Hi!

I've been running Max under DOS and Windows 95/98 since v1 -- but now I've taken the big step to XP!! I'm still running the DOS version of Max, but I'm wondering if I should take the plunge and change to the w32 version?

Could someone point me at the pluses and minuses of such a change, please?

Thanks!



Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, CANADA [telnet: bandmaster.tzo.com] (1:153/715)

Dallas Hinton wrote to Any Max/32 sysop:

I've been running Max under DOS and Windows 95/98 since v1 -- but now I've taken the big step to XP!! I'm still running the DOS version of Max, but I'm wondering if I should take the plunge and change to the w32 version?

Could someone point me at the pluses and minuses of such a change, please?

Heh heh, I am of the mind that if it ain't broken, don't fix it :)


Greetings, Robert Wolfe

... "Keyboard? How quaint!" - Scotty

--- MBSE BBS v0.92.0 (GNU/Linux-i386)
* Origin: Omicron Theta * Buffalo NY * net261.ath.cx (1:261/20)

Hi Robert -- on May 11 2008 at 21:01, you wrote:

I've been running Max under DOS and Windows 95/98 since v1 -- but now I've taken the big step to XP!! I'm still running the DOS version of Max, but I'm wondering if I should take the plunge and change to the w32 version?

Could someone point me at the pluses and minuses of such a change, please?

Heh heh, I am of the mind that if it ain't broken, don't fix it :)

I don't disagree -- but I notice the cpu load with a binkley and 2 max telnets is a solid 100%!!! I'm sort of hoping that changing to the w32 version would reduce that?


Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, CANADA [telnet: bandmaster.tzo.com] (1:153/715)

Hello Dallas !

On 12-May'08 20:10, Dallas Hinton wrote to Robert Wolfe:

Heh heh, I am of the mind that if it ain't broken, don't fix
it :)

I don't disagree -- but I notice the cpu load with a
binkley and 2 max telnets is a solid 100%!!! I'm sort of
hoping that changing to the w32 version would reduce that?

That is true. CPU utilisation for DOS programs in multitasking OS's like Windows depend on whether the program releases time slices to the OS.

Maximus DOS doesn't do time slicing, and therefore kills the CPU.

BinkleyTerm DOS 2.60 (?) does handle time slicing, so does not hog CPU.

I run WFC mode using Maximus/32 specifically for scheduling BBS maintenance events because it can idle all day without CPU utilisation.

Maximus/32 is faster than the DOS version of Maximus. Eg. file/message scans/listing, IPC / multinode chat, QWK, MEX etc. It can also access all the memory available to the OS instead of being limited to the 640 kb heap (which so far has no practical advantage).

The disadvantage of Maximus/32 is its direct com port access requirement. If you try to set up a Maximus/32 node on a physically non-existant com port, WFC will abort. Also anything that requires a FOSSIL will not work in Maximus/32. And hot com port passing will not work with Maximus/32 (ie. DTR is dropped when
passing callers between DOS programs eg. BinkleyTerm to/from Maximus) unless you use WinFOSSIL or Netserial.

On my BBS telnet callers connect to the Maximus DOS executable for full door & FOSSIL compatibility, and I use the 32 bit versions of Maximus utilities (eg. \max\*n.exe) and Squish wherever possible for their speed.

Or you can get a faster computer, or run multiple nodes on separate machines.

I allow all 16 telnet DOS nodes to be spawned on a single PC and let performance be the caller's problem. Heh. Besides, these days having even 2 genuine simultaneous callers online is wishful thinking.

In my experience Maximus/32 without WinFOSSIL or Netserial is only useful for local nodes.

I recommend running Maximus in VMware DOS under Windows XP.

--- Msged/386 4.30
* Origin: ypan.dyndns.org loves Msged... (3:712/104)

Hi Minh -- on May 19 2008 at 09:36, you wrote:

That is true. CPU utilisation for DOS programs in multitasking OS's
like Windows depend on whether the program releases time slices to
the OS.

Maximus DOS doesn't do time slicing, and therefore kills the CPU.

Yup!

BinkleyTerm DOS 2.60 (?) does handle time slicing, so does not hog
CPU.

