Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Contiki Ported To x86 243

Posted by timothy from the reuse-is-recycling dept.
lt writes "The ultra-small Contiki OS has now been ported to the x86. This should give those of you who have an old x86 PC that is too small to run even the smallest of Linux variants, a chance to browse the web, set up a web server, and doing other essential stuff. If you're curious to see how it looks, there is a live VNC demo running."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Contiki Ported To x86 More

Contiki Ported To x86

Comments Filter:

  • No wonder (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:42AM (#6625494)
    Bill Gates sells as many shares of MSFT as he can [iwon.com].

  • Wow! (Score:2)

    by turgid ( 580780 )
    This should run like the clappers on my old 486/25sx.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:49AM (#6625577)
      This should run like the clappers on my old 486/25sx

      What the hell is a 486? :)

      • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

        by Wumpus ( 9548 ) <IAmWumpus@gmail. c o m> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:49AM (#6626087)
        It's a 386 compatible CPU featuring pipelined execution and an onboard FPU. Pretty neat, huh? Those puppies can be pushed to speeds in excess of 100MHz.

    • Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Urkki ( 668283 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:09AM (#6625747)
      Linux should run pretty well on that too, even with X if you have enough memory.

  • VNC (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jrockway ( 229604 ) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:44AM (#6625520) Homepage Journal
    I have to say that running VNC on an 8bit computer is amazing. I would have looked at the screenshots, but actually playing around is so much more fun! It makes me want a C64 or old intel computer to run this on :) Does anyone know how to enter an arbitrary URI though, I couldn't do it.

    On another note, for those who thought VNC over 100BaseT was slow, it's even slower when running at 3KiB/s :) Oh well, this will be the first article to ever slashdot a VNC server, I think.

    • Re:VNC (Score:4, Informative)

      by usotsuki ( 530037 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:51AM (#6625603) Homepage
      8086 is 16-bit ;)

      Interestingly enough I (in the past week) have thought about implementing Contiki on top of CP/M-86 [z80.de] 4. CP/M-86 4 is a rather small OS, and can optionally run DOS programs (the infamous DOSPLUS [seasip.info]), and I think, with tools I can easily find for free, I can code low-level stuff for it.

      It can be done. IWBN, too.

      -uso.
    • There was a comment on the Contiki page about something about DNS [dunkels.com] , if I understand it correctly, they have a table of some 10 websites and their IPs precompiled so that they wouldnt have to do a DNS lookup.
      So you probably have to edit that table.

      • Re:VNC (Score:2, Informative)

        by gearry ( 28838 )
        Just to clarify, they say that it CACHES 10 lookups in the table, and that the size of this table is configurable at compile time. So, you can lookup any domain, but it will slow you down, and on this system the difference between a cache hit and a lookup will probably be significant. However, as the link you provided states, their DNS implementation is not heavily tested, so some domail lookups may fail unexpectedly.
    • On another note, for those who thought VNC over 100BaseT was slow

      Venturing slightly off-topic (don't blame me; the site's Slashdotted :)), why is VNC slow over 100 Mbps switched Ethernet?

      I VNC'ed into my laptop (although it only has 11 Mbps WiFi), and it might as well have been overseas on a 14.4 dialup?! It wasn't bandwidth -- it's a small home network, so there was the full 11 Mbps available. I rarely broke 100 kbps. The laptop (WinXP) hit about 50% CPU use, but shouldn't have slowed to a crawl? (The
      • With Win* servers, the problem is the method used to detect screen updates. Try ultravnc [sourceforge.net] with the video-hook driver.

        As you mentioned wifi, another possibility is that the data-rate might be too fast for the signal conditions. For normal file-sharing etc, or if there are many wireless clients, you might well be better off with the higher data rate, but for interactive protocols you really don't want any packets with errors, as they involve quite some latency. If you suspect this, run a long (or flood) ping

        • Can I view an UltraVNC-served desktop with Xvncviewer on Linux? UltraVNC looks quite impressive, but having only one Windows box I use VNC on, it won't do me any good if I can't connect. It says only Windows is supported, but mentions it's compatible with Real/TightVNC; does this mean I can view it on Linux?

