2 Jan
2008
2 Jan
'08
11:36 a.m.
ggs said:
Folks, there was *no* OS/2 for anything other than the
x86 and the PPC.
Awww, injecting REALITY into typical classiccmp nonsense.
Also, there was NO NT for the 68K, as it REQUIRES little-endian support in
the CPU.
2 Jan
2 Jan
12:41 p.m.
> Folks, there was *no* OS/2 for anything other
than the x86 and the PPC.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Al Kossow wrote:
Awww, injecting REALITY into typical classiccmp
nonsense.
Can he do that?
Also, there was NO NT for the 68K, as it REQUIRES
little-endian support in
the CPU.
When the MICROS~1 stooge told me that NT was "all portable C code", he got
offended when I told him that THAT is an oxymoron.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:56 p.m.
New subject: reality check
> When the MICROS~1 stooge told me that NT was
"all portable C code", he got
> offended when I told him that THAT is an oxymoron.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Bert Thomas wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that it is impossible
to write portable C code?
It is certainly POSSIBLE, particularly if you accept conditional
compilation in the definition.
Many application programs can be quite portable at a source code level.
But, there are very few people around who can do that at an OS level.
2:44 p.m.
New subject: reality check
Fred Cisin writes:
Well, I'd wager that Microsoft must have at least partially succeeded at
producing portable C code, since over the course of NT history it's run on
x86, MIPS, Alpha, PPC, Amd64 and Itanium platforms. (I even have a build of
a full 64-bit version of Whistler for the Alpha lying around...) NT has a
pretty decent hardware abstraction layer.
Then again all of us here at MICROS~1 (where we love our 8.3 filenames and
it's still 1995) are stooges so it must have been Dave Cutler who did all
that for us :).
Well, back to stealing code from other companies...
- Josh
> When the
MICROS~1 stooge told me that NT was "all portable C code", he got
> offended when I told him that THAT is an oxymoron.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Bert Thomas wrote:
I'm confused. Are you saying that it is
impossible to write portable C code?
It is certainly POSSIBLE, particularly if you accept conditional
compilation in the definition.
Many application programs can be quite portable at a source code level.
But, there are very few people around who can do that at an OS level.
3 Jan
3 Jan
7:55 a.m.
New subject: reality check
On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Bert Thomas wrote:
I sure hope not. I do it every day. I'd hate to think that I'd been
living a lie! *sniffle!*
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
When the
MICROS~1 stooge told me that NT was "all portable C code",
he got
offended when I told him that THAT is an oxymoron.
I'm confused. Are you saying that it is impossible to write portable C
code? 
2 Jan
2 Jan
8:05 p.m.
At 02:36 PM 1/2/2008, Al Kossow wrote:
ggs said:
Quoting from a Ham Radio list I'm on:
Folks, there was *no* OS/2 for anything other
than the x86 and the PPC.
Awww, injecting REALITY into typical classiccmp nonsense. Just to remind everyone December 28th is Massacre of
the Innocents Day
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents) in Spain. It
is now kind of like April fools day with many jokes being played on
people
April Fools, folks. YHBT.
-Rick
3 Jan
3 Jan
8:03 a.m.
and what makes you the authority on that anyhow?
All I was saying is what it "appeared" to be, and what one other person agreed
it "looked" like.
it hasn't been authenticated one way or another.
Still, even contents of OS/2 on a PDP-11 TK50 is a TRULY bizarre thing! no matter how you
slice it.
Dan.
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:36:18 -0800
From: aek at bitsavers.org
To: classiccmp at classiccmp.org
CC:
Subject: reality check (was: offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11)
ggs said:
_________________________________________________________________
Read what Santa`s been up to! For all the latest, visit asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com!
http://asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com/
Folks, there was *no* OS/2 for anything other
than the x86 and the PPC.
Awww, injecting REALITY into typical classiccmp nonsense.
Also, there was NO NT for the 68K, as it REQUIRES little-endian support in
the CPU.
9:35 a.m.
Dan Gahlinger wrote:
Still, even contents of OS/2 on a PDP-11 TK50 is a
TRULY bizarre thing! no matter how you slice it.
That is certainly true. I'd love to see a directory listing when you get
the chance.
Mark
--
From the eComStation Desktop of: Mark Dodel
Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
http://www.warpstock.eu
For a choice in the future of personal computing, Join VOICE -
http://www.os2voice.org
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their
democratic State itself. That in it's essence, is Fascism - ownership of
government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private
power." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the Monopoly
Investigation, 1938
5979
days inactive
5980
days old
8 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
bert＠brothom.nl -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
derschjo＠msu.edu -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
madodel＠ptdprolog.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
rick＠rickmurphy.net