I guess I'll have to go back to having a fake binkley as a front end -- it worked under 98, so I guess I can make it work under xp! :-)

Maximus/32 is faster than the DOS version of Maximus. E

[...]g.

use WinFOSSIL or Netserial.

I appreciate that summary - most helpful, thanks!

I allow all 16 telnet DOS nodes to be spawned on a single PC and
let performance be the caller's problem. Heh. Besides, these days
having even 2 genuine simultaneous callers online is wishful
thinking.

Ain't that the truth!

I recommend running Maximus in VMware DOS under Windows XP.

Hmm - I'll think on that one.

Many thanks!

Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, CANADA [telnet: bandmaster.tzo.com] (1:153/715)

Hello Minh,

Minh Van Le wrote in a message to Dallas Hinton:

I don't disagree -- but I notice the cpu load with a
binkley and 2 max telnets is a solid 100%!!! I'm sort of
hoping that changing to the w32 version would reduce that?

I'm planning some upgrading in the future here once other business details are sorted out. THough the bbs is for hobby activity related to emergency communications and ham radio it will benefit from these upgrades by being able to offer telnet access as well as pots. POts will always remain with binkley as
front end with max dos underneath, but haven't sorted out all the issues yet. Your post brings up some questions, and I'd like your input. Remember I'm not a real programmer, just a radio op and audio guy who runs a rather simple installation.

That is true. CPU utilisation for DOS programs in multitasking OS's
like Windows depend on whether the program releases time slices to
the OS.

NOt an issue for the pots system with binkleyterm and max dos as it would be on
a separate machine, sharing message and file areas over the lan.

I run WFC mode using Maximus/32 specifically for scheduling BBS maintenance events because it can idle all day without CPU
utilisation.

This would be advantageous as telnettable max would probably be on machine with
shared message and file areas.

The disadvantage of Maximus/32 is its direct com port access
requirement. If you try to set up a Maximus/32 node on a physically non-existant com port, WFC will abort. Also anything that requires
a FOSSIL will not work in Maximus/32. And hot com port passing will
not work with Maximus/32 (ie. DTR is dropped when passing callers
between DOS programs eg. BinkleyTerm to/from Maximus) unless you
use WinFOSSIL or Netserial.

That might make things interesting, as another machine will be handling all outside connectivity through dsl. iF that's workable then max32 might still be an option for me, as I run no doors at this time. Hence we wouldn't need a fossil driver nor com port sharing.

Trying to get a grasp of the issues I'm going to face before I end up fishing around in the dark. I"m an old dos dinosaur that doesn't do windows, but have one machine running 98 that would be usable for this.

AS I said earlier, I don't run any door games, or anything else in doorway mode
at this time. sUggestions are most welcome.

In my experience Maximus/32 without WinFOSSIL or Netserial is only
useful for local nodes.

I would like to hear if you think this is true in my application as well.


Regards,
Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)

Hi Dallas,

Tuesday May 20 2008 00:53, Dallas Hinton wrote to Minh Van Le:

I recommend running Maximus in VMware DOS under Windows
XP.

Hmm - I'll think on that one.

I sure like my MS-DOS box running Max/Squish/Binkley. I know it's a Dinosaur, but I like my pet Dinosaur. :)

Kevin
klement@gypsy-designs.com

--- Squish/386 v1.11
* Origin: Gypsy BBS -- Gypsy Designs CDN (403) 242-3221 (1:342/77)

Hi Kevin -- on May 20 2008 at 16:28, you wrote:

I sure like my MS-DOS box running Max/Squish/Binkley. I know it's a Dinosaur, but I like my pet Dinosaur. :)

For sure!! I've ended up running Binkley/Max/Squish (all DOS version) from a simple batch file just called from a Windows XP scheduler, and using netserial for a virtual modem, followed by x00 and vfos_ibm -- seems to work just fine!!


Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, CANADA [telnet: bandmaster.tzo.com] (1:153/715)

Hello Dallas !

On 20-May'08 00:53, Dallas Hinton wrote to Minh Van Le:

I guess I'll have to go back to having a fake binkley as a
front end -- it worked under 98, so I guess I can make it
work under xp! :-)

That's what I'm doing.

