"Portland" > wrote in message
...
>I bought my Dell dimension 2400 desktop at the end of 2003. It was
> pretty fast. Now sometimes it's kind of slow. It slows down quite a
> bit during an ISP virus/spyware scan. It also really slows down
> whenever my ISP downloads new definitions. Whatever definitions
> means, I don't know. Something to do with system protection. I have
> 256 meg memory. I should probably upgrade to 1 Gig. I find that if I
> leave it running without turning it off for days on end, it starts to
> slow down. If I shut it off every night, it seems to work faster.


I have a Commodore 64 I bought in 1984 with 1741 monitor and 1541 disk
drive. I also have my Compaq Deskpro, bought in 1986 with 640K of RAM, 2
5.24 inch floppies and a 20 MB Seagate hard drive.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Portland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I bought my Dell dimension 2400 desktop at the end of 2003. It was
>> pretty fast. Now sometimes it's kind of slow. It slows down quite a
>> bit during an ISP virus/spyware scan. It also really slows down
>> whenever my ISP downloads new definitions. Whatever definitions
>> means, I don't know. Something to do with system protection. I have
>> 256 meg memory. I should probably upgrade to 1 Gig. I find that if I
>> leave it running without turning it off for days on end, it starts to
>> slow down. If I shut it off every night, it seems to work faster.
>
>
> I have a Commodore 64 I bought in 1984 with 1741 monitor and 1541 disk
> drive. I also have my Compaq Deskpro, bought in 1986 with 640K of RAM, 2
> 5.24 inch floppies and a 20 MB Seagate hard drive.

5.25 that is.

Paul

On 4/17/2011 6:03 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> I bought my Dell dimension 2400 desktop at the end of 2003. It was
>> pretty fast. Now sometimes it's kind of slow. It slows down quite a
>> bit during an ISP virus/spyware scan. It also really slows down
>> whenever my ISP downloads new definitions. Whatever definitions
>> means, I don't know. Something to do with system protection. I have
>> 256 meg memory. I should probably upgrade to 1 Gig. I find that if I
>> leave it running without turning it off for days on end, it starts to
>> slow down. If I shut it off every night, it seems to work faster.
>
>
> I have a Commodore 64 I bought in 1984 with 1741 monitor and 1541 disk
> drive. I also have my Compaq Deskpro, bought in 1986 with 640K of RAM, 2
> 5.24 inch floppies and a 20 MB Seagate hard drive.
>
> Paul
>
>

The 1541 was pretty nifty. It held something like 147KB of data. I can't
think of a single piece of computer hardware that was more unreliable. I
had a couple of dead ones - who didn't? :-)

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/17/2011 6:03 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I bought my Dell dimension 2400 desktop at the end of 2003. It was
>>> pretty fast. Now sometimes it's kind of slow. It slows down quite a
>>> bit during an ISP virus/spyware scan. It also really slows down
>>> whenever my ISP downloads new definitions. Whatever definitions
>>> means, I don't know. Something to do with system protection. I have
>>> 256 meg memory. I should probably upgrade to 1 Gig. I find that if I
>>> leave it running without turning it off for days on end, it starts to
>>> slow down. If I shut it off every night, it seems to work faster.
>>
>>
>> I have a Commodore 64 I bought in 1984 with 1741 monitor and 1541 disk
>> drive. I also have my Compaq Deskpro, bought in 1986 with 640K of RAM, 2
>> 5.24 inch floppies and a 20 MB Seagate hard drive.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
> The 1541 was pretty nifty. It held something like 147KB of data. I can't
> think of a single piece of computer hardware that was more unreliable. I
> had a couple of dead ones - who didn't? :-)

I briefly made a living fixing them. They had a badly designed drive stop
mechanism that was press fitted onto a steel shaft. The head positioner was
a soft collar of aluminum that loosened after a short time and made the
drive head lose its alignment. I charged 40 bucks to alter the mechanism
with what was basicaly a cotter pin and spring to make it more reliable. My
first entrepreneurial experience. The 1541 really was a piece of junk even
though it had an innovative, for that time, design. But the C64 was a very
important product in the evolution of the personal computer.