          I think I'll give it a try either way, though. Looks pretty nice.
    • Nah, we've had plenty of other occurances to Slashdot a VNC server over the years. Eazel had one for demoing their desktop, which got quickly slashdotted. There has been other obscure OSes and environments which have had demo sites up via VNC as well and posted to slashdot. :)
    • Does anyone know how to enter an arbitrary URI though, I couldn't do it.
      A handfull of slashdotters trying to type different URIs in the same field would explain that.

      Oh well, this will be the first article to ever slashdot a VNC server, I think.
      It is not the first time that demo was mentioned on slashdot.

  • As it will be slashdotted... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:44AM (#6625527)

    Some info before it gets toasted

    The web pages you are watching are served by a web server running under the Contiki operating system on an an Ethernut embedded Ethernet board, which consists of a 14 MHz AVR Atmega128 microcontroller with 32 kilobytes of RAM and 128 kilobytes of flash ROM, and a RealTek RTL8019AS Ethernet chip.

    Local Remote State Retransmissions Timer Flags 80 210.214.211.245:1166 FIN-WAIT-2 0 91 80 210.49.61.249:4000 ESTABLISHED 0 3 80 216.15.124.126:61657 FIN-WAIT-2 0 25 80 209.210.4.252:54730 ESTABLISHED 0 1 * 80 200.164.245.202:33548 ESTABLISHED 0 3 * 80 216.15.124.126:61654 FIN-WAIT-2 0 21 80 217.72.69.144:1077 SYN-RCVD 0 3 * 80 208.191.17.177:1937 ESTABLISHED 0 3 * 80 172.137.24.29:3071 SYN-RCVD 6 43 * 80 208.19.133.132:38209 ESTABLISHED 0 1 * 80 192.35.35.35:35197 ESTABLISHED 0 3 * 80 66.32.100.20:57348 ESTABLISHED 0 1 * 80 160.36.251.198:56226 FIN-WAIT-2 0 4 80 160.36.251.198:56225 ESTABLISHED 0 3 * 80 160.39.180.236:53790 FIN-WAIT-2 0 36 5900 67.82.242.97:27960 ESTABLISHED 0 3 * 80 200.164.245.202:33549 ESTABLISHED 0 2 *

  • the smallest os for the weakest puniest computers still in existence goes live.

    click on this vnc link here to blow to smithereens.

  • Live VNC (Score:5, Funny)

    by alta ( 1263 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:45AM (#6625532) Homepage Journal
    Why don't you go ahead and say, "There was a live vnc running", or maybe "or maybe there might be a live vnc running in the distant future" but never say "there is a live vnc running..."
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • It's still alive! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Steeltoe ( 98226 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @12:41PM (#6626558) Homepage
      It's still running. I didn't download their client since I have both TightVNC and ordinary VNC from before. And it worked!! I just had to reconnect after one failed attempt.

      These guys know what they're doing. Impressive indeed!! I got to change Window, and delete some text, then go to the addressbar and delete some more and trying to write in an address. But there were 7 other people connected too, doing other things. If I were alone, I bet I could've used the machine just fine.

      Come to think of it, I still got my old dusty C64.. Maybe it's time to revive it ;-)

  • Specs, just in case (Score:4, Informative)

    by Cali Thalen ( 627449 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:47AM (#6625559) Homepage
    The web pages you are watching are served by a web server running under the Contiki operating system on an an Ethernut embedded Ethernet board, which consists of a 14 MHz AVR Atmega128 microcontroller with 32 kilobytes of RAM and 128 kilobytes of flash ROM, and a RealTek RTL8019AS Ethernet chip.
    I'll be seriously impressed if this thing survives the morning
  • Thor Heyerdahl doesn't slap him with a patent suit.

    • Re:I just hope ... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by brakett ( 690755 )
      When I was a child (1990 give or take) there was an norwegian computer brand called tiki. Rumor had it that they originally called it kon-tiki, but because Thor Heyerdahl owned that name they had to change it.

      This is just vague memory thou....

      What i do know is that the tiki 100 was popular in norwegian schools in the 80s....

