🚀 go-pugleaf

slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:

>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  
>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?  I am considering:

>upgrade to MS-DOS 5.0
>use of a console driver like NANSI
>use of a disk cache
>optimize the disk (with something PC TOols Optimize)
>check disk interleave and adjust (with SpinRite or PC Tools DiskFix)

No matter what you do, it'll still be an XT. Depending on how much memory it
has, (I'm guessing not any more than a meg maximum) and how much memory the
programs use, you may or may not have much success at the disk cache and other
memory type solutions. I tried all of this on an old XT turbo that I was
"blessed" with and it didn't seem to make that much of a difference. Either
way, it still will never come close to comparing to the relatively blinding
speed of a 386. But you work with what you got, so good luck.

p.s. Remember when we got so excited about the intoduction of the 386. I'm just
waiting until Cray comes out with a desktop model. :)

-- 
| Joe Gross          | Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering |
| pickaxe@uiuc.edu   | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign        |
| (217) 328-4331     | "I've given up trying to stay ahead of the times, |
| NeXTmail welcome   | it's now a matter of how far I get left behind."  |

 slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  

>upgrade to MS-DOS 5.0
Bad move.  If necessary for software compatibility, upgrade to DOS
3.3.  On an XT, 5.0 will use more conventional memory.  There's no
appreciable speed gain from changing DOS versions, though, so if 2.10
runs all the software she needs to run, then leave 2.10 in place.

>use of a console driver like NANSI
If you need an ANSI driver, NANSI or something like that would speed
things up a bit.  But few programs actually require ANSI support --
and even a "fast" ANSI-replacement will be slower than no ANSI at all.
So try running without ANSI support; if all the software works leave
ANSI out of the picture.  Otherwise, use NANSI or somesuch.  DOS'
ANSI.SYS is a pig.

Display enhancers (like ANSI or Windows) should only be used when
specifically required by essential software.

>use of a disk cache
Will speed up disk access, at the expense of conventional memory.  You
didn't mention an EMS board, so I'm assuming the system doesn't have
one.  Remember you can't load anything into "high" memory on an XT!
In any case, unless your software is disk-intensive the speedup --
while dramatic -- will only affect certain operations.

>optimize the disk (with something PC TOols Optimize)
This one never hurts (provided you do a backup first!)  You will only
actually need to optimize your disk once or twice a year, if speed is
your only concern.  Most people optimize _way_ too often.

>check disk interleave and adjust (with SpinRite or PC Tools DiskFix)
This will help if the interleave is non-optimal.  Of course, you only
need to do it once in the life of the machine.  (Unless you make a
MAJOR change to the hardware!)

>Any other ideas? 
Replace the 8088 processor with an NEC V20.  This will speed things up
a little.  The cost is under $10 and it can be done by anyone brave
enough to open the machine -- it's just a chip swap.  (Also this is
one of those "MAJOR" changes -- see above :-)

You could also speed things up nicely by changing to a newer hard disk
(the XT drives have access times approaching 100 msec!) or dropping in
a 286 booster.  But if you have that kind of money available, you'd be
better off spending it on an actual 286 machine (Great deals these
days!) rather than kludging a 286 into an 8-bit machine.

In general, my upgrade philosophy is:
1- Don't fix what works.  ("First, cause no harm.")
2- Upgrade the hardware first, then the software.  The same old
   program on a faster machine is usually faster than the new version on
   tired old iron.
3- If the proposed "upgrade" costs more than 25% of the cost of a new
   machine, consider biting the bullet and replacing the machine.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Gordon S. Hlavenka           cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us
Vote straight ticket Procrastination party Dec. 3rd!

slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:

>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  
>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?  I am considering:

>upgrade to MS-DOS 5.0

Using anything past DOS 3.31 on an XT is just a waste of RAM. There's
nothing that DOS 5 can do on an XT that DOS 3.31 can't. And 3.31 uses
*noticeably* less RAM.

>use of a disk cache

Without an EMS board there's nowhere to *put* the cache except in 
the 640k that everything else is trying to use. So you'd increase the
performance at the cost of breaking any RAM hungry software!

>Any other ideas? 