Paul

On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb disk
> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a half
> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
>
> Paul
>
>

My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
Google may be running the world. :-)

On 4/17/2011 6:56 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> I briefly made a living fixing them. They had a badly designed drive stop
> mechanism that was press fitted onto a steel shaft. The head positioner was
> a soft collar of aluminum that loosened after a short time and made the
> drive head lose its alignment. I charged 40 bucks to alter the mechanism
> with what was basicaly a cotter pin and spring to make it more reliable. My
> first entrepreneurial experience. The 1541 really was a piece of junk even
> though it had an innovative, for that time, design. But the C64 was a very
> important product in the evolution of the personal computer.
>
> Paul
>
>

You're right about the C64. It was one of those products where you read
the specs and come to the realization that it's going to change
everything. It was a great time for computers. Then the IBM PC came
out... :-)

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/17/2011 6:56 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> I briefly made a living fixing them. They had a badly designed drive
>> stop
>> mechanism that was press fitted onto a steel shaft. The head positioner
>> was
>> a soft collar of aluminum that loosened after a short time and made the
>> drive head lose its alignment. I charged 40 bucks to alter the mechanism
>> with what was basicaly a cotter pin and spring to make it more reliable.
>> My
>> first entrepreneurial experience. The 1541 really was a piece of junk
>> even
>> though it had an innovative, for that time, design. But the C64 was a
>> very
>> important product in the evolution of the personal computer.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
> You're right about the C64. It was one of those products where you read
> the specs and come to the realization that it's going to change
> everything. It was a great time for computers. Then the IBM PC came out...
> :-)

Wellllll, the IBM PC came out in 81. The VIC 20 was out in that year. The
C64 followed in 83.

Paul

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb
>> disk
>> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a
>> half
>> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>
> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would change
> the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking pretty good.
> Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH, Google may be
> running the world. :-)


Really. Google presents some serious privacy issues.

BTW, your yard is looking like it needs some TLC. You gonna put in a new
driveway soon?

Paul

On 4/17/2011 9:38 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/17/2011 6:56 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> I briefly made a living fixing them. They had a badly designed drive
>>> stop
>>> mechanism that was press fitted onto a steel shaft. The head positioner
>>> was
>>> a soft collar of aluminum that loosened after a short time and made the
>>> drive head lose its alignment. I charged 40 bucks to alter the mechanism
>>> with what was basicaly a cotter pin and spring to make it more reliable.
>>> My
>>> first entrepreneurial experience. The 1541 really was a piece of junk
>>> even
>>> though it had an innovative, for that time, design. But the C64 was a
>>> very
>>> important product in the evolution of the personal computer.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You're right about the C64. It was one of those products where you read
>> the specs and come to the realization that it's going to change
>> everything. It was a great time for computers. Then the IBM PC came out...
>> :-)
>
> Wellllll, the IBM PC came out in 81. The VIC 20 was out in that year. The
> C64 followed in 83.

Thanks for setting me straight. I guess I got it confused with the PC
jr. Oddly enough, I have a couple of 5150 XT keyboards. Is there a
market for these things?

>
> Paul
>
>

On 4/17/2011 9:40 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

>
>
> Really. Google presents some serious privacy issues.
>
> BTW, your yard is looking like it needs some TLC. You gonna put in a new
> driveway soon?
>
> Paul

Ha ha. I see that you left rear tire is looking like it might be down a
couple of pounds. You probably should check it out before you leave for
work at 7:15. :-)

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb
>>> disk
>>> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a
>>> half
>>> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
>> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would change
>> the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking pretty good.
>> Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH, Google may be
>> running the world. :-)
>
>
> Really. Google presents some serious privacy issues.
>
> BTW, your yard is looking like it needs some TLC. You gonna put in a new
> driveway soon?
>
> Paul

Privacy is a problem for all the companies. Even BING and other apps are
watching what you do. I would say the bigger privacy issue will come from
your ISP provider.

