282points · 3d ago

Ask HN: Who's still keeping a DOS machine up because the business depends on it?

Do you currently work with or know anyone who is still using:

* dBase/Clipper/CLARION/Paradox/other DOS RAD environments on period hardware to run business processes?

* CNC mills/spectrometers/microscopes/other industrial instruments controlled by ISA cards (either bespoke or standards like GPIB)?

* Anything with a parallel port dongle?

If so, I'd be very interested in hearing your experience here, or feel free to send me an email at the address in my profile. I'm not trying to sell anything, just doing some research for an idea around keeping these going on modern hardware.

news.ycombinator.com·by mlaux·3d ago

Discussion 294 comments

bestnew
⌘↵ to post · markdown supported
freeli·2d ago
A certain nuclear power plant had a Windows NT 4.0 machine running as late as 2007. The reason is interesting.

The machine's purpose was to report status of the control rods that mitigate nuclear reactions. Basically, "are the rods inserted, and if so, how many / how far?". I want to emphasize that this was reporting only, NOT control.

The original software was written back in the 80's, when the plant was originally commissioned, for AmigaOS. Of course, it's hard to buy Amigas anymore, and the original one died long ago (nobody remembers when).

So in the mid '90s, the utility purchased an AmigaOS emulator that ran on Windows NT 4.0, which was current at the time. The emulator (IIRC) was developed by a firm in the UK. The firm went out of business sometime in the late '90s. The control rod monitoring software ran under this emulator on top of NT4.

Windows NT 4.0 was the last OS to allow the emulation software direct access to the physical hardware that produced the status signal. Later versions of Windows abstracted the hardware access away, and the monitoring software broke. Because the emulation company had gone belly up, there was no way to fix the incompatibility.

So the utility had a choice: get new hardware/software certified (by NRC?), or keep doing what they were doing with the software (and hardware) that they had. They chose the latter.

So this is how, in 2007, during a tour of the facility, I stumbled across a Pentium 1 system running an AmigaOS emulator on Windows NT 4.0 that was responsible for displaying the status of the control rods of a nuclear power plant.

Spare hardware for this setup was purchased off of eBay and stocked on an adjacent shelf.

0
justin66·2d ago
To me the funny part of this story is that they used to show you this warning as part of the EULA when installing Windows NT 4, which I remember joking about:

NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ONLINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer.

Also:

The machine's purpose was to report status of the control rods that mitigate nuclear reactions. Basically, "are the rods inserted, and if so, how many / how far?". I want to emphasize that this was reporting only, NOT control.

It would take a whole lot more context to make this somehow comforting. :D

0
SenHeng·2d ago
> It would take a whole lot more context to make this somehow comforting. :D

This is this fascinating 6 part documentary about the Chernobyl incident explaining how it was caused by bad control rods. But the main point is that control rods prevent the facility from going boom, so be glad it’s not the AmigaOS emulator on a NT machine handling it.

0
dh2022·1d ago
LOL at “Chernobyl accident was caused by bad control rods”. This seems to imply other control mechanisms worked, when in fact plant engineers could not even monitor the plant operations. They had malfunctioning Geiger counters. Also - plant engineers had no idea how much water was flowing through the nuclear core cooler. Monitors for the temperature of before mentioned water did not exist even on a whiteboard.
0
Froedlich·2d ago
A friend works for an airline as a flight simulator tech. Their entire software stack, including the compiler and OS, is FAA-certified.

Then their ancient Honeywell(?) mainframes reached end-of-life they scouted for compatible hardware, of which there was none. The cost of certifying new software, plus the time involved, was astronomical. So, after consulting with the FAA, they paid a hardware company to clone the ancient mainframes in modern silicon. The FAA signed off on it, and they had all-new computers - much smaller than the originals - running the old stack.

0
zx8080·2d ago
It's _very_ hard to believe some company to simply "clone the mainframe" into chip. Mind sharing any link to this effort?
0
vincent-manis·2d ago
When Xerox established PARC, they asked the assembled scientists what computer they wanted. The majority view was a DEC PDP-10 KA10, with the BBN memory management unit that let it run Tenex (the ancestor of DEC TOPS-20). Xerox couldn't really buy a competitor's mainframe, so they built MAXC (maximum access computer), which was a complete emulation of the Tenex machines.
0
zem·2d ago
very apt that xerox parc was full of tenex engineers!
0
fsckboy·2d ago
>MAXC (maximum access computer), which was a complete emulation of the Tenex machines.

Compuserve also had a software dependency on the PDP-10 and Decsystem 20, and when those machines were no longer available they bought a company making clones so they could continue to manufacture them for themselves. The company they bought, Microsolutions, was Mark Cuban's first startup.

making clones of mainframes (IBM's) had been a big area of intellectual property litigation, but also facing monopolization investigations, IBM had to allow them. They were referred to as "plug compatibles".

0
flyinghamster·2d ago
It could be an FPGA. Given enough gates, and the know-how to program them, you can make an FPGA emulate anything. Speed and efficiency could be better or worse, but if you're targeting old hardware, better is likely.
0
jasomill·1d ago
IBM released the PC XT/370[1], built around a pair of 68000s and an 8087 with custom microcode to emulate System/370 instructions, in 1983.

It's not hard to imagine a similar system fabricated around an open or licensed processor core today being well within the budget of a major airline today.

Software emulation would no doubt be less expensive, but there could have been regulatory reasons for building plug-compatible hardware.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-based_IBM_mainframe-compati...

0
mitxela·2d ago
Custom chips aren't as expensive as you think. About a few million dollars for the design and a hundred thousand chips, way out of reach for a hobbyist, but accessible to large enough companies. Just because it's opaque to us software people doesn't mean it's not a real industry you can buy things from.
0
realo·2d ago
And all that expensive engineering is still less costly AND faster (!!) than a new software certification.

Cannot refrain myself from asking why ...

0
ianjbutler·2d ago
Situation: Software-1 on Platform-1, both certified.

Time-evolution: P1 is deprecated, replaced by uncertified P2, but S1 remains certified.. just nowhere certified to run yet.

Solution: There's another software S2 which originally vouched for P1, itself still certified, which can still be used to certify P2.

Counterfactual?: If S1 were deprecated in favor of new S3.. there'd be no plan to certify it!

The problem: None of this actually makes any sense! But we're trying to fake due diligence. Everyone knows the hardware/platforms kinda need to be certified with respect to each other anyway, but if we did it that way it would all be even more expensive an time-consuming.

