Old software, I know, R12 for Windows on floppies.

[***** charles]

Hi all,

I am trying to install AutoCAD R12 for Windows 3.1 on a
Celeron 766 with 64M of ram running DOS 6.22 and Windows
3.1. The install went ok but when I try to execute the program
by clicking on the icon it says:

SYSTEM ERROR
Divide by Zero or Overflow Error

Why am I getting this and how do I fix it so the program will run?

thanks,
charles.....

 

[***** charles]

I seem to recall that there were a number of programs that did not
like high speed processors and needed the processor speed to be
throttled back to avoid divide by zero errors.

Do some searching along these lines to see if you can find a solution.

This particular computer has no way to underclock even if that is the
sollution. The computer that I am trying to "fix" was a DX2486-66
with 16M of ram and a 1.2G hard drive. Turns out that lightning hit
it and the ps and mb are fried. I take that the best recommendation
it to find another 486? How could companies write code like this?

thanks,
charles....

 

[Kitty]

This particular computer has no way to underclock even if that is the
sollution. The computer that I am trying to "fix" was a DX2486-66
with 16M of ram and a 1.2G hard drive. Turns out that lightning hit
it and the ps and mb are fried. I take that the best recommendation
it to find another 486?

I seem to vaguely remember that in older versions of autocad there were
some compatibility issues with non-intel processors.
Since the processors are here to stay, this was fixed in subsequent
versions.

How could companies write code like this?

Well, autocad 12 was written long before the processor you're running
was made.
If you want up top date code for up to date equipement, get an up to
date version.

 

[frank]

***** charles says:

I am trying to install AutoCAD R12 for Windows 3.1 on a
Celeron 766 with 64M of ram running DOS 6.22 and Windows
3.1.

Hello from Italy.

I am really sorry for my couriosity. Are you setting up it because You will
use it for work? Isn't it too old?

ciao
frank

 

[Michael Bulatovich]

Once you take away a whole bunch of bells and whistles from newer versions
you are still left with a great deal of the capability which does most of
the drawing required in my discipline (architecture) in R12, and I have to
assume that it uses far fewer resources than some of the later versions. R12
was FAST. R12 for DOS was even *FASTER*.

Because of backwards capability, newer versions will have no trouble with
his files. If Frank owns this thing, his cost per drawing is tiny compared
to those firms who always have to have the latest version, whether or not it
makes sense. Frank could buy himself a very nice new TV for the difference,
and still afford to have us all over for the next Superbowl or World Cup,
and supply all the beer....maybe even the pretzels

 

[Brian Salt]

*From:* "***** charles" <[email protected]>
*Date:* Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:09:16 GMT

Hi all,

I am trying to install AutoCAD R12 for Windows 3.1 on a
Celeron 766 with 64M of ram running DOS 6.22 and Windows
3.1. The install went ok but when I try to execute the program
by clicking on the icon it says:

SYSTEM ERROR
Divide by Zero or Overflow Error

Why am I getting this and how do I fix it so the program will run?

thanks,
charles.....

I think that you also need to run a utility called 'pharlap' to get R12
DOS to run under Win3.1.

 

[babygrand]

It's been a long time since I started fooling with Autocad (version 2.6 I
think??), but don't the older versions of AutoCAD require a "floating point"
unit as a processor, and doesn't the Celeron lack a floating point feature?
Or did I dream that somewhere? Just a thought that came swimming up from
the mist, and has now receded back from whence it came.

babygrand

 

[frank]

Michael Bulatovich says:

Once you take away a whole bunch of bells and whistles from newer versions
you are still left with a great deal of the capability which does most of
the drawing required in my discipline (architecture) in R12, and I have to
assume that it uses far fewer resources than some of the later versions.
R12 was FAST. R12 for DOS was even *FASTER*.

Hello and thanks for your answer.

I can understand this point of view. I still use Autocad rel.12 to create
IGES models to import into Ansys. I really liked my Autocad 12 when I used
it. I think they also add some new good features in new releases, not only
superficial things. Unfortunatly I use 3rd part applications that need
Autocad in a recent release. And this made me spend more money but made me
make some more money too.
I just wanted to know what is the pourpose of using a old version of
Autocad. No offense.

Because of backwards capability, newer versions will have no trouble with
his files. If Frank owns this thing, his cost per drawing is tiny compared
to those firms who always have to have the latest version, whether or not
it makes sense. Frank could buy himself a very nice new TV for the
difference, and still afford to have us all over for the next Superbowl or
World Cup, and supply all the beer....maybe even the pretzels

My puor english doesn't put me in the position of understanding the sottile
meaning of this. I love soccer, though...

Ciao ciao
frank

 

[JG]

Celeron has floating point. The original cheapie chip was the 386sx and
it was missing floating point.

 

[Michael Bulatovich]

Michael Bulatovich says:


Hello and thanks for your answer.

I can understand this point of view. I still use Autocad rel.12 to create
IGES models to import into Ansys. I really liked my Autocad 12 when I used
it. I think they also add some new good features in new releases, not only
superficial things. Unfortunatly I use 3rd part applications that need
Autocad in a recent release. And this made me spend more money but made me
make some more money too.
I just wanted to know what is the pourpose of using a old version of
Autocad. No offense.

None taken. I didn't say that there were no significant improvements in
later versions of AutoCAD, just that the older versions like 12 would still
do the majority of what I do typically. My feeling is that many (not all) of
the "improvements" of late are superficial.

My puor english doesn't put me in the position of understanding the
sottile meaning of this. I love soccer, though...

Ciao ciao
frank

I just tried to say that you can use r12 and others with newer versions can
still read your files. (The problem is the other way around.) Also if you
don't spend thousands of dollars every year or two for new software because
you can still use your old software, you would have more money to spend on
other fun stuff.

PS You English is so 'poor' that I didn't know it was not your first
language until now ; )

 

[William H. Bowen]

If my memory serves, the last Intel CPU that did not have an FPU was
the 486SX - all Pentium or later processors have the FPU internal to
the CPU.

Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA

P.S. Just for grins and giggles I loaded my old copy of 2.52 on a
1.4GHz P3 and it actually WORKS! Only 2 issues is I'm stuck with
640X480 VGA video resolution (no drivers for my ATI RagePro), and that
2.52 can't "see" the disk drive past the next 32MB boundry. Even
though the HDD partition it is on is FAT32 with 9 GB free, 2.52 tells
me I have only 12 MB available.

 

[JG]

There is a program called DosBox that emulates Dos on newer systems
(slowly so you need a fast system) and intercepts calls to the operating
system and hardware and allows you to use Dos based software even on
ntfs systems as well as Fat32 etc. It might improve your resolution and
even allow access past the 32mb boundary.

 

[William H. Bowen]

JG,

I just did this as a test - not going to run it as an ongoing system
(hey, what would I do with my AutoCad 2002 package?).

I understand why 2.52 has the "disk problem": the largest disk
partition that one could set up in those days (DOS 3.1 in 1986) was
32MB (FAT 16 X 512 byte sectors X 1 sector per allocation unit), so
the 2.52 disk routines where written that way. I don't think either
the OS version or even DosBox would fix the issue, but as I said,
since this was just a"let's see if this just off the wall might
work", I was happy just to see it work.

Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA.

 

[JG]

You mean you didn't try dosbox ? Hey, even with its slow down effect it
might run faster than the current bloatware. I was curious to hear results.