As an Apple fan, I would not write off MicroSoft yet. I am impressed with
BING by MicroSoft. It may give Google a run for it's money. Apple may be in
the lead for now. Microsoft and Google will be interesting to watch in the
future.

Spring is near... Soon, fresh lettuce will be on my plate.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

On 2011-04-18, dsi1 > wrote:

> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> Google may be running the world. :-)

Look again.

WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
only if you let it.

nb

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> > Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb disk
> > drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a half
> > of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
> change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> Google may be running the world. :-)

Uh, there is no "DOS-legacy OS" being produced by Microsoft. If it's
got any legacy it's VMS. All current Microsoft PC operating systems are
derived from Windows NT, which was Microsoft's fourth generation,
benefitting from lessons learned from Xenix, DOS, and OS/2, and
developed from a clean slate by the former DEC employee who developed
VMS for DEC. The latest 64-bit versions don't even have the DOS
compatibility layer that had been provided in all earlier versions.

Microsoft also has a fifth generation, variously called "Windows CE",
"Windows Mobile", "Windows Phone", etc that is not derived from DOS or
NT.

However you have always had the choice of running a non-Microsoft OS--in
the DOS days Unix was around--Xenix, which was derived from AT&T source
code, ran fine on the original IBM PC, and there was full System V
available for the '286. But most people go with the market.

And when Photoshop and Premiere run on a cell phone get back to us.

On 18/04/2011 12:22 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:


> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb disk
> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a half
> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.

When I bought my XT the 20 Meg hard drive was $430, and it made me the
envy of my computer geek friends. The 1200 baud modem was $250. Tat was
pretty speedy compared to the 300 baud that I had for the CoCo II I kept
upgrading as faster models came out, 2400, 4800, 14400, 28000 and then
56K, which the lasted and fastest always in the $250 range.

On Apr 18, 1:44*am, Andy > wrote:
> I had a TRS-80 by Tandy/Radio Shack with an ordinary cassette tape recorder
> for storage (sequential access at it's finest!).
>
> I still have an Apple Mac 512k sans hard drive.
>
> And an abacus.
>
> Andy

==
I hope that you bought the new abacus with expanded memory...they say
that it is much faster.
==

On 4/18/2011 10:06 AM, Roy wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:44 am, > wrote:
>> I had a TRS-80 by Tandy/Radio Shack with an ordinary cassette tape recorder
>> for storage (sequential access at it's finest!).
>>
>> I still have an Apple Mac 512k sans hard drive.
>>
>> And an abacus.
>>
>> Andy
>
> ==
> I hope that you bought the new abacus with expanded memory...they say
> that it is much faster.
> ==
Our first home computer was a TRS-80 Model II, which used a cassette
tape recorder. (No, that's wrong, we had a Sinclair before the TRS!) We
had a lot of "fun" putting together several different control boxes to
maintain a steady signal but, OH the great day, when we managed to
afford two 5 inch floppies and could use Scripsit for word processing
and a Pascal compiler.

I've had a quite a few computers since but have only kept the replaced
model for about a year.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm "not"

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:37:45 -0500, Andy > wrote:

>Roy > wrote:
>
>> On Apr 18, 1:44*am, Andy > wrote:
>>> I had a TRS-80 by Tandy/Radio Shack with an ordinary cassette tape
>>> record
>> er
>>> for storage (sequential access at it's finest!).
>>>
>>> I still have an Apple Mac 512k sans hard drive.
>>>
>>> And an abacus.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> =I hope that you bought the new abacus with expanded memory...they say
>> that it is much faster.
>> =
>
>
>Roy,
>
>Heh heh heh heh heh!
>
>Company have marveled that I actually own one. An Asian guest saw it and
>couldn't take her hands off it. I should've gifted it to her. DOH!
>
>I never got good at operating it.
>
>I once had a beautiful pocket abacus but don't know what happened to it.
>
>BTW, to those of you who may think otherwise, the abacus was invented by
>the Greeks, not the Chinese.
>
>Best,
>
>Andy

Watching someone who really knows how to use an Abacus is fascinating.
It's so fast that it blurs.