    • From BEYOND THE GRAVE!!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by digitalgiblet ( 530309 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @12:24PM (#6626404) Homepage Journal
      I just hope Thor Heyerdahl doesn't slap him with a patent suit.

      MAN! Everybody's suing these days. Old ladies who pour scalding coffee on their crotches, smokers, gun nuts, now DEAD anthropologists? Where will the madness end?

  • New headline for article (Score:5, Funny)

    by BillBrasky ( 610875 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:49AM (#6625575)
    This just in!

    14 MHz web server Slashdotted! Oh the humanity!

  • holy melted silicone, batman! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:49AM (#6625584) Journal
    live VNC demo running.

    What kind of sick bastard would slashdot a VNC connection? It's bad enough when you do it to an image file server or a site with a video or ISO, but a VNC CONNECTION on a computer that is too low powered for even Linux? What is wrong with you people?

  • A Post-Modern Cool Idea (Score:4, Informative)

    by rwiedower ( 572254 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:50AM (#6625592) Homepage
    Here's [www.sics.se] a link to a screenshot of an old /. entry about said OS. It would've been cool if the "live" VNC shot was of this slashdot discussion, eh?

  • Pushing the limits of computing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by groove10 ( 266295 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:51AM (#6625593) Homepage
    Kudos to Adam Dunkels for pushing the envelope of 8-bit computing. Many people will say "whats' the point of this." or "This has no application whatsoever and is a waste of time." but I disagree. Adam is making software and designing methods of programming to run internet based programs on chips and systems that where never designed for it, like the Atari Jaguar [digiserve.com] the Atari 8-bit console not to mention the C64. This work will allow others to get the motivation to push the envelope in other areas of computing as well.

    It seems Adam has what was once prevailant in the computing and electronics industry. Tinkering and programming for the sheer joy of creating something new. In this way, programming and building systems like this are very similar to creating a piece of art, contrary to public opinion and modern developments in computing. Keep up the good work Adam. You are an inspriation to hobbyists in all fields.

    • Re:Pushing the limits of computing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:12AM (#6625769)
      I think it also shows what can be done with limited resources. The deverloper has to create more efficiant code. In today's OSes, the bloat of the code is horrendous, ala windoze. Even the "cooler" OSes, like Linuz, have much code that is sub-optimal.

      They say with faster CPUs and more memory will take care of that. Therefore, they can just keep piling on the crap code without thinking of resource constraints, i.e. - memory, cpu power. How long can this really last?

      I commend the people who have worked on this OS. Some may see it as useless, I see it as hope that there will be better OSes built in the future, once the physical limits of the modern computer are reached.

      • Re:Pushing the limits of computing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Enonu ( 129798 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @12:21PM (#6626383)
        Those who think paying attention to resource constraints is useless are frankly a danger, and shouldn't be near a compiler. It's like haphazardly designing a car, and thinking that the airbags will save the passengers if there is an accident.

        However, there's a limit to optimizing code for efficiency's sake (both size and speed). From years of experience developing software, assembler up to Java, keeping your algorithm general allows it to be adaptable and maintainable. Nothing sucks more than spending days rewriting code because one number changes in the spec (yes, you can optimize that far).

        As for writing "bloat" code, writing huge software systems in a timely manner in today's marketplace **implies** this situation. When you don't have to perform mundane chores in your code, you are free to produce more faster, and this is what companies want, and in fact, pay you for. It's a sad situation, but it's a dog-eat-dog world, and the consumer cares less about quality these days.

        You also bring up an interesting point about when we'll hit the ceiling for computing power. I'm sure there's a real physical OPS/cm^3 limit (the only way to make it faster is to make it larger) but who knows what that is, or when we'll hit it. It'll be interesting to see how it'll affect the code produced. I'm hoping it's some type of golden age, where everbody has the same amount of standard computing hardware, and all code is made to this perfect, end-all spec.

        -- If you optimize everything, you will always be unhappy. (Knuth)

      • Not really (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @01:39PM (#6626985)
        It shows that you can make a simple OS with minimal space. That does not mean that one could do the same of Windows (please, it just looks immature to name call) or Linux. They have far more features, and make far less assumptions, the this OS.

