots of "third party" memory available.


0
Reply rgilbert88 (4439) 7/23/2007 6:09:56 PM

In article <Xns99767D7D1E6E8emuslor@216.196.97.136>,
 Slor <semaj@rols.ten> wrote:

> Despite all prevention efforts, helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip
> Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in news:f7ol32$b4u$2@online.de: 
> 
> > 
> > I have 192 MB of memory in mine.  It can even run CSWB, but quite
> > slowly.  I would recommend more memory and installing 8.3.
> > 
> 
> This, unsurprisingly, seems to be the recurring theme.  So far, I have yet 
> to track anyone down who has memory for this system.  I tried the person 
> that was recommended in one of the post, but he has long since parted with 
> the memory he was selling.  Anyone here happen to have any to part with or 
> know someone who might?
> 
> thanks

DEC 3000 systems (EXCEPT for the model 300 flavors, which are different) 
take memory in groups of 8 identical SIMMs.  Memory wasn't particularly 
standardized back then (1992), and these SIMMs don't match any PC memory 
AFAIK.

DEC 3000-M600 systems take either 1 or 2 memory kits (8 or 16 SIMMs 
total).

DEC part numbers for memory kits were:
MS15-BA (16 MB kit)   - discontinued early, rare, I've never seen them
MS15-CA (32 MB kit)
MS15-DA (64 MB kit)
MS15-EA (128 MB kit)  - originally expensive, now uncommon
MS15-FA (256 MB kit)  - originally very expensive, now rare

These are all 100-pin SIMMs.

The 32 MB kit only has RAM chips on 1 side; the 64 MB kit uses the same 
board, with chips on both sides.

Similarly, the 128 MB kit has chips on 1 side; the 256 MB kit has chips 
on both sides.

In addition to DEC, a few other vendors made compatible memory.  
Kingston and DataRAM at least.

I find a few kits available on ebay now.  I searched for MS15-CA, 
MS15-DA, and so on.  I see all kit sizes from 32 MB up to 256 MB.
0
Reply rdeininger3 (78) 7/24/2007 1:48:28 AM

Despite all prevention efforts, Robert Deininger
<rdeininger@mindspring.dot.com> wrote in
news:rdeininger-8E3557.21482623072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net
..mx: 

> The 32 MB kit only has RAM chips on 1 side; the 64 MB kit uses the same 
> board, with chips on both sides.
> 
> Similarly, the 128 MB kit has chips on 1 side; the 256 MB kit has
> chips on both sides.
> 
> In addition to DEC, a few other vendors made compatible memory.  
> Kingston and DataRAM at least.
> 
> I find a few kits available on ebay now.  I searched for MS15-CA, 
> MS15-DA, and so on.  I see all kit sizes from 32 MB up to 256 MB.
> 

Thanks for all the info.  It's easier to seach eBay knowing the model 
numbers. :)

-- 
James
http://www.e-host-direct.com
Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
0
Reply semaj (77) 7/24/2007 7:40:27 PM

On Jul 23, 11:17 am, Slor <se...@rols.ten> wrote:
> Despite all prevention efforts, Rich Jordan <jor...@ccs4vms.com> wrote innews:1184860202.907167.195300@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jul 18, 12:26 pm, Slor <se...@rols.ten> wrote:
> >> Thanks guys for all the feedback.
>
> >> --
> >> Jameshttp://www.e-host-direct.com
> >> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
>
> > James,
> >      if you don't mind saying, are you in the US?
>
> > Rich
>
> Yep, I'm in the US.
>
> --
> Jameshttp://www.e-host-direct.com
> Reliable web hosting from $12/year.

James,
     the email address for you that shows up in google groups is
invalid.  Send me an email please; I have a small memory kit you can
have.

Rich


0
Reply jordan (1228) 7/25/2007 8:53:43 PM

Despite all prevention efforts, Rich Jordan <jordan@ccs4vms.com> wrote
in news:1185396823.058113.41750@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: 

> James,
>      the email address for you that shows up in google groups is
> invalid.  Send me an email please; I have a small memory kit you can
> have.
> 

Sent!