On 18/04/2011 10:11 AM, Krypsis wrote:

> I get rid of old computers. My iMac is the oldest survivor at 10 years
> of age. The rest are related to my employment or ex-lease ones which
> have been given to me by the IT boys. Antique IT equipment doesn't have
> the same allure as old furniture or bric-a-brac. It does invoke memories
> however not to mention amazement at how far things have come and how
> cheap they are now.
>
I still kick myself over a laptop I returned when I retired. It was
supposed to be a mobile terminal but the modem was broken so I could not
use it for its intended purpose. About a month before I retired we were
all issued with brand new laptops. On my last of work I went down to the
district office to return all my gear, including the two laptops. They
asked about the old one. They didn't know I had it and were under the
impression it had been returned to head office.

I could have had a free laptop, a pathetically slow piece of crap with a
monochrome screen and one of those useless rollerballs. Of course, it
might also have been equipped with software that would have got me in
trouble if I ever went on line with it.

On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>
>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>
> Look again.
>
> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
> only if you let it.
>
> nb

I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
down to my son who seems to like it fine.

Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.

Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
mistrust MS.

On 4/18/2011 2:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >, lid
> says...
>>
>> On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb disk
>>> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a half
>>> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
>> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
>> change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>
> Uh, there is no "DOS-legacy OS" being produced by Microsoft. If it's
> got any legacy it's VMS. All current Microsoft PC operating systems are
> derived from Windows NT, which was Microsoft's fourth generation,
> benefitting from lessons learned from Xenix, DOS, and OS/2, and
> developed from a clean slate by the former DEC employee who developed
> VMS for DEC. The latest 64-bit versions don't even have the DOS
> compatibility layer that had been provided in all earlier versions.
>
> Microsoft also has a fifth generation, variously called "Windows CE",
> "Windows Mobile", "Windows Phone", etc that is not derived from DOS or
> NT.
>
> However you have always had the choice of running a non-Microsoft OS--in
> the DOS days Unix was around--Xenix, which was derived from AT&T source
> code, ran fine on the original IBM PC, and there was full System V
> available for the '286. But most people go with the market.
>
> And when Photoshop and Premiere run on a cell phone get back to us.
>

My guess is that there's still some code in Win7 dating back to God
knows when. OTOH, you know more about this stuff than I. OTOH, I doubt
that anybody really knows Win7 in total - it's just too large.

I should hope that the smartphone OSes would truly be clean pages. I
don't see how it could be otherwise.

In article >, dsi1@usenet-
news.net says...
>
> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
> > On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
> >
> >> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> >> Google may be running the world. :-)
> >
> > Look again.
> >
> > WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
> > to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
> > M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
> > only if you let it.
> >
> > nb
>
> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>
> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>
> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
> mistrust MS.

Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.

If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
you will be wrong.

In article >, dsi1@usenet-
news.net says...
>
> On 4/18/2011 2:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In >, lid
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >>
> >>> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20 mb disk
> >>> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and a half
> >>> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
> >> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
> >> change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
> >> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> >> Google may be running the world. :-)
> >
> > Uh, there is no "DOS-legacy OS" being produced by Microsoft. If it's
> > got any legacy it's VMS. All current Microsoft PC operating systems are
> > derived from Windows NT, which was Microsoft's fourth generation,
> > benefitting from lessons learned from Xenix, DOS, and OS/2, and
> > developed from a clean slate by the former DEC employee who developed
> > VMS for DEC. The latest 64-bit versions don't even have the DOS
> > compatibility layer that had been provided in all earlier versions.
> >
> > Microsoft also has a fifth generation, variously called "Windows CE",
> > "Windows Mobile", "Windows Phone", etc that is not derived from DOS or
> > NT.
> >
> > However you have always had the choice of running a non-Microsoft OS--in
> > the DOS days Unix was around--Xenix, which was derived from AT&T source
> > code, ran fine on the original IBM PC, and there was full System V
> > available for the '286. But most people go with the market.
> >
> > And when Photoshop and Premiere run on a cell phone get back to us.
> >
>
> My guess is that there's still some code in Win7 dating back to God
> knows when.