0
mitxela·2d ago
Doesn't seem crazy to me. Which one do you suppose needs more proof of correctness: a cake recipe, or the oven you bake the cake in? The recipe has to be correct or the cake won't work, but the oven just has to hold a temperature.
0
theodric·2d ago
I mean...there's some precedent. The XKL TOAD ("Ten On A Desk") implements the PDP-10 instruction set, and will happily run TOPS-10/TOPS-20. LCM had one doing just that.

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10277383... https://www.twenex.org/?network

0
hapless·2d ago
XKL is still in business (https://xkl.com/)

as far as i know the control plane on their equipment is still a pdp-10 compatible

0
anthk·1d ago
I'd happily run ITS on that.
0
DonHopkins·1d ago
It's tempting to write a PDP-10 emulator for the Atari ST called TOAST.

FWIW I'm developing "tiny-titan", a stand-in for Cambridge's Titan mainframe that talks to Heinz Lemke's 1972 PIXIE program over an emulated version of Neil Wiseman's PDP-7 <=> Titan link. It doesn't emulate Titan itself, just the conversation PIXIE had with it, so the unmodified 1972 PDP-7 code dials home and uploads its drawings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(1963_computer)

>Titan was the prototype of the Atlas 2 computer developed by Ferranti and the University of Cambridge Mathematical Laboratory in Cambridge, England. It was designed starting in 1963, and in operation from 1964 to 1973.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49407938

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40617894

Flight of the PIXIE - Yuja Wang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDrqR9XssJI

UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICAL LABORATORY, CAMBRIDGE: Cambridge Supervisor - Planning Document 10 Software for the Titan/PDP-7 link:

https://cucps.soc.srcf.net/titan/supplan/pd10.htm

Here is a photo of Heinz Lemke operating PIXIE with the light pen and 340 display on the PDP-7 (also seen in the video above):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/779220482206901/posts/629772...

0
theodric·23h ago
Fascinating stuff; thank you for sharing. Can I follow your work somewhere??
0
znpy·2d ago
Meh, old architectures are relatively simple and you can get 95% of those via fpga softcores (some freely available, some paid) and run them on fpga. The rest can be implemented by a proper ee team.
0
betaby·2d ago
That's interesting. That means there are fewer checks for hardware than software?
0
soulofmischief·2d ago
Hardware is more amenable to static analysis than running programs which may receive an arbitrary number of inputs and express an arbitrary number of possible intermediate states.

I am interested in how firmware is treated, since perhaps in the case of these old machines it's small enough to be analyzable or at least cloned bit-for-bit.

0
hulitu·2d ago
Software "engineers" like to abstract things. This doesn't pay well e with reliability.
0
jagged-chisel·2d ago
You have inspired a blog post. World, be warned!
0
bitwize·1d ago
There's a mechanical tank simulator at the Swiss Military Museum that was built in the 1970s and used for actual service before being retired and becoming a museum piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcQifPHcMLE

The simulator has a simulated cockpit for the user, which controls an armature with a camera attached that is piloted around a miniature battlefield environment and provides a video feed to the cockpit. A "foot" on the armature senses terrain elevation changes, which are then supplied as movement feedback to the simulated tank cockpit. All of this was controlled by a 1970s mainframe, for which replacement parts were unavailable so it was replaced, in the museum exhibit, with a Raspberry Pi.

It looks like hardware emulation was NOT used; rather, they translated the original program from paper printouts to a modern programming language: https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/simulate-driving-a-1970s-ta...

0
fsckboy·2d ago
>Then their ancient Honeywell(?) mainframes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE-600_series from the 36-bit era which turned out to be a sweet-spot for Lisp; also "famous" for running Multics (old joke flipped: "which was many of whatever unix is one of")

GE sold it's division to Honeywell, and from there to Group Bull (French) and then to NEC (Japan)

0
jasomill·1d ago
Also immortalized as the name of the "gecos" field in the UNIX passwd(5) file, described in the v7 man page[1] as "GCOS job number, box number, optional GCOS user-id" (GCOS = GECOS after the Honeywell acquisition).

[1] https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=passwd&apropos=0&s...

0
DonHopkins·1d ago
Moltix would have been a better name than OpenClaw.
0
CobaltFire·2d ago
Having worked on nuclear plants (as a reactor operator) around that time this doesn't surprise me in the least.

Thats far more advanced than the systems I worked with, one of which reported rod position via resistance measurement on a brushed cylinder (one for angular and one for depth).

Cleaning and calibrating those was a constant maintenance item every time the reactor was shut down.

0
throwaway2037·2d ago
This is a great post. How does someone write software that needs to run for ~50 years where the hardware will need to be replaced with non-equivalent, newer hardware? If I were facing this issue today, I might start with an OS that has excellent emulation. Example: Can I run 32-bit MS Windows 95 via emulation on a variety of current 64-bit OSes, like MS Windows, Linux, AIX, HP-UX, etc. If yes, then we can assume(?) this emulation will remain relatively stable even if we upgrade our hardware later. Maybe I am overthinking the whole problem: Can VMs do exactly what I want today? Will VMs running ancient OSes, such as 32-bit MS Windows 95, continue to be stable/viable in the future? I am unsure.
0
ninalanyon·2d ago
Make sure that you have as thorough a specification of what the system is supposed to do as you can.

Then define the version control system and the build process, specifying the dependencies, and so on.

Think about any opaque blobs in the system and try to eliminate them so that you have plain text source code so that no tools are needed to read the code.

Make sure that the build process runs entirely locally and never fetches anything from outside.

Simplify everything, use only tools and languages that are well understood and supported.

The real problems are not strictly technical but social: how do you prevent loss of the code, the tools, the specification, how do you maintain the expertise needed to maintain it. How do you ensure that all those things that are obvious to you now are written down in all their gory detail so that your great grandchildren will not apply their new and different preconceived ideas to the system?

Document all this on paper as well as electronic storage, make sure that version ids are recorded on every page as well as being available to the user of the machine or program.

In the industry in which I worked for the last thirty years of my career it was not uncommon to have things come back for repair after fifty years use and to be able to consult the original drawings and bill of materials so that exact replacement parts could be made.

0
rrr_oh_man·2d ago
What is this industry, if I may ask?
0
jl6·2d ago
> How does someone write software that needs to run for ~50 years where the hardware will need to be replaced with non-equivalent, newer hardware?

Some ideas:

Write it in a popular language/ecosystem, stick rigidly to well-defined APIs, use commodity hardware, flatten out any malignant cleverness, maintain documentation on why every part does the thing it does, and make the source code readily available.

This is based on working with some very old systems, and each point above is the opposite of something that made life harder.