-- 
James
http://www.e-host-direct.com
Reliable web hosting from $12/year.
0
Reply semaj (77) 7/26/2007 4:45:32 AM
comp.os.vms 20899 articles. 11 followers. Post

19 Replies
116 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49


  • Permalink
  • submit to reddit
  • Email
  • Follow


Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Re: What OS version to run on a DEC 3000-M600
From: Slor <semaj@rols.ten> > [...] So far, I have yet > to track anyone down who has memory for this system. I tried the person > that was recommended in one of the post, but he has long since parted with > the memory he was selling. Anyone here happen to have any to part with or > know someone who might? Am I missing something, or has anyone actually offered a description of this memory? Is it strictly proprietary (like a board for a VAXstation 2000), or is it really some common/cheap thing (like the DIMMs used in an XP1000)? -------------------------------...

run old versions of Maple in new versions of Mac OS
When I upgraded my Mac G5 from OS 10.3 to OS 10.4, the OS X versions of Maple (Maple 9.5 and Maple 10) continued to work. But the classic versions of Maple (Maple 7 and Maple Vr5) quit working. It turns out that the classic versions will run in OS 10.4 if the following files (perhaps from an old "System Folder") are moved into the "Extensions" folder of the active classic OS 9 "System Folder": OpenGLEngine OpenGLUtility OpenGLRendererATI OpenGLRenderer OpenGLMemory OpenGLLibrary Shared Library Manager PPC Shared Library Manager At least...

OS version running
I am using VC++ 6.0 and I need to add a check to see if the current opperating system is Windows NT 4.0 ONLY. Please help me with some code examples and not just a link to MSDN code. Thanks. Ed wrote: > Please help me with some code examples and not just a link to MSDN code. > Thanks. That's pretty demanding for something that's off topic here. Ed wrote: > I am using VC++ 6.0 and I need to add a check to see if the current > opperating system is Windows NT 4.0 ONLY. > Please help me with some code examples and not just a link to MSDN code. That's a Windows ...

Last Version of FM that runs under Mac OS 9?
What is the last version of Filemaker that runs under Mac OS 9? I couldn't find it on thier web site. -- Nelson In article <0001HW.BD7C11550026ED4A078E5020@news-60.giganews.com>, Nelson <nelson@nowhere.com> wrote: >What is the last version of Filemaker that runs under Mac OS 9? I >couldn't find it on thier web site. I'm running version 6.0 under OS 9.2.2 without any trouble. I'd imagine that the new 7.0 might have some issues with pre-X Mac OS, but I don't know. Steve Brown in article 0001HW.BD7C11550026ED4A078E5020@news-60.giganews.com, Nel...

Info on Bernie-to-the-Rescue running under OS-X (any version)
To the author of Bernie-to-the-Rescue - I payed the shareware fee to you for the Bernie-to-the-rescue IIgs emulator for the Mac many years ago. Is there and update of it that will run under OS-X (any version)? I have a new MacPro laptop with the most current OS-X and was hoping it was uypdated to run under that. Cheers! Tom Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet <tadapope@gmail.com> wrote: > To the author of Bernie-to-the-Rescue - I payed the shareware fee to you > for the Bernie-to-the-rescue IIgs emulator for the Mac many years ago. Same here. >...

Will OS/2 version 2.1 run past 2010?
I've got a 3rd party software application that has been running at my company for 15 yrs. I heard a rumor that version 2.1 will cease functioning after the year 2010. Is this true? I tried calling IBM but they won't deal w/this question since they stopped supporting versions prior to 3 in 1995. The third party never developed the application to work on any other platform and it won't work on versions newer than 2.1. Thanks On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:42:33 GMT, Jeff Harbin <Prez1210@mindspring.com> wrote: > I've got a 3rd party software application that has been r...

Will OS/2 version 2.1 run past year 2010?
I've got a 3rd party software application that has been running at my company for 15 yrs. I heard a rumor that version 2.1 will cease functioning after the year 2010. Is this true? I tried calling IBM but they won't deal w/this question since they stopped supporting versions prior to 3 in 1995. The third party never developed the application to work on any other platform and it won't work on versions newer than 2.1. Thanks I cannot see any reason why 2010 would be significant. The big year of course, way bigger a bugger than 2000 ever was, is going to be ...