1989 when Windows NT development started.

> OTOH, you know more about this stuff than I. OTOH, I doubt
> that anybody really knows Win7 in total - it's just too large.

Nobody knows it all, but it's still a portable OS that can be recompiled
to run on several different architectures, which DOS never tried to be.

> I should hope that the smartphone OSes would truly be clean pages. I
> don't see how it could be otherwise.

On 4/18/2011 9:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>>
>>> Look again.
>>>
>>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>>> only if you let it.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
> PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
> incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.
>
> If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
> you will be wrong.
>

Thanks for letting me have the option on this - I think I'll take you up
on it. :-)

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
in.local...
> In article >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:33 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In >, lid
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 4/17/2011 6:22 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Probably 133. I remember spending the extra dough for the "huge" 20
>> >>> mb disk
>> >>> drive. Added like 200 bucks to the cost. And now I would need 2 and
>> >>> a half
>> >>> of those drives just to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead
>> >> of
>> >> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
>> >> change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
>> >> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> >> Google may be running the world. :-)
>> >
>> > Uh, there is no "DOS-legacy OS" being produced by Microsoft. If it's
>> > got any legacy it's VMS. All current Microsoft PC operating systems
>> > are
>> > derived from Windows NT, which was Microsoft's fourth generation,
>> > benefitting from lessons learned from Xenix, DOS, and OS/2, and
>> > developed from a clean slate by the former DEC employee who developed
>> > VMS for DEC. The latest 64-bit versions don't even have the DOS
>> > compatibility layer that had been provided in all earlier versions.
>> >
>> > Microsoft also has a fifth generation, variously called "Windows CE",
>> > "Windows Mobile", "Windows Phone", etc that is not derived from DOS or
>> > NT.
>> >
>> > However you have always had the choice of running a non-Microsoft
>> > OS--in
>> > the DOS days Unix was around--Xenix, which was derived from AT&T source
>> > code, ran fine on the original IBM PC, and there was full System V
>> > available for the '286. But most people go with the market.
>> >
>> > And when Photoshop and Premiere run on a cell phone get back to us.
>> >
>>
>> My guess is that there's still some code in Win7 dating back to God
>> knows when.
>
> 1989 when Windows NT development started.
>
>> OTOH, you know more about this stuff than I. OTOH, I doubt
>> that anybody really knows Win7 in total - it's just too large.
>
> Nobody knows it all, but it's still a portable OS that can be recompiled
> to run on several different architectures, which DOS never tried to be.
>

Not meaning to be a nit picker, but it is a whole lot more than just
recompiling. The top 80% would be a relatively easy port but the bottom 20%
comprises the abstraction layers which would need to be rebuilt from
scratch. Also, there are very specific components in Intel CPUs which would
need to be duplicated on whatever other architecture you choose. AMD for
example does not so much duplicate the design as it emulates the
functionality. Windows really is quite tied to its current architecture.
That was much less the case when NT was designed on top of POSIX which made
it fairly easy to port to CPUs such as the DEC Alpha. Apple got its design
right and porting it to the Intel CPUs was a fairly easy process as those
things go. But W7 would be a whole different thing to port to say a
Motorola CPU.

Paul

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
in.local...
> In article >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>> > On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>> >
>> >> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> >> Google may be running the world. :-)
>> >
>> > Look again.
>> >
>> > WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>> > to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>> > M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>> > only if you let it.
>> >
>> > nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
> PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
> incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.

NT was based on POSIX which was fairly portable.

> If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
> you will be wrong.

NT was a ground up project that was derived as part of the IBM/M$ joint
venture known as OS/2. Actually OS/2 was almost entirely an M$ design.

Paul

On 4/18/2011 11:39 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

> I still kick myself over a laptop I returned when I retired.

You remind me of a laptop I found in storage at one of our other
facilities. It was a Compaq and it was in a suitcase kind of carrier.
The top of the case had the monitor. Oddest computer I've seen but I can
tell many of you have seen older.

