12 Dec
2005
12 Dec
'05
7:42 a.m.
Hi all
Mind you if somebody came up with a better OS when the
386's came out,
would we have windows today?
It's called "Linux". And yea, we still have Windoze... :-)
W
3:51 p.m.
One wonders what the OS landscape would have looked like had MS simply
bundled a 32-bit flat-mode DPMI server with MS-DOS when the 386 came out.
Would anyone really have preferred developing for the segmented 16-bit
model?
When MS finally got around to 32-bit support, Win32S was nothing more than
a huge hack.
Cheers,
Chuck
4:50 p.m.
Rumor has it that Chuck Guzis may have mentioned these words:
When MS finally got around to 32-bit support, Win32S
was nothing more than
a huge hack.
But then I could play Freecell!!! ;-)
I saw a T-shirt in a catalog that was really cute:
"Use the best tool for the job:
Linux for Servers,
Macintosh for Graphics,
Windows for Solitare."
;-)
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
5:30 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
One wonders what the OS landscape would have looked
like had MS simply
bundled a 32-bit flat-mode DPMI server with MS-DOS when the 386 came out.
Would anyone really have preferred developing for the segmented 16-bit
model?
Of course not. But what I really wonder is if IBM had chosen the 68000 instead
of the 8086. 32-bit right from the start, and more usuable CPU registers than
just "Larry, Moe, and Curly" as a grizzled friend once put it :-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
15 Dec
15 Dec
4:26 p.m.
On 12/12/05, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
One wonders what the OS landscape would have looked
like had MS simply
bundled a 32-bit flat-mode DPMI server with MS-DOS when the 386 came out.
Would anyone really have preferred developing for the segmented 16-bit
model?
It kinda nearly happened with DesqView and DesqView/X. 32-bit memory
under DOS, solid multitasking with memory protection, virtual memory,
and a standard X.11-based GUI. It just came along too late - after
Windows 3.0, in other words.
I'd love to know how the computing world would have turned out if DV/X
had been a big hit. It would have bought the worlds of DOS and Unix
much closer together. It might have been a fertile combination.
Imagine if all the GNU stuff had got ported to DV/X, for example.
--
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
Gmail/Google Talk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
5:21 p.m.
On 12/15/2005 at 9:26 PM Liam Proven wrote:
I'd love to know how the computing world would have
turned out if DV/X
had been a big hit. It would have bought the worlds of DOS and Unix
much closer together. It might have been a fertile combination.
Imagine if all the GNU stuff had got ported to DV/X, for example.
When it comes to Microsoft, there are a lot of "What ifs".
Note that even back in 1990, Gates thought that OS/2 should be marketed in
separate 32- and 16-bit versions. From the "OS/2 Notebook" (Microsoft
Press). It's a book worth owning, simply for the belly laughs in Section
VI:
"Developer: How will the 16-bit and 32-bit OS/2s be packaged?
Gates: They will be sold as separate packages. But remember that 16-bit
binaries wil run on OS/2 2.0 and see the benefits of paging and the larger
address space."
"Gates: I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating
system, and possibly program, of all time. As the successor to DOS, which
has over 10,000,000 systems in use, it creates incredible opportunities for
everyone involved with PCs."
An application engineer friend over at Intel was furious that 386 mode
systems and apps were so long in coming. He said something to the effect
of "Look what we break our backs doing--giving you software guys a
high-performance 32-bit architecture and you p*ss it all away by running
16-bit code on it".
A bunch of folks (myself included) ponied up some serious cash to Microsoft
to be included in the beta test program for the new OS/2. Lawsuits were
threatened when MS decided to preview NT instead.
Cheers,
Chuck
22 Dec
22 Dec
8 p.m.
On 12/15/05, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 12/15/2005 at 9:26 PM Liam Proven wrote:
When it comes to Microsoft, there are a lot of
"What ifs".
Note that even back in 1990, Gates thought that OS/2 should be marketed in
separate 32- and 16-bit versions. [...]
In hindsight, it's stunning how blind people were... But hindsight, as
George Benson sang, is 20:20 vision. It's obvious /now/...
Shame, though. I always did like OS/2. One of the vanishingly few bits
of PC software I have spent actual money on.
--
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
Gmail/Google Talk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
12 Dec
12 Dec
9:13 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:42:36 +0200
Wouter <cctech at retro.co.za> wrote:
Hi all
It was also called Coherent, and OS/2. And DesqView (and in
particular DesqView/X, which has almost completely disappeared
Mind you if somebody came up with a better OS
when the 386's
came out, would we have windows today?
It's called "Linux". And yea, we still have Windoze... :-)
W
from history) also made a good run for it.
And part of the reason we have Windoze now is that Apple drove all
the 'small players' out of the GUI market with litigation. They
'plowed the field' for Microsoft, so to speak.
Linux didn't really happen along in any big way until the '386
systems were very mature (and actually, a big part of Linux
'taking hold' for a number of us was when the first generation
'386 machines became 'spare' enough to be almost free, and hence
perfect for putting experimental OSes on).
10:42 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Stevens" <chenmel at earthlink.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Old MS-DOS & WIN Software
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:42:36 +0200
Wouter <cctech at retro.co.za> wrote:
I have boxed versions of Desqview/X 1.0 and 2.0 and they are fun to play
around with on 386/486 machines. The bad part of DV/X is there are less
native apps (can't think of any other then DV/X enabled DOS programs for
BBS's) for it then OS/2.
Windows 3.1 lives on with some hobbyists (me anyway) because of the Apps and
hardware that was made for it. IF there are few native apps then the OS goes
to obscurity very fast.
Hi all
It was also called Coherent, and OS/2. And DesqView (and in
particular DesqView/X, which has almost completely disappeared
from history) also made a good run for it.
Mind you if somebody came up with a better OS
when the 386's
came out, would we have windows today?
It's called "Linux". And yea, we still have Windoze... :-)
W
6858
days inactive
6869
days old
10 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctech＠retro.co.za -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
zmerch＠30below.com