        A big one would be preemptive multitasking. All modren OSes have it, Contiki does not. Why not? To quote them "The reason for not supporting pre-emptive multitasking is that it would unnecessarily increase the complexity not only of the operating system, but also of the applications that would run under it." Ahh, so it would make things more complex (and also larger and less efficient) to use PMT. Ok, fine, but CMT makes the assumption that all the apps running are going to be well behaved, will not use more than their fair share of time, there will be no critical evens that need to interrupt them, and that an app won't hang and take the system down with it. Fine, but for your standard desktop or server, that's not a valid assumption.

        Or how about features like 3d graphics? I want to be able to use a 3d accelerator. Oooo, well now here's a whole different can of worms. All the 3d accelerators speak a different language, so we need to implement a common apstraction layer, like OpenGL. Then we need to have drivers to interface with that. Here we are talking tons more complexity and size, and much larger programs to boot. This is not even to mention the many other features most OSes have that it does not.

        See you can do a lot of huge optimization on a general purpose design by making assumptions and optimizing for it. Like a memory manager. Linux, Windows, etc all have fairly complex memory managers these days. It virtualizes memory for programs and juggles the actual RAM, it changes allocation in real time and protects programs from interfering with each other or the system. However, that wastes space and CPU cycles. It would be much more efficient to assume that all programs are going to play nice and know how much RAM they need. Then when a progam starts, it tells the OS what it wants, and the OS tells it what range of memory it may use. It is then up to the program to keep within its borders. MacOS actually used to use a system much like this. Efficient? Yes, however many problems. The fact aside that a program might want more memory later, this is a huge stability and security hole. Any program can bring down the whole system by accidently writing to system memory, but mroe scary is the security implication. All you have to do is get a service, ANY service on the system to execute code for you and you are in will full permissions.

        So there are plenty of things that mainstream OSes provide that a tiny OS like contiki cannot and willnot provide. This is not to bag on their accomplishment, it is a really cool OS and does get a lot out of old hardware. However do not assume that because they can make a simple CMT OS that runs a basic webserver on old hardware they could make an OS as powerful as a full featured Linux or Windows system fit in a couple MB. Not happening.
    • I completely agree! When I started realizing how many different platforms he has this OS running on, it hit me that this might finally allow cross-platform compatibility on all of these classic 8-bit systems that always wished for it, and never got it in their heyday.

      In a strange way, it's almost like completing unfinished business from the 80's!

  • Neat, now let's talk practical. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:51AM (#6625594) Journal
    Besides the nostalgia/geek factor of running a web browser on your C64 (which I've been doing for years, well cheating by using the 64 as a dumb terminal and running lynx)

    Maybe a Contiki based PDA? Contiki based email stations? Seems you could make such things dirt cheap using this as the OS.

    • Re:Neat, now let's talk practical. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:29AM (#6625893)
      Practical? How about a good solution for impoverished communities worldwide that need web access to do things like report on the ways they're being repressed, tortured, enslaved, etc?

      If a community can buy a single 386 and accompanying network setup for $100, then they can probably get a c64 quality computer for around $20, saving $80 of those dollars for things like food and bromine tablets for water purification.

  • Birds sing words and the flowers croon... (Score:4, Funny)

    by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:55AM (#6625635) Homepage Journal
    ...in Contiki, tiki, tiki, tiki, tiki room!

  • Pre-emptive multitasking? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Daniel Phillips ( 238627 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:56AM (#6625643)
    From the FAQ [dunkels.com]:
    Does Contiki support pre-emptive multitasking?


    No, Contiki does cooperative multitasking. The reason for not supporting pre-emptive multitasking is that it would unnecessarily increase the complexity not only of the operating system, but also of the applications that would run under it. Pre-emptive multitasking is primarily useful in general purpose multiuser operating systems such as *nix, or in real-time systems where response time is critial. Contiki does not fit in either of those categories.
    Hah, apparently this didn't stop the Geoworks [toastytech.com] people from pulling off a fully preemptive OS on the lowly 8088.
    • Pre-emptive multitasking indeed costs more in system resources than cooperative.
      Compare the fluidity of RiscOS with the fluidity of a Linux machine.
      The first is used in many real time applications, like datacasting, black boxes, etc. while the second is good for server and desktop but not really for real-time demanding apps.
      Simply because in a cooperative system, you know when an event shall occur.
      • AmigaOS manages to multitask, preemptively, using very few system resources, and still have excellent real-time characteristics. So does QNX. The secret is that both AmigaOS and QNX use a microkernel instead of a monolithic kernel.

