30 Sep
2005
30 Sep
'05
12:32 a.m.
On 29/09/05, Roger Merchberger <zmerch at 30below.com> wrote:
Good point, well made!
[G]
[Casts mind back a decade]
I do believe you're right. My apologies. Didn't it take the standard MS
11111-111-11111
code, tho'? Or
11112-111-11111
if the 1st didn't work? That worked on most things.
--
Liam Proven ? http://livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=lproven
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
Hmmm. I'm
dubious.
Not sure why... Micro$oft is rarely compatible with itself, even on the
best of days... ;-) No web
browser - IE came in the Plus Pack, a paid-for
optional extra.
Which not many people paid for... ;-) No CD key
Bzzt. Wrong. Original Win95, at least the [very early] CD-ROM versions that
I worked with, did require a CD key... and you had to be careful to type in
the capital -OEM- by hand; most people typed it in lowercase, and it would
not pass the checksum test.
Win95A (and up) changed this to 'assume' uppercase.