Windows (1995)

wagdog said:
Which version os/2 could run one dos box at a time? I specifically recall running many at once. I also recall writing C code to malloc more than 64k under os/2. I do remember that being a dos limitation. I remember writing dos code to swap out 64k chunks from xms. That was a long time ago, '91/92 maybe? I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
'91/92 is the right time frame. I forget what I used to edit DOS code. I just know that I worked on a lot of it. Those commands are imprinted in my brain.
 
wagdog said:
Which version os/2 could run one dos box at a time? I specifically recall running many at once. I also recall writing C code to malloc more than 64k under os/2. I do remember that being a dos limitation. I remember writing dos code to swap out 64k chunks from xms. That was a long time ago, '91/92 maybe? I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

The 286 version of OS/2. Like I said, IBM eventually released a 386 version of OS/2 that removed the one DOS box limitation, but it was a lost cause by then.
 
GDSmithTX said:
So it was IBM's own hidebound stupidity in addressing competition that killed os/2. Given IBM's history, story checks out.
Click to expand...

Not stupidity - just a calculated gamble that they misjudged badly. IBM assumed that since they owned the business computing world, their microchannel* PCs with OS/2 and token-ring would become the standard among their customers. They didn't understand the disruptive potential of Dell, Microsoft, and Apple.

* microchannel - another nail in the IBM PC coffin.
 
Token Ring
:ksmash:
Might have been worse than Apple's cable range bullshit.
 
I really wish I'd have saved the report that Gartner group gave us that showed that OS/2 and token-ring were the future.
 
This is what I think of when I hear the term "Token Ring":

council-of-elrond.jpg


Someone just forgot a couple letters.
 
GomezAddams said:
Not stupidity - just a calculated gamble that they misjudged badly. IBM assumed that since they owned the business computing world, their microchannel* PCs with OS/2 and token-ring would become the standard among their customers. They didn't understand the disruptive potential of Dell, Microsoft, and Apple.

* microchannel - another nail in the IBM PC coffin.
Click to expand...
I remember microchannel architecture well. It was a superior design. But that doesn't matter when you are up against industry standard architecture and no one wants to pay you to license MCA. Like I said earlier, IBM employees were brainwashed by the company.
 
PunkKitty said:
I remember microchannel architecture well. It was a superior design. But that doesn't matter when you are up against industry standard architecture and no one wants to pay you to license MCA. Like I said earlier, IBM employees were brainwashed by the company.
Click to expand...

Microchannel had a huge flaw - you had to keep the floppy disk that came with the computer, and any floppies that came with peripherals in order to make BIOS changes. That was a huge PITA.

Or am I thinking of VESA?
 
GomezAddams said:
Microchannel had a huge flaw - you had to keep the floppy disk that came with the computer, and any floppies that came with peripherals in order to make BIOS changes. That was a huge PITA.

Or am I thinking of VESA?
Click to expand...
That was VESA. From an engineering standpoint, MCA was better than ISA. But IBM wanted licensing fees to use it. So Compaq, Dell, and the others told them to go to hell. The PC industry kept Industry Standard Architecture and let IBM become irrelevant.
 
PunkKitty said:
That was VESA. From an engineering standpoint, MCA was better than ISA. But IBM wanted licensing fees to use it. So Compaq, Dell, and the others told them to go to hell. The PC industry kept Industry Standard Architecture and let IBM become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Intel invented PCI and made it an open standard, which rendered MCA moot.
 
Windows 95 B was pretty good. The prior versions and the following 'C' update to add USB support were flaky at best.
 
I loved DOS and Windows 3.1 They had limitations for people who wanted a GUI for everything. I preferred editing text files to set up software over an OS that crashed regularly. So I hated Win 95 and 98. Windows 2000 was the first and last time Microsoft got an OS right. Rock solid, fast, and easy to use.
 
jp_nyc said:
I loved DOS and Windows 3.1 They had limitations for people who wanted a GUI for everything. I preferred editing text files to set up software over an OS that crashed regularly. So I hated Win 95 and 98. Windows 2000 was the first and last time Microsoft got an OS right. Rock solid, fast, and easy to use.
Click to expand...
Ok, I have stayed out of the actual computer talk because 1) I am not qualified to really comment on any non Mac OS, and 2) this is a parody thread. But, as a consumer of home and small biz computers, who uses them for computer based research, document production, and communication primarily, with some light audio, image and video work, I like the machine to intuitively allow me to do work as quickly and efficiently as possible, without having to read and learn any sort of code or commands. To me Windows and Windows 95, etc., was not that great as you still needed to know how to edit text files and use the directories underlying the GUI interface. And peripherals always seemed like a problem. I am not a get under the hood and fiddle with it guy, so I am not looking for that. People like @DFB who didn't want the limitations of routable cable and all gui plug and play would have preferred the Windows/DOS/all that other stuff you guys are talking about world. To me, at the time, when I had to work on PC's I would have preferred to stay in DOS. The Windows GUI system just seemed to get in the way in that world.

Also, though MS Word was ok in the 80's, to me, WordPerfect was way more intuitive to use and got in the way of workflow a lot less. I was bummed when the Mac version died, and for offices and professional in the legal world, we have been stuck with Word/Office. It is my least favorite program on my machine.

You guys that enjoy the coding/text editing/computer futzing, more power to you!
 
I was more of a linux guy. It was so much easier to work with. The programs were mostly text based and easily tweaked.
 
DFB said:
I was more of a linux guy. It was so much easier to work with. The programs were mostly text based and easily tweaked.
Click to expand...
That all sounds good, but I know me. I want to point and click, type what I have to, and get out of there. I would not spend time learning to tweak stuff.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
That all sounds good, but I know me. I want to point and click, type what I have to, and get out of there. I would not spend time learning to tweak stuff.
Click to expand...
i used to set up and configure servers .We used a version of Linux developed by the NSA. I did a lot of file manipulating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top