        I don't see how you can reasonably do real-time computing without preemption. It would mean timeslicing each process by hand, which (especially for large tasks or tasks that scale to large datasets) is nearly impossible to get right. RiscOS, I believe, moved to a preemptive mode

    • Re:Pre-emptive multitasking? (Score:5, Informative)

      by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:17AM (#6625810) Homepage Journal
      Also, preemption on some processors is an incredible pain: for example, the 6502 has a single, fixed address, 256-byte stack. In order to preempt a process on the 6502 you'd have to manually copy the entire stack somewhere else in memory, and copy another process' stack in. Not pleasant.
    • Hah, apparently this didn't stop the Geoworks people from pulling off a fully preemptive OS on the lowly 8088.
      The 8088 is a 16-bit machine (with an 8-bit memory interface) and is much faster than the 8-bit machines Contiki targets.

  • Great VNC link! (Score:3, Funny)

    by not_a_george ( 687840 ) <introv8ed_underachiever&yahoo,com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:57AM (#6625651) Journal
    wow that OS kinda looks like a page full of characters.. oh wait
    poor little server
    {meanwhile, somewhere else in the worl)
    wow, we have a link on slashdot!
    QUICK, WHO WANTS TO ROAST SOME MARSHMALLOWS!

  • Hack gratia hacking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Futaba-chan ( 541818 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:01AM (#6625683)
    Somewhere in the depths of my basement, I have an old AT&T 7300 (MC68010-based "Unix PC") with an on-board 8088 PC emulator card that can run old DOS programs. I used the 7300 and some low-level hardware libraries that another hacker wrote in the late 80s/early 90s as my target machine for OS hacking back before I got scooped by Linux. I'm tempted to haul the thing out, snag the Contiki x86 distro, and hack something together to make the two talk to each other.

    Hmm, and with a StarLAN to 10baseT router, I could get the resulting beastie on the net. Hmm....

  • Am I the only one (Score:2, Interesting)

    by miyako ( 632510 )
    who's first thought was to try and install this OS on a 3gz system with like a gig of ram?

  • Not the first.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <iantri@@@gmx...net> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:12AM (#6625772) Homepage
    These people were long beaten.. you can run a server on an XT with EZNOS (it also acts as an LPD print server!) or one of serveral other packages..

    http://www.eznos.org [eznog.org]

    Here's an XT running EZNOS [eznos.org].. there's also other 8088/87 projects, a 386 and other stuff.. neat.

    Also, a web server running on the original IBM PC [no-ip.com].

    I've been wating to get these people slashdotted ;)...

    • That's all well and good, but you do realize that Minix has been able to do all of that for many years, right?

      http://minix1.hampshire.edu/ [hampshire.edu]

      I've been running Minix i86 on my IBM 5150 for years now. Including telnet and httpd daemons.
    • ...you can run a server on an XT with EZNOS...

      Except that an XT is considerably more powerful overall (except for grapics) than a C64. The 8088 was a good deal faster than the 6510 in the Commodore, plus the XT had (*gasp*) a hard drive and a lot more memory.

      EZNOS may predate Contiki, but I'm not sure it counts as "long beaten" considering the hardware differences.
  • I've got a mint condition ZX80 that I want to run a webserver on. Man, all my hopes and dreams dashed to hell.

    Oh well, the CoCo will handle it though, all is not lost!

  • What about Minix (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:17AM (#6625806) Journal
    Kudos to the Contiki folks. I don't think this is useful, but if they enjoyed themselves doing it, all the better for them!

    This should give those of you who have an old x86 PC that is too small to run even the smallest of Linux variants, a chance to browse the web, set up a web server, and doing other essential stuff.

