On 2024-08-17 1:46 a.m., Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:42:01PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2024-08-16 12:11 p.m., Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
[...]
From what I can tell of a casual peruse of the documentation of CP/M-68K
and CP/M-86, they support the full
>
> >
> I picked up a bare bones 68000 single board computer, and the only OS is
> is a hacked CPM/68000 version in C. Any guess what compiler/assembler
> was used back then and on what host? Does one have sub directories?
>
>
>
What does the Sage II use?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:42:01PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote:
> On 2024-08-16 12:11 p.m., Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
[...]
>> From what I can tell of a casual peruse of the documentation of CP/M-68K
>> and CP/M-86, they support the full address space of 4GiB and 1MiB
>> respectively. This is
On 2024-08-16 12:11 p.m., Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
CP/M was effectively limited to 64KiB because it had no traction outside of
the 8080/Z80 which had a 64KiB address space. To go beyond that limit on
those CPUs involves paging, and some platforms did indeed use paging for RAM
disks and to
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
It's also worth noting that the PC memory space is very much *not* divided
into fixed 64KiB segments (and ISTR it was originally a 512/512 split).
Segment registers have 16-byte granularity and a segment can straddle a
64kiB boundary just fine.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 12:28:23AM -0500, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> I don't ever recall seeing 86-DOS on shelves, or ever really hearing about
> it. But CP/M remained fairly popular to mid 1980s (I just mean I knew
> various friends who daily used CP/M then). A couple issues with CP/M:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 08:47:44PM -0700, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
[...]
>> Not my country, not my continent. I've lived in Africa, 3 different
>> countries in Europe, spent a lot of time and speak the languages of 4
>> more, but America is fa
I've always been pro MS-DOS - the earliest version I started with was about
3.20, IIRC.
I don't ever recall seeing 86-DOS on shelves, or ever really hearing about
it. But CP/M remained fairly popular to mid 1980s (I just mean I knew
various friends who daily used CP/M then). A couple issues wi
On 07.08.2024 05:55, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
I keep seeing all these bad comments about Vista. Just what was
supposed to be wrong with it? I ran it for more than a decade
and only stopped when MS deliberately broke it with the final
update. It was a hell of a lot better than the cra
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 4:55 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/6/2024 2:31 PM, maddox--- via cctalk wrote:
> > On 01.08.2024 16:28, Royce Taft via cctalk wrote:
> >> Wasn’t Vista “Mojave”?
> >
> > As others noted, "Mojave" was the name of a MacOS release. The
Microsoft changed the way drivers worked and so you needed new drivers. Many
people had hardware that didn’t work after upgrading to Vista so that and
eveything said by others in this list contributed to the hatred. It was a
botched rollout that Microsoft continues to do to this day.
Nadella re
> From: Adrian Godwin
>
> i think it was strongly disliked by many non-technical users because
> it was the first one where MS tried to lock down some admin
> functions, forcing the users to confirm or enter an admin password to
> continue. This isn't necessarily bad but it was rather hamfisted a
i think it was strongly disliked by many non-technical users because it was
the first one where MS tried to lock down some admin functions, forcing the
users to confirm or enter an admin password to continue. This isn't
necessarily bad but it was rather hamfisted and disliked.
Technical reasons fo
Slow, code bloat, ate resources.
There is no measurable or even reasonably-arguable way that Vista was superior
to 10.
Actually, I can’t think of any way that it was superior to 7, or to 8 once you
turned the touch-enabled Start Menu off.
On 8/6/2024 2:31 PM, maddox--- via cctalk wrote:
On 01.08.2024 16:28, Royce Taft via cctalk wrote:
Wasn’t Vista “Mojave”?
As others noted, "Mojave" was the name of a MacOS release. There was,
however, an ad campaign that Microsoft ran in an attempt to counter the
bad press that Windows V
On 01.08.2024 16:28, Royce Taft via cctalk wrote:
Wasn’t Vista “Mojave”?
As others noted, "Mojave" was the name of a MacOS release. There was,
however, an ad campaign that Microsoft ran in an attempt to counter the
bad press that Windows Vista was getting at the time of its launch. In
it,
Good then please keep your opinions to yourself on this and stop
trying to start issues.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 1:18 PM Liam Proven via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Not my country, not my continent. I've lived in Africa, 3 different
> countries in Europe, spent a lot of time and speak the languages of 4
> m
> On 08/05/2024 3:26 PM EDT Paul Koning via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>
> Could we please keep politics off this list? I could argue at length about
> this topic but I'm not going to, this list is not the forum for that.