0
inopinatus·2d ago
Unfortunately, “popular language/ecosystem” includes JavaScript and PHP.

I’d go for “universal and timeless”, which has meant C for several decades now. There is, I’d concede, a reasonable chance that Rust obtains that label in our lifetimes.

0
asa400·2d ago
Yeah agreed. Popular is a good first approximation, but to be more precise I think you want tools where the incentives in the community reward stability over features that require breakage, which would include languages and runtimes like Erlang and Clojure.

Neither is popular when compared to for example Python or PHP, but they both have cultures that care about stability in the core runtime and the libraries. Most folks probably don’t know that about Erlang and maybe think it’s some new whiz-bang thing, but Erlang is incredibly stable and well supported by a dedicated team that has been doing it for years and years at this point. I don’t know if Erlang will be more or less popular in 20 years but it 100% will be around and be receiving updates, I would put money on it.

0
very-old-sw·1d ago
My C programs from a few decades ago, before namespaces were invented, no longer compile. However, the old executables still execute. The old C compilers are available but not supported; ChatGPT warns to expect trouble. Perhaps maybe there are compatibility switches that work correctly. Using them would require changing the makefiles.
0
cozzyd·2d ago
And worse for posterity, Python
0
brudgers·2d ago
The Amiga was a popular ecosystem.
0
jl6·2d ago
And as a result it's very well emulated, making it very likely that Amiga code can still be run in 50 years' time.
0
brudgers·2d ago
Today. That was not true a few years ago.
0
OCTAGRAM·1d ago
Perl was popular
0
pianopatrick·2d ago
Wasn't there some idea that went like "if something has been around for x years, it will likely be around for x more years"?

Maybe follow that. It's 2026 right now. What way of writing code would have worked 50 years ago (1976) that still works today?

Well, C, SQL and Lisp were all around 50 years ago and still exist today.

In terms of hardware, 50 years ago there was intel 8080. apparently code for that can still work via emulation today.

So if you wrote C for low level, Lisp for high level, and compiled the software to run in an Intel 8080 emulator, that combo would likely still work in 50 years.

0
OCTAGRAM·1d ago
C is very different C. There is C where programmer rushes to call fork(), just because he likes the idea of entering room once and exiting room twice. And this program has got excuse for his behavior. He has fork() in POSIX standard. So programming is using fork() here and there even if not strictly needed. Using fork()/exec() instead of more portable posix_spawn(). Using fork()/accept() instead of multithreading.

Then it becomes impossible to introduce database connection pool. Well, probably possible, but in single-process multithread server this is BSc grade job, and in multi-process server this is PhD grade job. libmysqlserver and others maintain some context near to the socket, in opaque way. Hard to pass context between processes. At least, hard to return used connection back to pool in main process. Proxy is also not an easy walk.

On client side although Windows NT had POSIX layer, and XP/2003 still had Interix SFU. But Windows Vista broke SFU. But then Vista has got SUA. But SUA was not binary compatible, required recompilation. And as of Windows 10 there was surely no SUA. Was it dropped in Windows 8? Windows 10 has got WSL eventually, but there was a gap between SUA and WSL. And deploying Windows application with SFU, SUA or WSL part is not easy walk. Writing installer is MSc grade job.

Then comes iPhone OS and Android. They are POSIX OSes. Kind of. But spawning external processes is prohibited or not desirable. This is what was blocking LaTeX adoption on mobiles.

0
pianopatrick·1d ago
Well I think if you were doing the 1976 way you might not even have multi processing or multi threading. Just a single process with a single thread. And so you don't have a database connection pool, you just have a single database connection and do one query at a time maybe.

That may not work for network connected software with lots of requests per second. But such software did not exist too much in 1976 either as there was not very much networking going on.

0
jasomill·1d ago
There were absolutely multiuser computer systems processing transactions from thousands of users in 1976.

As for networking, both the ARPANET and Ethernet predate 1976, though neither were ubiqutitous and most high-volume networking would have been mainframes and related hardware connected via leased lines.

0
veqq·2d ago
Lindy effect
0
brudgers·2d ago
run for ~50 years where the hardware will need to be replaced

If it needs to run for fifty years, specify hardware that has a long support cycle such as Mil-Spec.

That’s why the Z80 was around for so long and why so many companies in the 80’s and 90’s still deigned around it. (1)

If you let programmers drive system design, winding up with an “Amiga” in your certified design is a more probable outcome…

(1) there’s a moderate chance that new hardware that can run Z80 code will be around fifty years from now.

0
dmos62·2d ago
> how does someone write software that needs to run for ~50 years where the hardware will need to be replaced with non-equivalent, newer hardware?

Make it open-source, or don't buy without source.

0
booty·2d ago
It's interesting to think about this in the context of parent poster's story about the Amiga emulator in the nuclear power plant.

Or, more broadly, in the context of any situation where the software is closely coupled to a specific operating system and/or hardware.

Having the source code would have helped tremendously, but might not have been sufficient because of the hardware story and the regulatory approval factor.

0
jmalicki·2d ago
You don't need source anymore. Have Claude Code look at the binary and write a new program.
0
esafak·2d ago
I wouldn't rely on that for mission critical systems.
0
OCTAGRAM·1d ago
DOS emulation is available more widely than Win32 emulation, and there is HX DOS Extender. I would try sticking to Win32 dlls runnable in HX DOS Extender. rundll32 or some other exe host. HX DOS Extender has no paging support and has problem loading multiple exe having no relocation info to the very same 4Mb base address they all usually pretend. DLL should have relocation.

I thought "but what is the problem to generate EXE with relocation?" and tried GCC GNAT (from 2017), and GCC said no. EXE and DLL formats are very much the same, but GCC is completely unable to generate relocatable EXE. A very suprising discovery. More recent toolkits became aware that adding relocation to EXE is not a rocket science, just do the same like in DLL. But these recent toolkits may call APIs that HX DOS Extender does not support yet.

0
steveBK123·2d ago
> How does someone write software that needs to run for ~50 years

You in a lot of ways have to respect the ability to have done this in the first place, compared to todays slopware which manages to break within 1-2 mandatory OS update cycles.

0
chasd00·2d ago
This was one of the promises of Java. You write your application and then you get a virtual machine (JVM). As time goes on you only maintain the virtual machine while the application remains the same.
0
throwaway2037·1d ago

    > As time goes on you only maintain the virtual machine while the application remains the same.
"only" is doing some heavy lifting here. A modern VM is probably more complex than a kernel.
0
OCTAGRAM·1d ago
The funny thing happened and verified this promise. There were several architects working on IBM System Object Model (SOM). In 1996-1997 many good things ended, and SOM was terminated. But the work was so good that two architects did not stop and wrote the book: Putting Metaclasses to Work (1998). That book has got reference implementation in Java. So we have IBM SOM as closed source binary and we have Java source codes.