NEWS: More than half of most popular Android smartphones run outdated--and insecure--versions of the (Linux) OS
but if some moron like dumb willy, chrisv or "7" says it is not true then a luser like Chris Ahlstrom will ignore all facts and simply SLURP these morons. http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/mobile/232200058 Android Buyer Beware: 12 Least Secure Phones More than half of most popular Android smartphones run outdated--and insecure--versions of the OS. And update policies vary. By Mathew J. Schwartz InformationWeek November 22, 2011 11:38 AM Buying a smartphone during the holiday season? Be careful. Some 56% of the top 20 smartphones on the market are running outdate...

Running an OS for the sake of running the OS
One of Edwins favorite trolls is to claim that no one should run a OS as an end in itself when someone mentions that his beloved POS PC can't even run OSX. This has always amused me since the operating system very much sets the standard for every application that runs atop it. With Tiger, this has become very apparent. OS X gives the user a system wide search that searches just about everything in the computer. Any application can incorporate this into the application OS X gives every application the ability to tap into Core Audio, Core Image and Core Video. OS X gives the user p...

Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220530 Carmack: Rage runs faster on Xbox 360 Thursday 30-Jul-2009 5:33 PM PS3 version at 30fps, PC and 360 60fps, id reveals 25 Comments The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. In a ten-page reveal in its latest issue, Edge writes that the Xbox 360 version of Rage - which uses id's new Tech 5 engine - matches the 60fps framerate of the PC version, while PS3 runs at just "20-30fps". It's not mentioned whether the PS3...

Want to bring old OS 9 version 7. 0 Netscape mailboxes into Netscape OS X version 7.2
I installed the latest OS X version of Netscape (7.2) and want to bring my OS 9 version old mailboxes into the new version. They seem to have a different format, and I couldn't just drag them into the new mailbox folder, reboot the program and have them appear. Anybody out there with any ideas, or is there some third party utility that will do that conversion and transfer? Thanks, Dale ...

RV: Version 9 Trial contaminates Version 8 running paid version
Hi, Now, I have realized that the notebooks created and running under the V8 paid version also display the legend Wolfram Mathematica - PRODUCT TRIAL . So it is not only the Welcome Screen what has been contaminated by the trial V9 version. De: E. Martin-Serrano [mailto:eMartinSerrano@telefonica.net] Enviado el: martes, 8 de octubre de 2013 13:42 Para: mathgroup@smc.vnet.net Asunto: Version 9 Trial contaminates Version 8 running paid version Hi, Last week, I downloaded and installed V9 Trial, which I have already uninstalled after only three days. It seems that, some...

Run OS X on OS X
I have a new G5 with 4GB of RAM. I have a G3 running WebStar and the machine is showing signs of age. I would like to move it to this new machine but also use this machine for development. I was thinking I could run the webstar and related in a seperate instance of OS X and have that running while I develop in the main OS X instance. Thoughts? -Jason jason.slack@gmail.com (Slack) writes: >I was thinking I could run the webstar and related in a seperate >instance of OS X and have that running while I develop in the main OS >X instance. Sorry, I'm not familiar with webstar, ...

OS version (8i) - standby
Hello I have realize a standby database with oracle 8i. The Hardware are differents. The OS for the production database is Windows 2003 SP2. The standby database is under Windows 2003R2. Is there any problem to run production and standby under two same OS but differents release or not ? is Oracle dependant of the versionning ? For the moment I have tested and it works. But I prefer ask for experience. Thanks. Fabrice. Another information : The structure of oracle is the same for oracle and the standby. thanks. Fabrice wrote: > Hello > > I have realize a standby database wit...

Re: OT
On 9/1/06, Hoff Hoffman <hoff-remove-this@hp.com> wrote: > bradhamilton wrote: > > > "Strawman" - it *is* easy to "remove" IE: > > > > - Run any number of other browsers besides IE. > > > > - It's easy to remove all IE shortcuts and icons from the desktop and > > menu bars, and to change browser preferences, such that the only way to > > run IE is to hunt it down and deliberately let it kill your system. :-) > > Microsoft embedded IE all through Windows -- what started out as an add-on > product became...

RE: OT
> -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20 > Sent: September 1, 2006 3:59 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: OT - running IE in Windows (was:Re: Thoughts on=20 > the book: DEC is dead, long live DEC) dead, long live DEC)=20 > dead, long live DEC) >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > You are talking about ways to "hide" I.E. Actually removing from the > > system is akin to a brain transplant in terms of complexity. >=20 > What about DELETE EXPLORER.EXE or whatever executable is in...