>
> paul
>
I second that.
Will
> Could we please keep politics off this list? I could argue at length
> about this topic but I'm not going to, this list is not the forum for
> that.
*clears throat*
Yes, what Paul said, please.
De
ᕙ( ︡’︡ 益 ’︠)ง▬▬█
Could we please keep politics off this list? I could argue at length about
this topic but I'm not going to, this list is not the forum for that.
paul
> On Aug 5, 2024, at 3:22 PM, Johan Helsingius via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2024 15:55, John Maxwell via cctalk wrote:
>> Well, my
On 05/08/2024 15:55, John Maxwell via cctalk wrote:
Well, my friend, the guns are the only thing that keep us free from tyranny!
Voting and proper checks and balances (broken by the current US Supreme
Court) is what keeps us free from tyranny, not guns.
Julf
Well, my friend, the guns are the only thing that keep us free from tyranny!
-Original Message-
From: Liam Proven via cctalk
Sent: Saturday, 3 August, 2024 13:09
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Cc: Liam Proven
Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
Yes, that's w
Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, 10:14 PM Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
>
> I remember using 3.1, 4.0, and 2000. As I recall, I loved the
> stability of 3.1, but the UI was old and outdated, especially when 95 came
> out.
> 4.0 offered the nicer UI, but the drive
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:41:20 +0100 (BST)
"Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk" wrote:
> > this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a
> > third xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to
> > transition gradually to a different UI, but unless
> > one of
Specifically, place names of California.
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
Yes, that's what I remembered, but I wasn't sure. Never been there,
not remotely familiar with the geography.
TBH I thought El Cap was in Yosemite and Yosemite was in Wyoming, but
on Googling, I think I
Sent from my iPad
>
> Not my country, not my continent. I've lived in Africa, 3 different
> countries in Europe, spent a lot of time and speak the languages of 4
> more, but America is far off and largely unknown to me -- a
> frightening semi-theocracy with guns and no healthcare.
And in some c
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 15:17, Sellam Abraham via cctalk
wrote:
> >
> > Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan, Sierra, High Sierra, Mojave,
> > Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, Ventura, Sonoma, Sequoia.
> >
>
> Specifically, place names of California.
Yes, that's what I remembered, but I wasn't sure. Never b
On Fri, Aug 2, 2024, 10:03 AM Liam Proven via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Then it ran out of cats. It switched to iconic places in North America.
>
> Mavericks, Yosemite, El Capitan, Sierra, High Sierra, Mojave,
> Catalina, Big Sur, Monterey, Ventura, Sonoma, Sequoia.
>
Specifically, place names of Califo
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 00:29, Royce Taft via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Wasn’t Vista “Mojave”?
No. That is Mac OS X 10.14.
Apple used big cats for a decade or more:
Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion.
Then it ran out of cats. It switched to iconic places in North A
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 21:32, Wayne S via cctalk wrote:
>
> Was 2000 called “Longhorn” internally? If so, the source code for it escaped
> out onto the internet. You can still find it out there.
No.
The planned successor to "Whistler" (NT 5.1, sold as WinXP) was
"Blackcomb", the planned NT 6.
Wasn’t Vista “Mojave”?
> On Aug 1, 2024, at 16:07, Michael Huff via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure it was Vista that was codenamed 'Longhorn', wasn't it?
> 4chan leaked a bunch of code to 2000/XP with a spattering of NT 3.5 (rumour
> goes)[1]. Then Microsoft apparently painted themselves
On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 15:06 -0800, Michael Huff via cctalk wrote:
> I'm pretty sure it was Vista that was codenamed 'Longhorn', wasn't
> it?
> 4chan leaked a bunch of code to 2000/XP with a spattering of NT 3.5
> (rumour
> goes)[1]. Then Microsoft apparently painted themselves into a corner
> makin
I'm pretty sure it was Vista that was codenamed 'Longhorn', wasn't it?
4chan leaked a bunch of code to 2000/XP with a spattering of NT 3.5 (rumour
goes)[1]. Then Microsoft apparently painted themselves into a corner making
Vista and reset the whole thing based on 2003's code base.