Shop around for an old EMS board. There are a lot of 8-bit only ones that
won't run at anything above 8 MHz bus speed. They're often available for
under $20 (without ram, but then the 256k chips (or even 64k!!) thery use
are *very* cheap)

Adding one will give a place for many programs to swap to, and allow you
to have things like a cache. The swapping will make a *major* performance
difference to any program that can use the EMS!

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)

In article <50921@shamash.cdc.com> slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  
>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?

I use PCKWIK's disk cache, screen accelerator, and keyboard
accelerator together on my 1982 PC.  They're packaged together and sell
for a very reasonable price.

Also, I take care in organizing my file sytem.  The first-level
directories on my disk contain only subdirectories or batch files.
For example:

|-----wordproc------- wordperf
                   |
                   |- cgrammar

The batch file to run Correct Grammar might look like this:

@Echo off
Rem - Executes Correct Grammar
Cls
Echo ..Loading Correct Grammar Program
C:
Cd \WordProc\CGrammar
CG.EXE
Cd \Socrates
Cls

(Socrates is the machine's home directory.)  The advantage of the
above is that the PATH variable has few directories, and few files in
each to search.  (Place \DOS last.)

Also, I defragment my disk every other day.  DOG (a shareware program)
is most flexible.

Usually I just place the directories and batch files first on the disk,
for this is most important and fast to do.  But regularly organize the
disk as follows:--

Right after the system files, I place the directories, then the batch
files; then I place the remaining files, grouped by directory.  The
directory \WordProc\CGrammar I may place first, if it needs to access
files from disk as it runs.  Within each directory I sort the files by
filename, for (somedays) I convince myself that this best places files
that will be needed for a single task adjacent to one another on the
disk.  This helps cache them together, if the cache reads ahead.

Finally, I make sure temporary files and swap files are not fragmented
when they're written.  This means placing them away out on the disk by
themselves, if their upper size isn't predictable; or placing them
before the batch files in a region of fixed size, if their size is
pre-determined.  (I crash the program that creates the swap file, move
it where I want it when defragmenting, then--depending on the
program--use attributes or other methods to keep the swap space
intact.)

Many programs for XT's will take advantage of expanded memory, for
swapping to disk is painfully slow.  I installed an Intel AboveBoard
and placed my disk cache there.  It shrinks as applications need the
space.

Bruce (Gypsy Scholar)
-- 
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu bathurst@pucc.bitnet !princeton!phoenix!bathurst

In article <50921@shamash.cdc.com> slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  
>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?  I am considering:
>
>upgrade to MS-DOS 5.0
>use of a console driver like NANSI
>use of a disk cache
>optimize the disk (with something PC TOols Optimize)
>check disk interleave and adjust (with SpinRite or PC Tools DiskFix)
>
>Any other ideas? 

With only 10Mb of disk space, DOS5 is going to be tight. RAM is going to
limit NANSI, disk cache and all the best bits of DOS5.
Probably the best thing to do is do a fund-raise for about $500, and buy a
'cheap' 286.
Unfortunatly there is no way to make any real improvements to an XT,
without spending enough money to buy another computer.




--
--- Kiz (aka Ian Stuart) istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu
	{ Chivalry is not dead! - Just the Horse }

In article <1993Jan3.144052.13547@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Stuart) writes:

>In article <50921@shamash.cdc.com> slc@a2.cim.cdc.com
>(Steve Chesney x4662) writes:

>>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?

[SNIP, SNIP]

>Unfortunatly there is no way to make any real improvements to an XT,
>without spending enough money to buy another computer.

This is true of those who keep their computers in tune.  It's
remarkable how often I hear the following: "My computer was really
fast when I first got it; but now it's terribly slow.  I guess it's
time to upgrade the processor to an 80-blip-86?"  (These people did
not even buy Windows.)

Two people I know have old 8 Mhz 80286 AT clones and bought 1992
software.  Grrrind..faaalicck, faaalick, faaalick scrolled the screen.

The first machine had only 640K of memory, and LotusWorks wouldn't
even load.  When it finally did, and the disk was defragmented, Lotus
scrolled like a hog leaping in slow motion.  DR-DOS then placed every
driver and TSR into upper memory (including in an unused part of video
RAM).  After a careful tuning, he has a disk cache, video accelerator,
screen saver, printer buffer, and task swapper active.  LotusWorks
zips along, and it and other large programs swap in and out instantly.
The machine has never crashed.  When 2 Mb of extended memory was added
(1 Mb configured as XMS swap space), no improvement was noted.