I only use BT to browse the outbound queues, and do mail maintenance events eg.
Squish Out Squash, create poll files for BinkD etc. 99.99% of the time it's just merely occupying taskbar & memory space, which doesn't even look pretty.

--- Msged/386 4.30
* Origin: ypan.dyndns.org loves Msged... (3:712/104)

Hi Minh -- on May 21 2008 at 13:05, you wrote:

I only use BT to browse the outbound queues, and do mail
maintenance events eg. Squish Out Squash, create poll files for
BinkD etc. 99.99% of the time it's just merely occupying taskbar &
memory space, which doesn't even look pretty.

Yup - works for me <tm> :-)


Cheers... Dallas

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: The BandMaster, CANADA [telnet: bandmaster.tzo.com] (1:153/715)

Hello Kevin !

On 20-May'08 16:28, Kevin Klement wrote to Dallas Hinton:

I recommend running Maximus in VMware DOS under Windows
XP.

Hmm - I'll think on that one.

I sure like my MS-DOS box running Max/Squish/Binkley. I
know it's a Dinosaur, but I like my pet Dinosaur. :)

One day that network card will die and you won't find a DOS/W3.x/OS2 compatible
NIC replacement.

Then you'll be stuck with modem/laplink/sneakernet transfers if you don't use VMware/DOSBOX etc.

--- Msged/386 4.30
* Origin: ypan.dyndns.org loves Msged... (3:712/104)

Hello Richard !

On 20-May'08 14:31, Richard Webb wrote to Minh Van Le:

I'm planning some upgrading in the future here once other
business details are sorted out. THough the bbs is for
hobby activity related to emergency communications and ham
radio it will benefit from these upgrades by being able to
offer telnet access as well as pots. POts will always

Man you mean you haven't hooked up NetFOSS or Netserial - what have you been DOING.

I dunno. Imo using a BBS sounds inappropriate, probably because the words "hobby" and "emergency" shouldn't be used close together in a sentence.

remain with binkley as front end with max dos underneath,
but haven't sorted out all the issues yet. Your post brings
up some questions, and I'd like your input. Remember I'm
not a real programmer, just a radio op and audio guy who
runs a rather simple installation.

You should have no problems with Maximus/32 if you avoid passing connections between separate DOS windows.

That is true. CPU utilisation for DOS programs in
multitasking OS's like Windows depend on whether the program
releases time slices to the OS.

NOt an issue for the pots system with binkleyterm and max
dos as it would be on a separate machine, sharing message
and file areas over the lan.

Even if you have POTS on a separate PC, if you intend on setting up telnettable
Maximus you will probably have to use the DOS version of Maximus on Windows, at
which point it will hog the CPU eg. 30% - 50% per active node.

This is because most free telnet servers (TelSrv, GameSrv, Net2BBS) only run on
Windows and require a TCP/IP FOSSIL emulator (eg. NetFOSS) to connect to the BBS, and only the Maximus DOS binary supports FOSSILs.

Maximus/32 does not support FOSSILs because it uses direct com port access. (Which means to telnet to Maximus/32 on windows, you will need to use a virtual
modem (Netserial/CompIP/netmodem) (which cost money). If you can afford USD$50 - USD$200 to register virtual modems then there's no problem. (Or you can run the Maximus OS/2 with VMODEM or Linux binaries which are free options. But then
you will have to use OS/2 and/or Linux. Heh)).

I run WFC mode using Maximus/32 specifically for scheduling
BBS maintenance events because it can idle all day without
CPU utilisation.

This would be advantageous as telnettable max would
probably be on machine with shared message and file areas.

If you need to telnet to Maximus/32 on Windows, you will need to use a virtual modem eg. Netserial/CommIP/Netmodem (= $).

The disadvantage of Maximus/32 is its direct com port
access requirement. If you try to set up a Maximus/32 node
on a physically non-existant com port, WFC will abort. Also
anything that requires a FOSSIL will not work in Maximus/32.
And hot com port passing will not work with Maximus/32 (ie.
DTR is dropped when passing callers between DOS programs eg.
BinkleyTerm to/from Maximus) unless you use WinFOSSIL or
Netserial.