[1]
https://www.
Was 2000 called “Longhorn” internally? If so, the source code for it escaped
out onto the internet. You can still find it out there.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 1, 2024, at 13:28, John Herron via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Amazing detail and story (feel bad snipping out).
>
> I remember some rum
Amazing detail and story (feel bad snipping out).
I remember some rumor about either NT or 2000 and a claim that Microsoft
lost the source code, hence no more versions (maybe it was win 2000 since
only 2 service packs?). Does anyone know if that was just Internet rumor of
the times or was that fac
I believe the biggest selling factor from Microsoft was that all drivers had
been converted to 32-bit in xp. Prior to that, there were still some 16 bitters
around.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 1, 2024, at 09:12, Liam Proven via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 13:23, cz via cctalk
On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 13:23, cz via cctalk wrote:
>
> Windows NT and 2000 did not have the "cut through" ability for apps to
> talk to video without going through security proxies, thus games were
> always terrible on them.
>
> Windows XP was the first OS (well aside from Windows 95/ME/whatever)
>
Don't forget about CMD and the Power Shell...
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 10:33 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Am i the ONLY person who preferred the win 3.1 user interface? Probably,
> since I have never seen one like it on linux, and everybody else complains
> about it.
>
> 1. I don't like
For awhile I would simply run PROGMAN.EXE on Windows NT, it would bring
up the traditional window interface. Eventually I got used to the
Windows 95/98 model.
C
On 8/1/2024 4:57 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 15:33, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
wrote:
Am i the ONLY pers
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 15:33, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Am i the ONLY person who preferred the win 3.1 user interface? Probably,
> since I have never seen one like it on linux, and everybody else complains
> about it.
Pretty close. I customised it heavily with shortcuts for all my apps
> On Jul 31, 2024, at 4:50 PM, Tony Jones via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:41 PM Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>> this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:41 PM Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
>
> > this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a
> third xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to
>
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
> this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a
> third xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to
> transition gradually to a different UI, but unless
> one of them could be like the win 3.1 UI, n
this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a third
xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to transition
gradually to a different UI, but unless
one of them could be like the win 3.1 UI, not being unable to join them
together and drag individual a
On 2024-07-31 18:41, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
I have multiple desktops, but they are all the same UI. my "wish" was
to have different UIs on different desktops, a big order, I realize, it
requires some underlying shared tool kit and being friendly with each
other.
If you press CONTROL+
Sorry, should have specified...I don't use winblows that much, I would Like
those features on Linux.
think i installed something old on some operating system and it blew up when I
exceed some max for the old system. long filenames, or special characters in
filenames, or something. maybe that
> -Original Message-
> From: CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 3:15 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Cc: CAREY SCHUG
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS am I the only person who liked the win 3.1 UI?
>
> Am i the ONLY
Windows 2000 certainly had all the same support for fast graphics graphics
as Windows XP. Plenty of gamers actually preferred Win2k over XP because it
was lighter weight and could deliver better frame rates under some
circumstances.
Mike
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 10:06 AM cz via cctalk wrote:
> Win
I don't recall anything I liked about 3.1, but certainly all those
gesture-based actions that came later are a plague.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 3:15 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Am i the ONLY person who preferred the win 3.1 user interface? Probably,
> since I have
We were given an expensive device (X-ray fluorescence
analyzer) that had a dying computer. The instrument had an
ISA bus card to interface to it. I cloned the hard drive,
and tried to get it to boot properly on a new "industrial"
computer that had ISA slots. The original OS was DOS 3.1
That
Am i the ONLY person who preferred the win 3.1 user interface? Probably, since
I have never seen one like it on linux, and everybody else complains about it.
1. I don't like "active anything" that pops up when I move the mouse one pixel
further than I intended, or hides itself just as I am clic
Windows NT and 2000 did not have the "cut through" ability for apps to
talk to video without going through security proxies, thus games were
always terrible on them.
Windows XP was the first OS (well aside from Windows 95/ME/whatever)
that allowed fast access. This made it a security sinkhole,
On 7/31/2024 7:25 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct.
Windows NT 3.1 utilized the Windows 3.1 UI look and feel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1
Windows NT 3.5 continu
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
>
> In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct.