IBM SOM executes on Windows 10. I have checked Visual Age for C++ Direct2SOM extensions, OpenDoc for Windows. Very good. 32-bit i386, but otherwise runnable, usable.

And Java is hard to build, hard to execute on modern Java toolkit. Java seemingly had no List, and authors made their own List, but when Java also got its List, that breaks the build. When building problems are resolved, runtime problems come. Original Java was seemingly fine with Property key being object, but modern Java only wants strings. And Property-based dictionaries are all around. PMtW is about building VMT, and there is multiple class inheritance in PMtW model, not matching Java's comparably limited OOP. So PMtW is building dictionaries for methods to support what is described in book, and foundational Java class is malfunctioning.

I did not finish this road, don't know so what does it take after all to run Java code from 1998 on modern Java toolkit. So far looks pathetic compared to Win32 programming.

0
TMWNN·2d ago
>So this is how, in 2007, during a tour of the facility, I stumbled across a Pentium 1 system running an AmigaOS emulator on Windows NT 4.0 that was responsible for displaying the status of the control rods of a nuclear power plant.

Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky depicts a human society thousands of years in the future, in which pretty much all software has already been written; it's just a matter of finding it. So programmer-archaeologists search archives and run code on emulators in emulators in emulators as far back as needed. <https://web.archive.org/web/20231114211656/http://www.gareth...>

(Heck, recently I migrated a VM to its third hypervisor. It began as a physical machine a quarter century ago.)

0
jasomill·1d ago
The Amiga thing is funny, but NT 4.0 was still receiving security updates until the end of 2006, so seeing it in 2007 wouldn't be much different than seeing Windows 10 today.

I'm curious what changed in Windows 2000 that would have broken the emulator, though, as direct hardware access in any version of Window NT requires a driver, and I don't recall any major breaking changes to the driver architecture between NT 4 and Vista.

0
vkazanov·2d ago
I grew up in a little post soviet republic, in a small town with a big nuclear power plant.

Coincidently, that's where my father was working as a programmer until the shutdown of the plant.

Anyways, he was maintaining a bunch of systems related to collecting data from environment monitoring sensors around the plant. In mid 2000s or so he showed me some data collecting machines using what looked like DOS text UI that mentioned being written in Leningrad, 1989 or 1988.

The software was running in an emulator on Linux, which my father used to replace original x86-compatible machines runninh dos.

Pretty sure thr whole thing was running for quite a while since my family moved elsewhere.

0
kccqzy·2d ago
Did they not need NRC recertification when they moved from a physical machine running AmigaOS to an AmigaOS emulator?
0
freeli·2d ago
That is an advanced question best asked of the folks in charge of the plant. At the time I was just trying to figure out how to explain to the IT auditors why there was no antivirus software on this piece of crap.
0
CursedSilicon·2d ago
Could you skirt around it and just remark "there are no viruses for AmigaOS"

(Probably not literally true. But functionally true in the sense that they were likely transmitted via infected floppy disks, of which there'd be virtually none left in the wild in 2007)

0
kamma4434·2d ago
Hello, my name is Lamer Exterminator, pleased to make your acquaintance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamer_Exterminator

0
freeli·2d ago
It wasn't the AmigaOS running in the emulator that they were worried about, it was the Windows system running the emulator. (Not that the average IT auditor there could have understood the difference.)
0
M95D·2d ago
How would a virus get in there?
0
rcxdude·2d ago
Depends. A lot of these audits are quite prescriptive and don't leave much room for actually thinking about the problem. There is often some kind of mechanism for 'this is sufficiently segregated it doesn't matter that it's utterly out of date' but then usually some awkward rules develop that prevent some things from being put into that category. More subtly you can get whether the thing even exists as a thing that the audit cares about, and that often depends on the framing (embedded software is often invisible here but it needs to not look too much like a general-purpose OS even though it often is).

(Also, in my experience, what the auditors think the rules are and what is written down can often be divergent and even contradictory)

0
rrr_oh_man·2d ago
> Also, in my experience, what the auditors think the rules are and what is written down can often be divergent and even contradictory

Sounds interesting, could you elaborate?

0
bryanwi·2d ago
[Source: Was NT developer - have code in NT 4.0...]

The big problem will almost always be some hardware dependency that breaks, almost always in I/O. I've seen video software used by TV producers that depended on an ISA (not EISA nor PCI, ISA) card to read NTSC input and impose text over it. And it broke as they were getting ready to add commentary to a live broadcast of a race (which I was driving in.)

The world is full of machine tools and metrology devices that are stuck on some ancient computer/software because they made a weird proprietary protocol over the top of a centronics connector, or some other "WHAT were they thinking??" construction...

All of these could be overcome with a new I/O device, and/or writing a device driver. So using say a raspberry PI that talks ethernet to your "monitor" PC is probably relatively change proof.

If there is any documentation, if anybody can find said docs, if there's budget for a new I/O card and the device driver to go with it. Often the parties who have those resources would rather sell you a new machine tool, metrology machine, or I suppose, nuclear reactor (:-)

Of course, certification is a big deal... A particular certification structure led to the 737 MAX tragedies. And since certifying authorities don't always have detailed tech knowledge of what things are, they have a hard time saying "no, you can't slide that by, you have to build and certify a new thing".

0
stevetron·2d ago
I wouldn't call them business-critical computers, but I do have about 3-4 computers under one of my workbenches dedicated to certain work I did for a client. One of them has an EPROM programmer set-up, which includes a custom ISA-card, and a ribbon cable to an external box with a ZIF-socket. The software for that requires MS-DOS. To network that box, which is a 486SX, I run WFWG 3.11. Since these never go on the enternet or anything outside 'the lab', I don't worry about the old MS networking.

A second computer has an MS-DOS program that captures data input on a pair of RS-422 ports (two more special ISA cards) That let me look at packet data at a low level and watch which serial port received what data, and track character-level handshaking of a proprietary protocol.

A third computer under Windows 2000 ran a 68HC11 cross-compiler that didn't require a dongle. I also used this to run a remote debugger that allowed me to single-step through the 68HC11 code running on the target but moved to the target's RAM. To do this 'properly' I was constantly generating hard-copies from the compiler which would show me the C-code, and the resulting assembler code that I'd track through the debugger. I used a lot of paper on a project sometimes.