That might make things interesting, as another machine will
be handling all outside connectivity through dsl. iF that's
workable then max32 might still be an option for me, as I
run no doors at this time. Hence we wouldn't need a fossil
driver nor com port sharing.

Yeah that will probably work. Atleast the Maximus multinode stuff eg. online chat will still work between separate computers regardless of connection type (dialup/DSL) because IPC is handling the semaphorish exchange between nodes (if
the PCs are networked).

Trying to get a grasp of the issues I'm going to face
before I end up fishing around in the dark. I"m an old dos
dinosaur that doesn't do windows, but have one machine
running 98 that would be usable for this.

Well, you can always use modern technology and substitute your Maximus BBS for Linux services. Eg. run a PPP and/or TCP/IP connected webserver, gopher, nntp server etc. There's Apache for Windows and Linux et al. This way you will have no technological/software/redundancy problems.

And people can use their web browsers (!) And you can show pictures and/or pornography (!) You can't get all that with a BBS. Plus simple html files load fast even at 33.6 kbps.

One day Win98 won't even install on a new PC.

AS I said earlier, I don't run any door games, or anything
else in doorway mode at this time. sUggestions are most
welcome.

If you don't require FOSSIL compatibility (usually for doors via Xtern_* exits)
or pass connections between seperate DOS windows, then Maximus/32 will probably
suffice.

In my experience Maximus/32 without WinFOSSIL or Netserial
is only useful for local nodes.

Maybe the "UsrRemote Xtern_Run Command.Com_>com%P_<com%P" (ie. OS Shell) option
might work but I don't think so because the command.com doesn't support com port handles.

I would like to hear if you think this is true in my
application as well.

I haven't extensively tested Maximus/32 but I think as long as the POTS connection stays within the current Maximus/32 process everything will work (eg. all Maximus menus & display features including .bbs, .mex etc) because all
the comms stuff is handled internally by Maximus.

I don't know how Maximus/32 will work with virtual modems like Netserial/CommIP
etc. It will probably handle telnet connections with the same forementioned POTS limitations.

WinFossil should handle any POTS situation Ok. But it's old and cost money. I don't even know if you can still register it.

I think Netserial does what WinFossil can do but it also cost money, but is new
and actively developed and maintained.

When setting up telnettable Maximus you need to decide between

1) suffering CPU performance problems with Maximus/DOS or
2) paying for virtual modems to use Maximus/32.

Else use the Maximus OS/2 or Linux binaries.

--- Msged/386 4.30
* Origin: ypan.dyndns.org loves Msged... (3:712/104)

Hello Minh,

Minh Van Le wrote in a message to Richard Webb:

I'm planning some upgrading in the future here once other
business details are sorted out. THough the bbs is for
hobby activity related to emergency communications and ham
radio it will benefit from these upgrades by being able to
offer telnet access as well as pots. POts will always

Man you mean you haven't hooked up NetFOSS or Netserial - what have
you been DOING.

Nope, not on a dial-up internet connection on one line.

I dunno. Imo using a BBS sounds inappropriate, probably because the
words "hobby" and "emergency" shouldn't be used close together in a sentence.

VOlunteers is more the right word, I object to the "hobby" designation myself. SHall we just say for volunteer emergency communicators <g>.

remain with binkley as front end with max dos underneath,
but haven't sorted out all the issues yet. Your post brings
up some questions, and I'd like your input. Remember I'm

You should have no problems with Maximus/32 if you avoid passing connections between separate DOS windows.

SO far so good.

NOt an issue for the pots system with binkleyterm and max
dos as it would be on a separate machine, sharing message
and file areas over the lan.

Even if you have POTS on a separate PC, if you intend on setting up telnettable Maximus you will probably have to use the DOS version
of Maximus on Windows, at which point it will hog the CPU eg. 30% -
50% per active node.

This is because most free telnet servers (TelSrv, GameSrv, Net2BBS)
only run on Windows and require a TCP/IP FOSSIL emulator (eg.
NetFOSS) to connect to the BBS, and only the Maximus DOS binary
supports FOSSILs.

NIxes that then. TElnettable and pots would be the ways in.