    If you have an old pre-386 machine around, why not run Minix? That should make a far more useful machine.

  • If you want something more useful (Score:5, Informative)

    by edwdig ( 47888 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:23AM (#6625848)
    If you'd like to do something more useful with an older system, check out GEOS. It's currently being maintained by Breadbox [breadbox.com], who has a demo available for download. Full preemptive multitasking. Comes with a web browser (HTML 4.0, no CSS or JS), email (POP3), AIM, FTP, News Reader, and a roughly MS Works level office suite. More software is available from it at Tva Katter [tvakatter.org].

    Older versions would run on an 8086 (one of the original design goals was that the WYSIWYG word processor could keep up with your typing on an 8086). The current version requires a 386. 2 megs of RAM should be fine for most things (even 1 will work ok), although you'd probably want at least 4 or 8 megs for browsing the web.
    • Just some random babbling on the subject of GEOS; Palm Computing's first PDA was the Tandy/Casio Z-PDA 7000 Zoomer. It was Palm's in the sense that the entire software 'suite' was their work. They used PC-GEOS, the zoomer was a V20-powered PC with an LCD display. It also came with (or you could at least buy this separately) PC-GEOS with a file link feature.

      It's possible to load PC-GEOS onto a GRiDPad 1910, which is another ancient machine, then load Graffiti handwriting recognition from Palm for Zoomer on

  • Nooo!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:40AM (#6625987)
    Haven't we abused this poor machine enough. Just several weeks ago it was the victim of a slashdotting. Now once again the moderators seek to wipe it's presence from the net.

    Silly embeded computer, web serving is for servers.
  • Whoever said this has to do with old computers?! How about getting this running on a PIC? Having a wristwatch (a SMALL one!) or a grad ring act as a web server or some real functional computer would be really cool.

  • Java port to C64!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by henriksh ( 683138 ) <hsh@freecode.dk> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @11:57AM (#6626173) Homepage
    Ok, this seriously made my day! From the Contiki web site:
    [...]it should be noted that Brian Bagnall actually is working on porting/implementing a Java virtual machine for the C64.
    A Java implementation on the C64??! I'm speechless!

  • 1541? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rabidcow ( 209019 ) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @12:14PM (#6626307) Homepage
    So if it'll run on a C64, will it run on a 1541 disk drive? A GUI would obviously be out, but the processor is essentially the same as the C64 (6502 vs 6510), and it would be amusing to have a web server running on a floppy drive.
    • That'd be great, 'cuz my 1541 had to be the most durable piece of hardware I ever had.

      I dropped mine down my friend's steps and it still worked. There was also an app that played "happy birthday" by vibrating the drive heads, IIRC.

      With such hardened, low power hardware available, NASA will have lots of stuff to crash into planets on future missions.
  • As I'm reading this, our Network Admin hands me a sealed copy of MS-DOS 6.0 (with manual and Doublespace *shudder*!). He was cleaning out a cabinet and came across some copies that had been ignored since 1994. I guess it's time to dust off that old 386 laptop and do some comparative testing :) I've got a copy of Windows 3.0 on 5 1/4 floppies at home, now to just find a 5 1/4 drive...
  • I don't see anything about driver support for Ethernet cards, for example. I didn't scour the site but nothing popped out at me.

    Anyone know?
  • With such a small OS, I still think you could create a grid/clustering situation where thousands of these little "sandbox" OS's run in parallel.. on one or more machines.
  • These antique computers are as useful today as they were when they were first manufactured. I visited plenty of bulletin boards with my Atari 400, so text-based Web browsing really isn't something that's beyond the pale for old boxen.

    Do you really need Contiki to surf with an old X86? An 8086-based PC could be used to dial into a shell account, where you could use Lynx, telnet, and so on. College computer labs of the early and mid-1990s were filled with 286 and 386-based PCs, 68XXX-based Macs, and Sun

  • When's Contiki going to be ported to the TI-99/4A? It's got sufficient horsepower to do it.
  • Apple II, Grid, Atari 400 and 800, or even the lowly TRS-80 and later CoCo and portables?

    Now if they could port it over to the old Epson wrist PC, that would truly rock.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close