JTK wrote:
> *PLEASE* tell me that you do NOT use Notepad. If you actually are using
> notepad, I have one word for you: TextPad.
I thought Notepad was Micro$oft's only stable application...
But then it can only edit files no larger than 64kB -
this keeps you from writing bloated code...
Ever tr
RV wrote:
> What? You still using a 486 SX-25 "loaded" with 16 meg of RAM? ;-) Time
> to get a PC upgrade
>
> Using an Athlon 1.33 gHz/384 meg of RAM/ TNT2 Nvidia video card here and
> IT FLIES! ;-) ...
Almost _any_ software that a regular user needs, except real-time video
(MPEG4/divx) encodi
Romanator wrote:
> Wordstar. Now isn't that ancient. At the time, the computers and
> hardware were junk and the specs were terrible.
But we still managed to do productive work with computers in those
times. There were no fancy graphics or colours, but how often
do we _really_ need that in a tex
David Simpson wrote:
> Win95 better than Win3.11. You'd have to be joking. The second release
> did a few things better but it still crashed far more often than
> Win3.0 ever did.
Win 95 was better (or less awful) than Win 3.11 in _some_ ways.
In my opinion, one of them was the user interface, wh
"Mösl Roland" wrote:
> ...
> Look at
>
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/December/browser.html
>
> After 0.3 days in December, NutScrap 5 still behind
> NutScrap 3 and MSIE 3.
>
> This statistic tells: most NutScrap users boycott the new version
I _do_ agree in Netscape making crappy soft