A fourth computer with MS-DOS, with WFWG3.11 also installed on it, had all my old CAD programs on it, from before they required dongles, so that I could pull-up drawings of some of the hardware I designed. Some of those were finicky about which mouse I use. I still have an old Logitech mouse C7 that two of my CAD programs required.

I was working on a replacement platform that put this into an Atmel-based controller, shipped a couple of samples, then went blind in one eye, while my client had a stroke and was out of action for a year. Between both of our health problems, that project kind of died.

0
yitchelle·2d ago
Not MSDOS, but I feel obliged to shared the story of an auto shop in Poland using a Commodore 64 to run the calibration and wheel balancing some years back. It was viral news at the time but worth sharing again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXdLtnt-nvE

Original Polish article - https://www.trojmiasto.pl/wiadomosci/Warszatat-samochodowy-z...

0
sgarland·1d ago
Or McLaren needing to use an ancient, very specific Compaq laptop to service the F1.

https://www.extremetech.com/cars/227828-the-mclaren-f1-super...

0
shakna·2d ago
dBase, MS-DOS 3.x, not using industrial anything. And as its a front of house tally machine, there's literally zero incentive to ever upgrade it. Downtime is measured in the yearly reboot, but there are non-operational business hours, so everything is just scheduled around that.

We've already got it running on modern hardware. It's running under qemu. And the dBase stuff gets ripped out and sent to a REST server for broad monitoring and so on.

We... Have one small oddity? There's a tape backup system, that throws everything through the soundcard. (Sound Blaster only.)

Would be nice if onboarders didn't see dBase and just throw everything at AI instead of actually learning the skills they'll need when data migrations happen. But that's a people problem that can't be solved with tech.

0
Felger·2d ago
Not DOS, but I sold a '99 HP computer running win98 last month, to replace an identical failed system. It was used to control a 50 meters long custom industrial paint booth line for special equipments (like 57" rims). Luckily, their HDD was OK. Urged them to make a few sector-to-sector copies of it on a few spare HDD. This $100 sell surely has prevented this business from massive bills or even going bankrupt in the meantime from production loss.
0
fluorinerocket·2d ago
Insane to me that someone would use a windows machine to run a piece of equipment when PLCs exist and are supported for decades by companies like Rockwell, Siemens, Allen Bradley
0
Felger·2d ago
There are lot of windows based solutions since more than 20 years ago for two main reasons : recipe management system, and logging. A basic SCADA of sort. PLCs systems of that era could either not manage it (TSX, S5,S7-100/200), or it would be additionnal very expensive, complex and typically OPC-based solutions (I'm shivering).

Some of theses solutions are built upon common PLCs but some are built as standalone solutions when I/O are simple enough (modbus mainly, RS232/422/485, ethernet/IP, controlnet, ...). Seen lot of them in breeding nutrition management systems, in-house developped processes, ...

0
peebee67·1d ago
Weren't all the ATMs running a custom Windows 98 into the late 2000's?
0
reaperducer·1d ago
0
adithyassekhar·2d ago
Think that’d be worth more than 100 :)
0
Felger·2d ago
I had it listed at this price for a few months, simeone from their company purchased it and rode 2 hours and half to come get it. Couldn't and had no reason to up the price at this stage. Indeed, this was a very good deal for them.
0
M95D·2d ago
I had a functional STA Compact [1] coagulation analyzer until 2022. It ran a customized DOS version on a ITX computer board that was integrated into the analyzer. UI was in text mode and used the keyboard only. It had no mouse. The video in the link shows the UI for a few seconds at the end. We kept it functional as a backup and even used it a few days when the replacement broke down. It was one of the best analyzers I ever used.

The newer version of that anaylzer, STA Compact Max [2] has mostly the same analyzer hardware, but newer ITX board inside. It runs Windows (XP, 7, 10...). Bugs galore.

I know labs that used a Beckman-Coulter HmX hematology analyzer [3] until 2015 or so. That machine is attached to an external MS-DOS computer via a very thick cable and an ISA board. The cable connector looked a bit like a 68-pin SCSI-3. The software used VGA graphics mode.

  [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kti6Zdyp8dQ
  [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJan25vkpEA
  [3] https://www.soriaudio.com/index.php?mid=m_eqp&document_srl=62138152
0
rleigh·2d ago
Not any longer. Back in the mid-2000s the company I worked for sold point-of-sale systems based upon a multi-user 4GL application (TAS Pro). Similar to dBase/Clipper etc., using the Novell Btrieve ISAM database engine.

With the advent of USB and SATA we ceased to be able to source industrial embedded x86 boards which could run the application. At the time this was with Novell DR-DOS, which was relatively modern in terms of hardware support but still behind the times and we were struggling to manufacture new systems. The company was very small, so a full rewrite was investigated--I did a prototype using PostgreSQL and Gtkmm--but it wasn't realistic. Today, an AI could probably do a full rewrite in a day or two, including migration tooling. Back then, it would have been a multi-year effort for one person given the application's size and complexity.

My solution was to run Linux since it had full support for the hardware. Debian Sarge at the time. This used a Perl frontend and dialog(1) to present a simple menu system at startup. This did backups, software updates (over dialup!), remote access for support (again over dialup), ran backups and ran the main application. It would start DOSEMU which provided the application with VGA display, COM ports and parallel ports for the application to drive "directly" (from its perspective). It also used Samba and CUPS to provide the DOS environment with shared network drives with exclusive byte-range file locking needed for the multi-user network database to work with concurrent users without data corruption, and also multi-user report printing and receipt printing.

I left the company a year after this was put into full production, but the last I heard it kept the company viable with a supportable product for many years after until its owners retired. This kept software from the early 1990s running well into the 2010s, and there are likely still sites running it to this day.

0
pumplekin·2d ago
Not DOS, but two similar era cases.

A FTSE 100 company I used to work for, still maintains a SCO UNIX machine that was first installed in 1993. It hasn't had any upgrades since, has specialist hardware in it, and still has an IP stack that is classful (ie. no subnet masks, 10.x.x.x is always a /8). It runs in a 100% airgapped network, and it isn't essential to keeping the core companies operations, but it is a ticking time bomb nobody seems to want to address that will cause a lot of distruption when it finally dies.

Also I was recently (very lightly) involved in a consultancy project to remove an OS/2 based point of sale system for a small local retailer with 6 stores.

0
adithyassekhar·2d ago
If you don’t mind me asking, how can a thing that causes disruption when it dies still not be considered essential?
0
BlackRabbit1·2d ago
Blind Control for the C-Suite?
0
alexpotato·2d ago
Not DOS but another dad in my town works for one of the opera houses in NYC.

