1 Sep
2006
1 Sep
'06
4:48 p.m.
Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
And I consider all such discussions (different MS-Windows versions) to
be of zero interest to me.
I will occasionally boot up into some variant of MS-DOS to run
some disk imaging tools (e.g. teledisk, 22disk, others) Time between
such boots is measured in years!
All this shouldn't necessarily influence others, because I have
gotten VERY good at getting a glazed look on my face when they start
talking about MS-DOS or MS-Windows or MS-anything after their
original (and somewhat portable) BASIC.
All of this is a flashback to the days of the early/mid 80's when all
of a sudden Dr. Dobbs' stopped having interesting articles and
all the articles were about MS-DOS and TSR's and other things I
never even wanted to know about ever! Not then, and not today 20
something years later!
Tim.
> I think
I said "Windows 95 or better," which means Windows 1.0, 2.x and
> 3.x are (should be?) on topic.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Teo Zenios wrote:
I think Win 3.x is much different then anything
after it, might as well be
another OS.
Those differentiations are very subjective.
To me, Win95 is just Windoze 4.00
OTOH, I consider NT to be significantly different.