If you can afford USD$50 - USD$200 to register virtual
modems then there's no problem. (Or you can run the Maximus OS/2
with VMODEM or Linux binaries which are free options. But then you
will have to use OS/2 and/or Linux. Heh)).

SOUnds like linux is my way to go. AT least this old blind man can get flavors
of linux that will talk to him using a speech synthesizer <g>.

That might make things interesting, as another machine will
be handling all outside connectivity through dsl. iF that's
workable then max32 might still be an option for me, as I
run no doors at this time. Hence we wouldn't need a fossil
driver nor com port sharing.

Yeah that will probably work. Atleast the Maximus multinode stuff
eg. online chat will still work between separate computers
regardless of connection type (dialup/DSL) because IPC is handling
the semaphorish exchange between nodes (if the PCs are networked).

I"ll give it some study then, see what happens, but looks like i"ll be running the lnux executables ,g>.

Trying to get a grasp of the issues I'm going to face
before I end up fishing around in the dark. I"m an old dos
dinosaur that doesn't do windows, but have one machine
running 98 that would be usable for this.

Well, you can always use modern technology and substitute your
Maximus BBS for Linux services. Eg. run a PPP and/or TCP/IP
connected webserver, gopher, nntp server etc. There's Apache for
Windows and Linux et al. This way you will have no technological/software/redundancy problems.

WIll be doing that for the business, linux based probably.

And people can use their web browsers (!) And you can show pictures
and/or pornography (!) You can't get all that with a BBS. Plus
simple html files load fast even at 33.6 kbps.

True enough, but staying with plain text for most displays, it's about the info, and it's about being able to connect to it with just about anything. IF all you've got is an old 1200 baud modem it has a landline. No slow to load graphics, no hassles with what plug-ins your browser has.

AS I said earlier, I don't run any door games, or anything
else in doorway mode at this time. sUggestions are most
welcome.

If you don't require FOSSIL compatibility (usually for doors via
Xtern_* exits) or pass connections between seperate DOS windows,
then Maximus/32 will probably suffice.

From your discussion above it sounds like the linux executable is my way to go here. oR running the dos executable on the 98 machine.

When setting up telnettable Maximus you need to decide between
1) suffering CPU performance problems with Maximus/DOS or 2)
paying for virtual modems to use Maximus/32.
Else use the Maximus OS/2 or Linux binaries.

I think option 3 sounds like the way to go here <g>. Have one linux box anyway
that will be networked but have other plans for it.

Thanks for the feedback.


Regards,
Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)

Hello Richard !

On 22-May'08 23:33, Richard Webb wrote to Minh Van Le:

Man you mean you haven't hooked up NetFOSS or Netserial -
what have you been DOING.

Nope, not on a dial-up internet connection on one line.

It still would have worked. Heh.

VOlunteers is more the right word, I object to the "hobby"
designation myself. SHall we just say for volunteer
emergency communicators <g>.

That would be more sensible.

I"ll give it some study then, see what happens, but looks
like i"ll be running the lnux executables ,g>.

The problem with the Linux version of Maximus is that it's more flakey, less tested and unsupported.

True enough, but staying with plain text for most displays,
it's about the info, and it's about being able to connect
to it with just about anything. IF all you've got is an old
1200 baud modem it has a landline. No slow to load
graphics, no hassles with what plug-ins your browser has.

You don't need plugins for HTML.

There's nothing a BBS can't display that can't be done with HTML.

In an emergency I personally would prefer point'n'click interfaces when browsing for information instead of telnet.

Up to you.

From your discussion above it sounds like the linux
executable is my way to go here. oR running the dos
executable on the 98 machine.

To my knowledge only Netmodem virtual modem will work under Win9x.

I think option 3 sounds like the way to go here <g>. Have
one linux box anyway that will be networked but have other
plans for it.

Just dump everything on one box.

It's called vertical scaling. Heh.

--- Msged/386 4.30
* Origin: ypan.dyndns.org loves Msged... (3:712/104)

Hi Minh,

Thursday May 22 2008 07:39, Minh Van Le wrote to Kevin Klement:

One day that network card will die and you won't find a
DOS/W3.x/OS2 compatible NIC replacement.

Nice!