They have what are called "supertitles" [0] so that people can follow along with what the opera singers are actually saying. There is one on the back of each seat in the theater.

As near as I can figure, it's basically hundreds of LCD displays on some kind of bus network and connected to a computer via serial connection aka "D pin connector".

The software only runs on Windows XP and he has to keep finding old Windows XP machines on eBay in order to keep it working. I think he also has a couple hard drive images of the working OS + software.

I had suggested using a USB to D pin adapter and then use an LLM to sniff the protocol and then reverse engineer it.

His response:

"It HAS to work correctly. In 30 years we've never had an outage with the old system."

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtitles

0
indrora·2d ago
Ah, that sounds like it's The Met, who have a bespoke electronic libretto system.

You're right, it is a bunch of LCDs on a bus (iirc rs485).

0
alexpotato·1d ago
I feel like we probably both know the guy who runs it.
0
icantevenhold·2d ago
Couldn’t you install a cracked windows xp on any kind of machine essentially? Or what is special about “windows xp machines”?
0
InvisibleUp·2d ago
Windows XP drivers don't exist for modern computers. I do wonder if 32-bit Windows 10 would be an acceptable alternative, though.
0
stevetron·2d ago
I worked in a state gov't agency as a temp, twice, in the same department. Several of us had shared access to a PC that let us log-into a special terminal program and read records on some mainframe someplace. That PC had a 233-MHz cpu, I'll assume single-core. At that time, it ran Windows NT 4.0, and it had been patched to use a USB mouse. But we didn't rate an optical mouse, so someone would come in twice a day with a tote of cleaning supplies and clean the mouse ball.

After September 11, 2001, somebody came in from the federal government and ordered Windows XP to be the minimum OS for some security issue. The person who had to update that system said a 233 MHz machine was too-slow for XP, and she didn't have a replacement computer, she was already short on computers.

The next time I saw it, it was running XP.

0
Aldipower·2d ago
The Detusche Bahn still runs DOS and Window 3.11 in their ICE I trains! They searched for admins 2 years ago. https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/ms-dos-and-win...
0
tefkah·2d ago
i don’t want to say this explains things, but i do want to imply it
0
carefree-bob·2d ago
You should check out the NYC subway, which has electromechanical relays, cloth covered wiring, and pre-WW2 analogue panels.

They do not even have an OS!

0
throwaway7356·2d ago
Let me assure you that Deutsche Bahn also still operates about 500 mechanical signal boxes, about 100 are from pre-WW1. Not these fancy, modern electromechanical relays (which Deutsche Bahn of course also has).
0
eqvinox·23h ago
> about 100 are from pre-WW1

You're underselling it. The ex oldest operating signal box in Hörlkofen was finally removed from service less than a year ago, 2025-12-12.

It entered service in 1899.

0
driverdan·2d ago
That's far superior than running an outdated general computing platform. Electromechanical devices are simple, easy to understand, and replaceable. It may be harder to diagnose problems but with maintenance it will work forever.
0
_trampeltier·2d ago
+1 from me for relais technique. It is easy to replace, even in 1000 years. Today PLCs are great and fun. We can do a lot of cool things with them. Just with the short and shorter life cycles, sometimes even less than 10 years. If something breaks you have to replace so much stuff for a small broken piece. Thats such a bummer in todays industrie automation.
0
jjbinx007·2d ago
Not DOS but we recently had to virtualise a Windows XP box as it was running crucial software for a visitor attraction. The software was written by a member of staff who sadly passed away and the PC it was running on was approximately 20 years old.

We managed to virtualise it and then run it in a VM, and it needed a couple of USB-to-serial adapters passing through as well.

We're also finding some kiosks are running Shockwave Flash apps provided by companies that are no longer trading. We can decompile the files to extract the assets but at some point it's easier to just replace completely.

0
alexhans·2d ago
I've not virtualized things in that way for ages. I think I was using VirtualBox years ago and com0com for serial communication.

What do you use for VMs these days?

0
jjbinx007·2h ago
We just used Hyper-V
0
andix·2d ago
I had to keep an old clipper/dbase application running until recently. It worked perfectly seamless with vdos (vdos.info). It's commercial software, but very reasonably priced. Dosbox is another alternative, but didn't work as well with printing and I think also wasn't able to do row locking of dBASE databases over the network.
0
Froedlich·2d ago
Me!

I have a client with some business software that runs on DOS. They have a dozen seats. A single Linux server gives serves a dozen VNC sessions with the software running in DOSEMU. Printing is done with the Linux print stack and three Ethernet print servers.

It has been working without a hitch since 2008. Oh, so has the server, which is a VirtualBox VM.

0
dazhbog·2d ago
I run 2 old Juki pick and place machines. They run DOS 6.22 on a 486 I think. My biggest pain points are, 1) booting them up without errors, and 2) transferring files to them wirelessly without any floppies. (without installing any DOS software)

Closest I got was with a GOTEK and an ESP32 emulating a USB. But it was flaky so I dropped it for now.

0
mistyvales·2d ago
Would a Grease Weasel work for that situation?
0
MarkSweep·2d ago
A company I used to work at still ships a piece of hardware with an Intel 186 microcontroller in it. The compilers are 16-bit DOS applications and the tool to program the DIP packages with the program was also a DOS application. I’m not sure what the physical interface between the programmer and computer was.
0
proxysna·2d ago
2014-2017 I was supporting a clipper setup for issuing work order and many other tasks for an old civil aviation repair plant. I’ve ended up virtualising and moving it to a hyperv cluster. Definitely the case of “if it works, don’t touch it”. Also set up a closed network for CNC machines to let engineers in the shop send jobs over the net instead of running around with floppies or manually entering gcode through the console. Fun times.
0
fires10·2d ago
I work at a multi billion dollar facility for a Fortune 100 company and we still depend on DOS. Keeping the mandatory DOS machines going is an exercise. Especially integrating them into modern systems.

Edit: There is no required hardware, however maintaining a stable serial connection through a VM and timing issues due to faster hardware has been fun.

0
mlaux·2d ago
The serial port stuff is very close to what I'm working on - what's on the other end of the connection? What does "integrating them into modern systems" look like for you: getting data out/pushing data in/both?
0
fires10·2d ago
We typically integrate them by encapsulation. Building multiple layers of more modern systems for them to communicate through. A combination of Windows and Linux boxes. The other end of the connection is very old industrial equipment. This is not to run the equipment per se but to configure and program it.
0
1over137·2d ago
Actual MS-DOS or FreeDOS?
0
fires10·2d ago
MS-DOS or Windows 2003 running DOS vdm.
0
londons_explore·2d ago
This thread reminds me that there is a huge benefit to using a super common OS+hardware.