On 4/18/2011 3:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
> change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> Google may be running the world.

In the near future, all apps will run from the "cloud".

On 4/18/2011 12:56 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

> That's what I used to run a chain of 4-5 bookstores off of for about
> 13 years - Xenix, then Unix, then Openserver. DOS's memory
> limitations back then, when you add network cards, drivers, and
> networking software, didn't leave room for any actual applications to
> run.
>

Ah, Memories of MemMaker.

On 4/18/2011 3:30 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 4/18/2011 11:39 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> I still kick myself over a laptop I returned when I retired.
>
> You remind me of a laptop I found in storage at one of our other
> facilities. It was a Compaq and it was in a suitcase kind of carrier.
> The top of the case had the monitor. Oddest computer I've seen but I can
> tell many of you have seen older.

That was certainly the bee's knees when it came out. They sold a whole
bunch of them too.

http://oldcomputers.net/byte-compaq.html

On 4/18/2011 3:32 PM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 4/18/2011 3:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
>> big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
>> change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>> Google may be running the world.
>
> In the near future, all apps will run from the "cloud".
>
>

Pretty much by then, all our computer problems will just seem like a bad
dream and we'll all be in computer heaven and connected with everyone on
the planet. Well, those people that can afford small handheld computers
anyway. :-)

In article >,
says...
>
> On 4/18/2011 3:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
> > big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
> > change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
> > pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> > Google may be running the world.
>
> In the near future, all apps will run from the "cloud".

Not likely. Too many of us don't trust third parties with our
information.

Cheryl wrote:
>
> On 4/18/2011 3:19 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > My guess is that we'll be seeing smaller, quick loading apps instead of
> > big fat bloatware. Who would have guessed that the cell phone would
> > change the future of computing? If you ask me, the future is looking
> > pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
> > Google may be running the world.
>
> In the near future, all apps will run from the "cloud".

I won't use a supermarket affinity card, much less
put all my apps and data in the cloud.

On 2011-04-19, Cheryl > wrote:

> In the near future, all apps will run from the "cloud".

Only if you're a "sheep".

nb

On 19/04/2011 11:30 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 4/18/2011 11:39 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> I still kick myself over a laptop I returned when I retired.
>
> You remind me of a laptop I found in storage at one of our other
> facilities. It was a Compaq and it was in a suitcase kind of carrier.
> The top of the case had the monitor. Oddest computer I've seen but I can
> tell many of you have seen older.

I used to have one of these...

http://home.total.net/~hrothgar/museum/TPC1/index.html

Nifty little beast if a bit heavy. Certainly not as portable as modern
day laptops. It was issued to me sometime in the very early 80s as I
needed to take work home on a regular basis. Later it became redundant
when I had a full WAN connected system installed at home. Could do all
the work from my study! Very handy.
Nowadays laptops are issued complete with a docking station at the
office and, in my case, at home.

Krypsis

On 19/04/2011 3:08 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>
>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>
>> Look again.
>>
>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>> only if you let it.
>>
>> nb
>
> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>
> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>
> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
> mistrust MS.

DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
anything as primitive as DOS.

Krypsis

On 19/04/2011 5:35 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In >, dsi1@usenet-
> news.net says...
>>
>> On 4/18/2011 2:27 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-18, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> pretty good. Finally, no more Microsoft and it's DOS-legacy OS. OTOH,
>>>> Google may be running the world. :-)
>>>
>>> Look again.
>>>
>>> WinPhone7 jes came out on 3 of 5 new smart phones and Nokia defected
>>> to WP7. Besides, Windows hasn't been DOS based in 11 yrs. If it was,
>>> M$ wouldn't be the pig it is today.. As for Google running the World,
>>> only if you let it.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> I'll have to check out the Windows Phone 7. My guess is that it's
>> similar to the HTC HD2 with Windows 6.5 OS - beautiful to look at but
>> aggravating to use. My daughter didn't like it - she's the expert. I
>> tried it but rather use my Samsung Behold II with it's simpler interface
>> even though it has a less integrated look. In the end, it got passed
>> down to my son who seems to like it fine.
>>
>> Nokia used to be a player but is in the little leagues these days. HTC
>> is pretty much dominating the smartphone market currently and without
>> their support, WinPhone7 would be would be dead in the water.
>>
>> Microsoft has been telling us that stuff for years but I have no reason
>> to believe that Windows ever left DOS behind. You might say that I
>> mistrust MS.
>
> Well, DOS never ran on the Alpha but NT did. DOS never ran on the
> PowerPC, but NT did. In fact NT was developed on processors that were
> incapable of running DOS and then ported to the x86.

