Subj : Re: Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
To : All
From :
[email protected]
Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:14 pm
Path:
eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO
STED!not-for-mail
From: "Auric__" <
[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi
crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Subject: Re: Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive"
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
References: <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]> <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]> <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]> <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:54:14 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="07f673def80e8b10909ee3d1b6b2fd16";
logging-data="8078"; mail-complaints-to="
[email protected]";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Vw4ZaoHYXRowD0/sFAQ8P"
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
X-Face:
+,&^!i3LPqz7/qfxgF[JJqAP^>bTVLZ-zj})PmI{auZ']fwMM4mh`$]b0sacD4p@R[yU'Mf=.T}|aW6
^#_lm6U|e|/#d:nfRn29,GBLvX=ygRH(?h.=KFfJ\INamt#H|)k@,x[ko$(d~iAo'<1XzB@%];
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zmhGKT31Mix4iT50xHYuFH+5QUc=
Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4007 alt.os.windows-xp:5413
microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2463
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30881
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106106
knuttle wrote:
> On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <
[email protected]>, knuttle
>
>>>> <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was
>>> using
>>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of
>>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows.
>>
>> In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even
>> earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?)
"First version" isn't something I'd normally consider up for debate... but
then, "the first version of Windows" (i.e. Windows 1.0) predates OS/2 by a
couple of years. (If you were truly using OS/2 when Windows 1.0 came out, I'd
like to borrow your time machine.) As for "extolling the virtue" of Win1, let
me qoute Wikipedia (The Web's Largest Source of Disinformation[tm]):
"[...] when finally released, Windows 1.0 aroused little interest."
(*I* didn't even hear of Windows until around 1989-ish.)
Also, the first version of OS/2 was essentially "DOS plus"; no GUI provided
until OS/2 1.1, a year and a half after OS/2 1.0, and nearly half a year
after the release of Windows 2.1. Until then, any comparison between OS/2 &
Windows would've been apples and oranges.
>>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made
>>> OS/2 far superior and stable.
I'm a bit curious about this. If you upgraded to XP (from what, may I ask?)
for that reason, did you switch to NT3.1 when it first came out? It was the
first Windows system based on the OS/2 codebase.
>> So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:.
>
> I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2
Oh god. COBOL. I'm so sorry.
> My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer
> was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating
> system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced
> DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it.
The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells
on top of DOS. Just sayin'.
--
Excuse me while I change into something more formidable.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1
* Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013)