In 30 years time it will all be outdated... But emulators will exist and a business process in 2050 that still depended on something I built today could still run with minimal effort or risk.

0
chr15m·2d ago
If you have the source code it's going to be a lot easier to continue.
0
hulitu·2d ago
It depends on the gcc/llvm version.
0
Sleaker·2d ago
The last company I worked for still had customers they were dragging forward to get upgrades from coax connexted green screen terminals to modern network thin clients. It wasnt on DOS, but very old unix OS, tape drives for backups, parallel for printers, serial for scanners. No USB. Lovely troubleshooting when you were dealing with 30+ year old hardware setups. There was only one company that would even servicenthe green screens if they failed, and you couldn't buy them anymore.
0
someonehere·7h ago
I remember reading that Disney was running XP on Toy Story Mania at Disneyland for the ride itself. When you stand in line near the loading point you can see the computer screen where the operator monitors everything. Not critical or DOS but comical it's doing a basic control of the ride.
0
_trampeltier·2d ago
Siemens Field PG. It is a rugged Notebook for PLC programmers. At least in the last version until last year, the "Field PG M6" was possible to buy the Notebook with a special serial port for old S5 PLCs ant the Step5 software came in a special DosBox version with it.

The Field PG has also another special port called "MPI/Profibus" for S7 PLCs, 2 Ethernet ports and a DVD drive.

https://support.industry.siemens.com/cs/document/109766662/d...

0
mikewarot·2d ago
The Gear cutting job shop I worked for had a CNC lathe running with a GE Computer from the late 1970s that stored data on punched Mylar tape, until it was bought out in 2019.

The bevel gear generator setup was some formula calculations running in version 1 of TK!solver, which would have been a $5000 upgrade to get the latest version, so they ran them under MS-DOS in DOSbox, and saved the grief.

Without that software, they would have to pay Gleason $500+ to do the calculations for each new gear setup.

There are strong and reasonable reasons to keep very old systems alive in offline production environments.

0
andix·2d ago
Just out of curiosity: is it possible to somehow attach an ISA Adapter via USB to a VM? ISA does depend a lot on DMA and timing, but the clock is only 8 mhz and gives a software layer on a modern cpu a lot of time to do stuff between ISA bus cycles.

Keeping old hardware running is very fragile. Most spare parts are decades old now too, and nobody knows if they still work properly.

0
Teknoman117·2d ago
To a VM? Possibly.

The DMA might actually be the easy part.

The main concern is how many VM exits per second a modern CPU can handle. Even though the interface is "slow", you can probably do ~500k to 1 million IN/OUTs or MOVs per second to ISA. You'd have to trap (VM exit) every access to a IO port or memory within the ISA window.

During the pandemic I cobbled together a KVM-accelerated emulator for an old 386EX based board I had and trapping every memory access to IO was slower than the real hardware.

0
lysace·2d ago
USB and VM latencies are both questionable here, I would think.

ISA motherboards still work and have been mass produced in the hundreds of millions. (I have about a dozen in my retro closet.)

The esoteric ISA expansion cards would be the bottleneck, not the motherboards.

0
andix·2d ago
All those layers add some latency, but 8 mhz is really slow. USB 4 can do extremely low latency, otherwise PCIe over USB wouldn't work.
0
labcomputer·2d ago
The problem is that a lot of those old ISA drivers were peeking and poking card registers as fast as the bus would allow, which was over 1 MHz (less than 1 microsecond per transaction), not DMAing data to RAM (though some did that too).

With a modern 4 GHz CPU, that means your budget is only 4000 clocks per interrupt. The context save alone can make it hard to hit 1MHz, and you really want to have your interrupt code pinned to the L1 cache because a few memory reads will blow your entire budget.

As nice as USB4 is, I’ve never heard anyone claim it has single-digit microsecond latency, to say nothing of sub-microsecond latency. The typically-quoted ~20 usec latency of USB4 limits it to around 50 kHz for an emulated ISA card.

0
rdtsc·2d ago
Often people confuse latency vs throughput/bandwidth. With streaming and batching USB4 will shuffle a lot data through on average per second. But it will never hit reliable microsecond level or even submicrosecond latencies.

At the same time ISA card will never reach 40Gbps throughout with CPU clocking at tens of MHz only or often less.

0
lysace·2d ago
This looks quite interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vintagecomputing/comments/jbaw38/is... (2020)

ISA-over-USB, using real ISA cards in an emulator

https://github.com/Manawyrm/ISASTM/

0
foresto·1d ago
0
bradleyy·2d ago
I know a shop that still runs an Apple ][: they have a Numerical Control machine. For those who don't know, NC is the predecessor to Computer Numerical Control, i.e. CNC machines.

They run on punch tape.

So this Apple ][ is connected to simulate the punch tape reader, and send the (I think) G-code commands to the machine. So it's now a CNC, managed by an Apple ][.

0
nanochess·2d ago
I've an AMD K5 processor machine running at 100 mhz. for testing Transputer ISA cards when someone buys one, I also use the same machine to format and copy my Pascal compiler into a pair of 5 1/4" floppy disks. All using DOS.
0
bartread·2d ago
> Transputer ISA cards when someone buys one

Your use of “when” is interesting - suggests it’s not that occasional. Wonder what people are doing with these nowadays.

0
reaperducer·2d ago
Not DOS, but my company has a Windows XP machine with a dialup connection that I have to keep running for obtuse legal reasons.

If it goes down, the company gets fined. It happened in the gap between my predecessor leaving, and me being hired.

0
gerdesj·2d ago
Does it have to be a XP box or is just keeping a serial dialup connection working the key?
0
andix·2d ago
Is it a physical machine and not a VM? I already had issues with getting XP compatible spare parts years ago. Had to buy used parts that were already pretty old (so high risk of failing again).
0
reaperducer·2d ago
It's a physical machine.

Fortunately, I don't have to deal with swapping parts. There's an outside contractor on call 24/7 for that.

The last time I saw it was about two years ago when I taped yet another piece of paper to the filing cabinet it sits on reading "DO NOT TURN OFF UNDER PENALTY OF LAW!"

Someone keeps taking the paper down.