>
> Windows NT 3.1 utilized the Windows 3.1 UI look and feel
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1
>
> Windows NT 3.5 continued the 3.1 look and feel.
>
> https://en.wi
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 23:10, Ali via cctalk wrote:
>
> Unfortunately FreeDOS (as expected given the nature of the project)
> progresses very slowly.
Fair.
There are quarterly updates but they keep very quiet about them.
https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/tes
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Brain via cctalk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 6:14 AM
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Cc: Jim Brain
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
>
> On 7/30/2024 6:58 AM, cz via cctalk wrote:
> > But Windows 2000 was a re-architected v
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 6:26 AM Tony Jones via cctalk
wrote:
>
> I forget at which NT release you could do advanced things like changing the
> IP address without needing to reboot :-).
>
I've been playing with some HP 16700 logic analysers recently - HPUX 10
from the late 90s. Setting the date a
On 7/30/24 17:09, Ali via cctalk wrote:
Tuxera Systems acquired Datalight in 2019 and now sells ROM-DOS. They
claim it's still fully compatible with MS-DOS.
Single User ROM-DOS costs $55 USD, and the SDK for building it embedded
is "Call for a Quote".
$55 isn't that bad. If it was a real comm
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, 10:14 PM Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
>
> I remember using 3.1, 4.0, and 2000. As I recall, I loved the stability
> of 3.1, but the UI was old and outdated, especially when 95 came out.
> 4.0 offered the nicer UI, but the driver situation was still a problem,
I forget at w
Oh lord was it gammafax?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 30, 2024, at 12:12 PM, The Doctor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Monday, July 29th, 2024 at 18:22, David Wise via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will never forget Windows ME. Bleargh!
>
> I had to admin a fax server running on an ME box for a
On 7/30/2024 6:58 AM, cz via cctalk wrote:
But Windows 2000 was a re-architected version of NT that people hated
because of the GUI. So they dusted up the GUI with Windows 98's stuff
and released it as XP. Rest was history
In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct.
Windows N
> Tuxera Systems acquired Datalight in 2019 and now sells ROM-DOS. They
> claim it's still fully compatible with MS-DOS.
>
> Single User ROM-DOS costs $55 USD, and the SDK for building it embedded
> is "Call for a Quote".
$55 isn't that bad. If it was a real commercial product with printed manua
> FreeDOS is cheaper :-)
> Long Live FreeDOS!
>
> https://freedos.org/
Unfortunately FreeDOS (as expected given the nature of the project)
progresses very slowly. I would love to see FreeDOS become a full fledged
MS-DOS 7.0, would have/could have/should have been, replacement. I still run
DOS 6.22
On 2024-07-30 22:20, Doc Shipley via cctalk wrote:
And I learned last week that DOS is still alive, and well, and damned
expensive.
[...]
Long Live DOS!
FreeDOS is cheaper :-)
Long Live FreeDOS!
https://freedos.org/
On 2024-07-30 2:55 p.m., CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
I don't think anaybody has reposted this one on this thread.
Microsoft release Windows CE, which bombed
Then Windows ME, another bomb
Finally Window NT, a moderate success
So they combined them but still can't get windows CEMENT to comple
I don't think anaybody has reposted this one on this thread.
Microsoft release Windows CE, which bombed
Then Windows ME, another bomb
Finally Window NT, a moderate success
So they combined them but still can't get windows CEMENT to complete the boot
process.
...or something like that.
--Car
On 7/29/24 19:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for
$50,000
– US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM’s version
thereof, began. I remember using it to do ama
On Monday, July 29th, 2024 at 18:22, David Wise via cctalk
wrote:
> I will never forget Windows ME. Bleargh!
I had to admin a fax server running on an ME box for a couple of years. I
sincerely hope
I never have to do that again..
The Doctor [412/724/301/703/415/510]
WWW: https://drwho.virt
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 09:42, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk
wrote:
> Yes it started life as NT5 but at some point in got renamed to 2000 and DEC
> Alpha support was dropped. I may have some NT5 Beta CDs in the loft.
I think *all* the non-Intel versions were dropped, weren't they?
There was an unre
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 01:28, Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> Gordon Letwin at Microsoft developed OS/2. But Microsoft sold it off to
> IBM, and it became known as an IBM product.
That is not quite how I remember it...
> Microsoft used some key technology from it in developing WindowsNT.