You've reminded me that it was a DEC Alpha that we had as an office
server some time back. That was the one running NT 3.5. Don't know if it
ever was upgraded to NT 4.
>
> If you want to believe that NT is derived from DOS go right ahead, but
> you will be wrong.
>
Agreed, There were two different families or streams of Windows at
Microsoft back in the days. One was the DOS based version and the other
was the Enterprise based stuff which used NT 3.5, NT 4, Win2k, etc. When
they merged the two streams into one, then DOS was no more.

Krypsis

On 19/04/2011 11:38 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 4/18/2011 12:56 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> That's what I used to run a chain of 4-5 bookstores off of for about
>> 13 years - Xenix, then Unix, then Openserver. DOS's memory
>> limitations back then, when you add network cards, drivers, and
>> networking software, didn't leave room for any actual applications to
>> run.
>>
>
> Ah, Memories of MemMaker.

Don't you mean nightmares?

Krypsis

On 19/04/2011 1:45 PM, atec77 wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 1:00 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> While I think of it I still have a functioning Microbee computer from
> 1982/82

I'm more amazed that you managed to keep it functioning all this time.
They weren't all that reliable when they were new....


Krypsis

Krypsis wrote:
> On 19/04/2011 11:30 AM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 4/18/2011 11:39 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I still kick myself over a laptop I returned when I retired.
>>
>> You remind me of a laptop I found in storage at one of our other
>> facilities. It was a Compaq and it was in a suitcase kind of carrier.
>> The top of the case had the monitor. Oddest computer I've seen but I
>> can tell many of you have seen older.
>
> I used to have one of these...
>
> http://home.total.net/~hrothgar/museum/TPC1/index.html
>
> Nifty little beast if a bit heavy. Certainly not as portable as modern
> day laptops.

Yikes, and I complained about the Toshibas they gave us. We'd
all break the rules and trade the 'laptops' in the parking lot because
they were so heavy to drag into the building. Of course, it was handy
when you could work on a bomb in the middle of the night without
having to go in, and they had that nifty 1400 baud modem!

> It was issued to me sometime in the very early 80s as I
> needed to take work home on a regular basis. Later it became redundant
> when I had a full WAN connected system installed at home. Could do all
> the work from my study! Very handy.
> Nowadays laptops are issued complete with a docking station at the
> office and, in my case, at home.

These whippersnappers have no idea what we had to deal with. Hee.

nancy

On 4/19/2011 1:03 AM, Krypsis wrote:

> DOS was "left behind" but, due to legacy issues, an emulator was left in
> its stead. What you see in Windows XP onwards (START>RUN>CMD) isn't an
> underlying DOS but an emulator that provides the necessary functionality
> for those diehards. There is no reason why a modern OS would need
> anything as primitive as DOS.
>
> Krypsis
>

It doesn't take a genius* to see that the Windows OS has always been
saddled with having to be backwards compatible with the previous
generation software. If it didn't then there wouldn't be any need to
emulate anything. Emulators suck anyway. I never bought into the hype
that every new version of window was brand spanking new - not even XP.

The truth is that nobody fully knows what's in these fantastically large
programs. You can choose to believe that it's all new but I won't make
that assumption.

What's the deal? Is Microsoft all of a sudden really, really,
trustworthy? Are we now in bed with MS these days? Times have certainly
changed.

*Heck, maybe it does.