The other AT surely has the world's slowest hard drive (it has to be
the largest), but ran a disk-intensive program last night faster than
a new and untuned 40 Mhz 80386 machine with a 200 Mb. disk and 8 Mb of
memory.

(Oh, yes...I vouch for the accuracy of the above, and give my cat
Buffy as an impartial witness.)

My point is that those improvements suggested by Mr. Cheny could make
a great difference when combined.  Computers, like cars, should be
carefully tuned when new and kept that way.

Bruce (Gypsy Scholar)
-- 
Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
bathurst@phoenix.princeton.edu bathurst@pucc.bitnet !princeton!phoenix!bathurst

bathurst@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Bruce Bathurst) writes:
>istuart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Stuart) writes:
>>(Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>>>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap 
>>>and simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?

>>Unfortunatly there is no way to make any real improvements to an XT,
>>without spending enough money to buy another computer.

>This is true of those who keep their computers in tune.

    Yes, but it's especially true for owners of XT's because XT parts are 
for the most part incompatible with AT parts. Take motherboard upgrades 
for example. If I want to upgrade my motherboard in my AT at home then 
I just buy a new board and plug all the existing AT stuff into it and off 
I go. But XT's aren't so easy. When you upgrade from XT to 286 or better 
all sorts of things need to changed. If the keyboard doesn't have an XT/AT 
switch you need a new keyboard. You are also guaranteed to have to upgrade 
your hard disk controller to 16 bit; probably your floppy controller too.
Since some AT boards are 1" taller than XT boards get a new case, and since 
your old XT power supply won't fit in the new case, you need a new power 
supply too. If you have an old 8-bit EMS board, it's useless (anybody want 
to buy an old Intel Aboveboard?), as are the jillions of slow 256K DRAMs 
that are plugged into it.

    On the brighter side, you can probably keep your old video card and 
monitor plus any serial, parallel, or modem/fax cards. Usually that amounts 
to less than 30% of the components in the system.

    As someone who spent countless hours experimenting with V20's and 
Intel Inboards, I can attest that there *are* things that you can do to 
jack up an XT, but on the whole I would have to agree that the only worth-
while way to spend upgrade money is to just buy a brand new PC. 386SX's 
are cheap these days.

>My point is that those improvements suggested by Mr. Cheny could make
>a great difference when combined.  Computers, like cars, should be
>carefully tuned when new and kept that way.

    I agree that all of Steve's suggestions are good ones, but in my 
opinion MSDOS boxes have undergone more drastic improvements in the last 
8 years than cars have in the last 3 decades. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

In article <50921@shamash.cdc.com> slc@a2.cim.cdc.com (Steve Chesney x4662) writes:
>At my wife's job (a church) she is obligated to use a vintage IBM XT with
>a 10 meg hard disk, color display and IBM PC-DOS 2.10.  
>Since she is used to our 386, it seems slow to her.  Are there any cheap and
>simple upgrades that we could try to alleviate this?

All of the previous replies were very good.  If you want a much greater
performance improvement and are willing to spend a few more dollars
consider buying a 386SX mother-board.  Then you will have all the power
of a 386 at the lowest possible price.  Don't bother with a 286 upgrade.

I upgraded my old XT about 6 or 8 months ago at a local computer store
that offered an XT to 386SX-16 with 1MB RAM upgrade for $159 including
labor.  Motherboard prices have dropped a lot since then, but memory is
slightly higher now.  Benchmarks show about a 10 times performance
improvement over the XT in all areas but hard disk (my old XT disk).

The only problems I had were I had to replace my old XT keyboard with an
AT 101 key keyboard and two of my XT boards (CGA and floppy/Multi-IO) 
didn't fit the 16 bit slots, so I had to replace them.
	(they had circuit-board & etches where the 16 bit AT slot was)
All three of those components can be found for under $30 each.
My old 135 watt P/S works fine as well as my old Seagate 238R hard disk,
though it is the bottleneck of the system.

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========