I'llmake a brief comment on store bought computers Karen. This computer came from Walmart . it wasloadedwith wall to wall winndows andmy choice was todonate $150plusto the Linda andBillll Gates foundation by wiping ouut windows and having archlinux installed . So for you dos is great and for me Linux isthe place to be. Goodluck with your projects. L On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Karen Lewellen wrote: > lol! > it is all a matter of how one wants to spend the energy. YOutube is not the > only place for video content, and Tim indicated that I may not be able to say > attend a webnir live in Linux either. > > > but honestly I have been successfully using broadband for years now...I have > more memory in my dos machine then likely is in this Linux box, and I do what > I need to so there are no memory barriers. > No. big. deal. for me because it is important. > It is also worth it to me having my machines built instead of buying them off > the shelf. > I know people who have gone through 10 or 12 computers to my three or four. > I know first hand from my experience that the so called effortless Linux > install is a joke. > I know first hand based on my personal experience that I can do easily what I > desire to do in DOS with a little effort. > this is 100% my personal experience, and I would never suggest it will be > anyone Else's. > Your Linux experience clearly varies, just as y dos one varies from yours. > Neither are discounted by the other, they are just different. > > Karen > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Tony Baechler wrote: > > > Also, I forgot to mention that I don't think DOS works very well with > > broadband, or at least I never got it to work. Even if you find a packet > > driver for your network card and actually get the Lynx port to work, you'll > > be limited to fairly slow download speeds just due to the fact that DOS has > > memory limitations and is not multitasking. A multitasking OS can dedicate > > a process just to downloading and has a lot better memory management. Where > > this applies to you is getting back to things like YouTube, where you really > > can't use a graphical browser in DOS and would need to download the video > > locally. Also, since the packet driver itself takes memory and Lynx uses > > quite a bit of memory, not to mention your screen reader needing a good > > chunk, you'll rapidly lock up your system just due to the 640 KB limitation. > > You can load some things in upper memory and some things run in protected > > mode, but TSRs don't as I understand it and the amount of upper memory is > > also limited due to DOS limitations. Taking the youtube-dl script, it > > requires Python. I think there might be an ancient version of Python for > > DOS, but it's probably too old to work, and again you're back to running out > > of memory as any modern interpreter will take a lot. > > > > As a final note, if you ever get a modern machine with a plug and play > > network card, DOS won't work with it because it won't have a static IRQ. > > > > On 3/5/2013 1:21 AM, Tony Baechler wrote: > > > OK, a couple of quick thoughts, based on my own experience. Yes, you can > > > run > > > Lynx, etc from DOS. However, it's much, much slower and requires messin > > > around with packet drivers and dial-up networking. Linux has that > > > built-in > > > automatically and almost always just works. I never got Lynx to run in > > > plain > > > DOS because I couldn't find a packet driver and TCP/IP software for my > > > network card, which is one of the big reasons why I switched to Windows > > > 98 > > > and the command prompt. The second issue is that, due to DOS memory > > > limitations, the ports will have a lot less features unless they use > > > djgpp > > > and a DOS extender to get around the 640 KB limit. That's called > > > protected > > > mode and again, Linux doesn't have that limitation. Finally, Lynx at > > > least > > > used direct screen writes, so Vocal-Eyes didn't automatically read the > > > screen without a set file. In Linux and Cygwin, it was able to read fine > > > on > > > its own because it used BIOS writes. Lynx in Linux is literally at least > > > twice as fast as DOS as I'm sure you've seen from Shellworld. > > > > > > On 3/4/2013 11:03 AM, Karen Lewellen wrote: > > > > Still if elinks and mplayer exist ported for DOS, why go through the > > > > extreme > > > > mayhem of finding someone local enough to learn speakup and ora and so > > > > forth > > > > to teach me in the first place? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Blinux-list mailing list > > > Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > > > > -- > > Have a good day, > > Tony Baechler > > tony@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blinux-list mailing list > > Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blinux-list mailing list > Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list > -- If you want to travel around the world and be invited to speak at a lot of different places, just write a Unix operating system. -- Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ Blinux-list mailing list Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list