what

this is a different disk.

did two disks on my desk go bad at the same time? or is this USB drive A USELESS FAILURE?
ok I'm trying a third disk and if this fails this drive is going right in the lake
it wrote successfully! now I can install some MS-DOS 6.22
dang it. after all that time installing it, it can't boot.
it doesn't even fail to boot, it just hangs at boot

some stupid problem with partitioning/mbr, probably
yup. boot disk, fdisk /mbr, and now it boots fine.
now I can get some REAL work done.
god I love this ANSI art floppy disk
wait, you can't do that. that's illegal
this is not how Doom is supposed to run, man.
isn't this shit a 486? yeah, it's a 66mhz 486.
the fuck?
so why is it benchmarking like a fucking tandy 1000? an 16mhz 8086!
OK I fixed some bios settings and it's now as fast as a 25 mhz.
huh.
This cyrix really sucks, eh?
better? crappy, but better.
ok the chip is a Cx486SLC2.
That's really a 386... but it should be running at 50mhz. it definitely isn't.
So I can adjust the CPU speed by changing jumper 8... which isn't there. They hardwired it.
And JP9, which is also hardwired
JP10 isn't hardwired, thankfully.
so that means I can do 16mhz or 25 mhz.

and it's currently on 16mhz.

well, let's try 25mhz!
Better!
still not great, but it feels a little better.
I wonder if I could overclock this stupid 386. I could desolder that hardwired jumper and replace it with a real jumper...
this board is never gonna be fast, though.
it's got a 486-labeled 386 soldered to the board, and zero cache.
very very limited entry-level board, this.
ok maybe overclocking the 386 is a bad idea.
(I haven't done it yet, this is just how hot it gets at 25mhz)
It may also be the VGA card I'm using. It's an ATI mach32, which is designed for accelerated windows 3.1 use, it might be slow at mode X stuff
or mode Y. I forget which one Doom uses. I think it's Y

More from foone

More from Internet

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x