> With
via cctalk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: David Wise via cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:01 AM
To: Murray McCullough via cctalk
Cc: David Wise
Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
Yes it started life as NT5 but at some point in got renamed to 2000
> -Original Message-
> From: David Wise via cctalk
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 2:01 AM
> To: Murray McCullough via cctalk
> Cc: David Wise
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
>
> I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
>
Yes it started life as NT5 but at some point
On 2024-07-29 10:09 p.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Rod Bartlett wrote:
I found Tim Peterson's old blog a while back which contained some
interesting tidbits about the history of DOS from the original author.
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/
I did find one unimportant
On 7/29/24 17:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
Gordon Letwin at Microsoft developed OS/2. But Microsoft sold it off
to IBM, and it became known as an IBM product.
Umm, no. OS/2 was a joint development effort between IBM and
Microso
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Rod Bartlett wrote:
I found Tim Peterson's old blog a while back which contained some interesting
tidbits about the history of DOS from the original author.
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/
I did find one unimportant error,
He said that DOS 1.10 supported both double side
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Warner Losh wrote:
The DEC Rainbow had initially a 2.01 and later 2.05 version.
Yes, some OEM licensers made significant changes, particularly when
PC-DOS and "vanilla" MS-DOS didn't handle their disk formats.
And many companies started to use 3.5" drives or 80 track DD 5
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:21 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> > I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for
> $50,000
> > – US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM’s version
> > thereof, began. I
> I can never remember which is which between Windows 2000
> and Windows ME ("Millenium Edition")
IIRC (It's been a long time) - 3.1, 95, 98 and ME were all on top of DOS
NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 10+ were all NT
FWIW - At one time IBM actually gave-away PC-DOS - as part of a free "IBM
ServerGuide
Ironically, one of the colleges that I taught at was "Vista College". while
Windows Vista was still "in bloom", they went about changing the name of the
college to "Berkeley City College", in spite of my pleas to keep the name
"Vista" for a while longer, at least in parallel, to cash in on "Learn
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Rod Bartlett wrote:
I found Tim Peterson's old blog a while back which contained some interesting
tidbits about the history of DOS from the original author.
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/
thank you,
that is a very useful reference, although it is only part of the
"elep
I found Tim Peterson's old blog a while back which contained some interesting
tidbits about the history of DOS from the original author.
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/
- Rod
> On Jul 29, 2024, at 8:21 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctal
> Ironically, one of the colleges that I taught at was "Vista College". while
> Windows Vista was still "in bloom", they went about changing the name of the
> college to "Berkeley City College", in spite of my pleas to keep the name
> "Vista" for a while longer, at least in parallel, to cash in o
Did not show up on the list, so I am forwarding another copy;
sorry if there are duplicates
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM's version
the
, July 29, 2024 6:05 PM
To: David Wise
Cc: Murray McCullough via cctalk
Subject: Re: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
Sorry,
I can never remember which is which between Windows 2000
and Windows ME ("Millenium Edition")
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, David Wise wrote:
I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
Dave Wise
Wise
Cc: Murray McCullough via cctalk
Subject: Re: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
Sorry,
I can never remember which is which between Windows 2000
and Windows ME ("Millenium Edition")
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, David Wise wrote:
> I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
Dave Wise
From: Fred Cisin via cctalk
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 5:21 PM
To: Murray McCullough via cctalk
Cc: Fred Cisin
Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> I had
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
– US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM’s version
thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
8-bit machines coul
On Thu, May 2, 2024, 7:27 AM geneb via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
>
> > Some may find this interesting. Microsoft has released the source for
> MS-DOS versions 1.25, 2, and 4.
> >
> > https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS
> >
>
> I think the most interesting t
It's historically interesting, plus it might help the FreeDOS folks plug
some compatibility holes since they can now legally look at the old code to
see how it does things.
Mike
On Thu, May 2, 2024, 9:53 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/2/2024 9:27 AM, gen
On 5/2/2024 9:27 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
Some may find this interesting. Microsoft has released the source for
MS-DOS versions 1.25, 2, and 4.
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS
I think the most interesting thing about this is that
On Thu, 2 May 2024, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
Some may find this interesting. Microsoft has released the source for MS-DOS
versions 1.25, 2, and 4.
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS
I think the most interesting thing about this is that they published it
under an actual open source li
91 matches
Mail list logo