Re: OT
On 9/5/06, Bart Z. Lederman <lederman@star.enet.dec.disable-junk-email.com> wrote: > In article <FA60F2C4B72A584DBFC6091F6A2B8684019BCAC9@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>, "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> writes: > >> > >> What about DELETE EXPLORER.EXE or whatever executable is invoked when > >> you start that Microsoft thing that does HTTP ? > >> > > > >Try it and see what happens on your Windows system. > > > > If some recent news reports are true, this may be possible > in Korea, and some other cou...

Re: OT
Hoff Hoffman wrote: [...] > I regularly use other web browsers -- once you've used Firefox and > other such newer browsers, the age of IE6 tends to show -- but there > are still IE-related vulnerabilities around, and parts of Windows > certainly still seem to be using IE for various tasks. (I should go try > Windows Update, and see if I can get that to run without using IE.) The last time I checked, it's not possible to run WU without IE. That's the only reason to keep IE on a Windows box (not to mention enjoying the delicious irony of *needing* to run ...

Re: OT
Bob Koehler wrote: > In article <44F8AEC5.4090206@comcast.net>, bradhamilton <bradhamilton@comcast.net> writes: >> The last time I checked, it's not possible to run WU without IE. That's >> the only reason to keep IE on a Windows box (not to mention enjoying the >> delicious irony of *needing* to run a potentially insecure application >> in order to keep the underlying "O/S" (GUI add-on?) secure). :-) > > The last time I checked this was one of the claims that the > previously mentioned web site debunks. I've sin...

OEM version of OS instead of full version!
I purchased a Toshiba laptop with pre-installed Windows XP Home and soon discovered that the restore CD did not contain a full version of the Windows XP Home OS. NTBackup and several other files are not included. Apparently to get a CD of the full OS I would need to buy it all over in a retail store! I think that is terrible and also deceptive advertising. When they sold me the Toshiba laptop it was advertised as containing "Microsoft XP Home". It did not say a "subset" or modified version of Windows XP Home! When I click on "My Computer" properties, it says &...

"wrong OS or OS version"
I tried to install the Labview 7.0 runtime on an embedded NT system. After 56% of the installation prgcess I got an error message:Wrong OS or OS version for application What is wrong ? Is embedded NT not supported by LV 7.0? The LV 6.1 runtime can be installed without any problems Nutronik wrote: > I tried to install the Labview 7.0 runtime on an embedded NT system. > After 56% of the installation prgcess I got an error message:Wrong OS > or OS version for application > > What is wrong ? Is embedded NT not supported by LV 7.0? > The LV 6.1 runtime can be installed without...

Installing OS X apps over OS 9 versions
Having upgraded an iMac DV to the latest OS 9 and firmware versions, I'm now ready to install OS X, and then OS X versions of AppleWorks and Eudora. But a question has occurred to me: Will the OS X app versions install into the same directories as their OS 9 counterparts, and overwrite those counterparts? If so, what happens if I decided to boot the iMac into OS 9? Ideally it seems that if I am running OS X and I click on an AppleWorks document then the OS X version of AppleWorks should come up, while if I have booted into OS 9 and click on the same document then the older OS 9 version...

Differences between the Linux for i86 version and OS X version
We got closer to the source of our trouble since yesterday. While running the Linux version, it makes one call that the OS X version doesn't. While looking more closely at the runtime execution, the OS X version tries to make the same call than the Linux version, but obtains the wrong address for the symbol it is looking for (actually pointing to p.sys_reset_signal by mistake - which is a data symbol). We've looked more closely at the _extern definition (we were suspecting it), but it's too high level (only looking at pop11 code and not platform specific assembly generati...

OS X application wanted to run as OS 9
Hello, I ve currently quite a strange problem. My application is running on OS X, it s carbonized. I m using CW 8.3. Evertyning worked well in the past (2 or 3 months ago) but now I m going back to work on it and I m facing a problem : if I compile in debug mode everything goes well. When I compile in release and try to launch the application, I can see in the dockbar the Icon of my application as an OSX application but 2 or 3 seconds later the icon disappear and the Classic Environment is launched. Of course it s not at all the wanted behaviour. So any idea/hint/direct...