0
andix·2d ago
Put a proper sticker on, that can't be removed easily.
0
ynac·2d ago
It's not totally for business, but I run some antennae and radio telescopes that feed through a Gateway 386/33/16MB RAM. As well as a Getac, no idea what model, but it's from the early 2000s. They both feed through to a A/B switched Paradise CRT (so cute). dBase is on the list.
0
83457·2d ago
My dad ran a commercial 2-way radio business. There were multiple radios with programming software that would not work on anything above a 386 and DOS. He had a couple computers from the late-80s running for nearly 25 years, though I think he had to replace one of them with another of similar vintage. Also, had a 486 that he used for customer notes in WordPerfect up to about 2015.

I suspect he could have found a way to use a newer computer, but if it ain’t broke…

0
betaby·2d ago
Intel was seling 386 CPU up until 2007. I personally was using brand new special equipment with 386 soldered to custom MBs with no VGA, serial only access. I suppose you can purchase such boards from ebay/recyclers today.
0
OCTAGRAM·1d ago
Book 386 is a ready notebook. It mainly targets gaming, so it has speaker, OPL3 sound and MIDI/GamePart port. But also ISA as yet another "port" on its outer side.
0
Froedlich·2d ago
I still have a circa-1996 486 running Windows 95. It has an EPROM burner card and software that I use to reprogram the ECM in my car.

The cost of upgrading to modern software and hardware is substantial, plus the learning curve for something I only do rarely nowadays.

0
83457·1d ago
Now that I think of it, some of the software was for Motorola radios. He was not a licensed Motorola shop (Kenwood), so I believe getting more modern software would have been difficult or very expensive, if even possible.
0
sgerenser·2d ago
Does the idea make use of https://86box.net? Just heard of this recently on hn and it seems promising for anything that requires low level/cycle accurate emulation vs. your typical high level emulator.
0
mlaux·2d ago
My idea is a DOS emulator with a really thorough log of every DOS interrupt called and I/O port interacted with. This could then be used to automatically, say, insert rows into a sqlite table when the DOS app updates a .DBF file, or forward GPIB data to a modern USB adapter. I wanted to avoid low level/cycle-accurate emulation as much as possible, only adding quirks as needed to support the most popular business application suites.
0
Felger·2d ago
It should work with Siemens MPI/PPI interfaces, but I predict issues with ex-Telemecanique (now Schneider Electric) unitelway realtime DOS driver which is extremely picky.
0
saidnooneever·2d ago
i know still some accountant who use a DOS program to do his work because he hates the fact modern UI has load times. slows him down too much o.O (his program is all keybinds).

i do not have exp myself but i found it a delightful reasoning. i told him modern PC could also do the same on modern OS (ncurses or ratatui or so maybe) but that if he ask a programmer to make an upgrade he'd need to find the right kind of guy. He had someone do it few times but they came back with web interfaces.

0
bryanwi·2d ago
AND more to the question - the contractor who remodeled my house in 2014 was still using some ancient DOS app, possibly running on a DOS machine or at least an emulator of one, to generate billing. Which was handed to me on paper....

(He was a good contractor, so clearly having the latest billing software is not the deciding factor in that.)

0
zdragnar·2d ago
It's been a few years now, but I know a major manufacturer had some windows XP boxes around because they were the newest hardware/software they could get with native parallel port support to interface with their machines.

To give you an idea of the complexity of the manufacturing lines, shutting the machines down and starting them back up again was measured in days. Upgrading them would be obscenely expensive, let alone replacing them, just in the opportunity cost of not making anything alone.

0
mgk123·2d ago
For anyone that needs true native serial & parallel ports, a Dell Latitude E series laptop (or Precision 7xx0) with docking station is an easily-available option.

The last machines with dock port have 6th gen Core CPUs (Latitude E5x70), or 7th gen for Precision 7x20.

0
zdragnar·2d ago
I don't really know the full details, as it was my brother who worked there and we just chatted over beers, but I believe the software itself that communicated over the parallel ports was 16 bit, and that (along with the native ports) was the reason they kept the old windows XP machines around.

It is possible, perhaps almost a certainly, that the company did not own the source code for the application and could or would not attempt to rewrite it to work with a modern operating system.

This is a top brand name company, so it isn't like they couldn't throw money at the problem, but with the number of lines in the number of plants they had, there wasn't really any reason to not keep the old hardware running (sans Internet connection).

0
Scoundreller·1d ago
I suspect more modern computers would have chipsets with dead leads for rs232 if your soldering is fine enough
0
rkagerer·2d ago
Not as pure, but for what it's worth I've had success with a Syba SD-PEX50023 in applications where USB-based parallel port emulation failed.
0
NBJack·2d ago
Do scanners count?

I'm pretty sure they moved on from them, but a while ago I did seasonal work for a company that rented out scanners for year end inventory (tax related, IIRC). The scanners had to be "cooked" (flashed) on racks, boxed, and sent. The flashing usually worked, but on occasion, the scanner would fail the checksum or something and drop you into a DOS prompt.

0
freddealmeida·2d ago
An old story. I used to work for Fox Home Entertainment (CDs etc)this is 20+ years ago. And we had proper DOS running on old machines. We used it to do all our finances (including all of Japan, Asia sales). Most of the money we made on movies like Titanic were tracked on DOS. Until about 2003 if memory serves me where we moved to SAP. Why this was worrisome was how easily fraud occurred. In my tenure there $5-10M was stolen. At the time sent to companies in Brazil. I'm still surprised by larger firms where they keep these things alive to retain the data. CocaCola did it. A few large Insurance firms too. Crazy.
0
anonzzzies·2d ago
We have a client (a factory) I wrote a massive (for one person without AI) Clipper system for that runs the factory; this is decades ago but it just works and when they tried to replace it (not by us, but promises by others), it was worse and they did not switch. Cheating, but another client is a bank; they found its is really inefficient to not use DOS. Their machines use Windows but fullscreen DOS box you cannot close or minimize with the app in it.
0
m-p-3·1d ago
We did at my previous job, obviously airgapped because the equipment (pharmaceutical mixer, worth in the high 8 digits) was still working just fine and was easy to service despite the vendor not being in the business anymore.
0
amelius·2d ago
I bet most AI is capable enough now to migrate you away to some emulator for a few dollars.

And I would even bet that in most cases you could run a solution on a sub $10 board from aliexpress.

0
dbuxton·2d ago
or a $25 android phone
0
CobaltFire·2d ago
I had to keep a disturbingly old machine with GPIB running until a few years back. They are still in operation in Australia (who we sold them to).

It was a test/repair bench for military aircraft avionics, with the only flying platform left using it being the legacy F/A-18 (A/B/C/D). Harris H-100 minicomputer hooked to an HP terminal and several full racks of GPIB test equipment with half of a rack of solenoids for switching between stimulus and response and which pin.

Not what you asked, but the question brought back memories.

0