Now you got me searching the www for a NE2000 NIC. :)

Kevin
klement@gypsy-designs.com

--- Squish/386 v1.11
* Origin: Gypsy BBS -- Gypsy Designs CDN (403) 242-3221 (1:342/77)

Hello Minh,

Minh Van Le wrote in a message to Richard Webb:

Man you mean you haven't hooked up NetFOSS or Netserial -
what have you been DOING.

Nope, not on a dial-up internet connection on one line.

It still would have worked. Heh.

Maybe but I don't have reason to on a dial-up for numerous reasons.

VOlunteers is more the right word, I object to the "hobby"
designation myself. SHall we just say for volunteer
emergency communicators <g>.

That would be more sensible.

I'll give it some study then, see what happens, but looks
like i'll be running the lnux executables ,g>.

The problem with the Linux version of Maximus is that it's more
flakey, less tested and unsupported.

SO I"ve herad, which ws one reason my thinking went toward the 16 or 32 bit versions.

True enough, but staying with plain text for most displays,
it's about the info, and it's about being able to connect
to it with just about anything. IF all you've got is an old
1200 baud modem it has a landline. No slow to load
graphics, no hassles with what plug-ins your browser has.

You don't need plugins for HTML.

NO you don't for straight html, but part of the reason for doing it this way is
both accessibility for those with the web access etc. and field accessibility even if all you've got is an old 8088 with a 1200 baud modem <g>. IN the case of the antique I can still provide such a user with a point setup that will run
and let him automate retrieving the information he wants/needs.

There's nothing a BBS can't display that can't be done with HTML.

tHe main focus of this system is the mmessages, and some files for retrieval. Hence the form in which it's displayed is not as important as just getting it to the end user. INtent is to have different flavors of access for a variety of
users.

otoh the business will have full blown web portal, no bbs at all. wE'll also hire that out. wE'll house it physically ourselves but an associate of mine will be contracted to maintain and update business web site.

In an emergency I personally would prefer point'n'click interfaces
when browsing for information instead of telnet.

Up to you.

NOt as much "browsing" as just retrieve it to your local machine. Also this old blind geezer detests point and click and wading through a bunch of information. An example might be tropical storm bulletins. LEt the user retrieve it, print it if he/she chooses, read it from the screen, however. Even
with aforementioned antique he can send it online to grab it while he goes into
the other room to finish fixing his dinner. HE can also do this on a computer that somebody else threw away as it's not fast enough. IF he wants the satellite pictures and all that, let him buy a modern machine and pay for an internet connection <g>.

Otoh for the guy with all the connectivity at his fingertips, he can telnet or use www to get in.

I think option 3 sounds like the way to go here <g>. Have
one linux box anyway that will be networked but have other
plans for it.

Just dump everything on one box.

Numerous reasons I don't wish to do that. tHe linux box will be used at times with its usb card to transfer from audio and other devices using flash cards for such items as voice-overs for clients; audio transcriptions for dissemination on a radio network for those who aren't comfortable presenting this material, and at times large archival projects. THis will happen on the linux box because of my dislike of anything gui. tHe wife otoh likes her gui a bit.

Meanwhile, for every day work in my office, notetaking, radio logging and other
chores I'm still rather fond of plain vanilla ms dos. i get around quite well in its batch language, I like its screen access best of screen access for all the other operating systems out there I've been acquainted with. Hence we network the machines and have one trick ponies doing what they do best.

oNe machine will handle router/firewall and all connections among the different
machines. TOo many jobs to do, and a couple of them are going to be cpu intensive no matter which os we run. I also am a bit leery of multiple os bootups on one machine. i sort of like the kiss principle, i.e. keep it simple stupid <g>.

Regards,
Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)

Hello Kevin !

On 24-May'08 16:47, Kevin Klement wrote to Minh Van Le:

Thursday May 22 2008 07:39, Minh Van Le wrote to Kevin
Klement:

One day that network card will die and you won't find a
DOS/W3.x/OS2 compatible NIC replacement.

Nice!

Now you got me searching the www for a NE2000 NIC. :)

Yeah but you need a dos/w3.x/os2 ne2k compatible NIC, and probably a 16 bit ISA.

--- Msged/386 4.30
* Origin: ypan.dyndns.org loves Msged... (3:712/104)