yes, you're correct.
MSFT is again attempting to re-write history -
they ignore the facts on how they began, and all those who
actually were the brains behind these machines.
From: CVAlkan fobe...@enteract.com
Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Subject:
Hi :)
In general it's safe to assume that whatever Urmas writes is the exact
opposite of reality. I think most people can spot the absurdities or
inaccuracies.
For example
1. Gary Kildall, creator of CP/M attempting to assert copyright is
written as though the whole notion of copyright doesn't
Your point is valid, but only in today's context.
It's hard to remember that, back then, the idea of actually storing your
document on one of those computer contraptions was somewhat left of absurd.
If the document was important, or even if it needed to be retained for legal
reasons, it would
On 04/07/2014 07:50 AM, CVAlkan wrote:
Your point is valid, but only in today's context.
It's hard to remember that, back then, the idea of actually storing your
document on one of those computer contraptions was somewhat left of absurd.
If the document was important, or even if it needed to
On 04/06/2014 10:14 AM, James Knott wrote:
Jim Seymour wrote:
No, they didn't. Early Apple PCs ran the MOS Technologies (later:
Mostek) 6502. CP/M never ran on anything but the Intel 8080 and
Zilog Z80. (And only on the latter because it was a superset of the
former.) Eventually, Kildall
HOW about taking this discussion to the discuss list. That will free
up the user list for the LO stuff.
I just posted this thread to let people know, but I just looked and it
seems to be the dominate thread on that list instead of LO questions.
I am as guilty as others, but it is either
Il 04/04/2014 23:56, CVAlkan ha scritto:
Sorry for the trip down memory lane, but I agree that this is undoubtedly
some sort of publicity stunt. Call me cynical, but I can't help wondering
what's up their sleeve with this.
No need to apologise. FWIW, I really enjoyed reading your post. :)
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
Maybe I got confused. I thought my 10 inch was from a DEC system.
It was sure big. Maybe they used a different type. I donated it to a
college teaching staff for demoing old tech, along with my samples of
a punched card program, and some paper tape.
No, DEC
Jean-Louis Oneto wrote:
When Microsoft bought DRI
Microsoft didn't buy DRI. They bought Q-DOS from Seattle Computer
Products. Gary Kildall, creator of CP/M later took MS to court and
proved that MS-DOS contained directly copied CP/M code.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Jim Seymour wrote:
No, they didn't. Early Apple PCs ran the MOS Technologies (later:
Mostek) 6502. CP/M never ran on anything but the Intel 8080 and
Zilog Z80. (And only on the latter because it was a superset of the
former.) Eventually, Kildall realized the 8-bit processors' days were
Jim Seymour wrote:
Nor was CP/M-86 vapourware. It was short-lived, because Kildall was
way too late to the game, but it did exist. IIRC, the DEC Rainbow
dual-booted CP/M-86 and DOS?
CP/M-86 was also one of the 3 operating systems that were initially
available with the IBM PC. The third was
James Knott:
Gary Kildall, creator of CP/M later took MS to court and
proved that MS-DOS contained directly copied CP/M code.
Gary Kildall was a kind of man who believed that you can write something
once and get dividends from it indefinitely.
That didn't work well.
--
To unsubscribe
CVAlkan:
When WordPerfect 5.x arrived, there was even the ability to display a
graphic preview (almost WYSIWYG) display of the printed output on a normal
character screen - and this was available not only for DOS versions, but on
a wide variety of platforms such as the then popular DEC and DG
Urmas wrote:
Comparing to this, MS Word which used easy and open file format was a
clear winner.
Gee... I coulda sworn April 1st was last week.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
On 06/04/14 23:04, Urmas wrote:
You are trying to defend a text processor which stores text in a
proprietary encoding in the obscured format. Comparing to this, MS Word
which used easy and open file format was a clear winner.
Microsoft has never used an open file format for ANY software. Not
On 04/06/2014 05:04 PM, Urmas wrote:
CVAlkan:
When WordPerfect 5.x arrived, there was even the ability to display a
graphic preview (almost WYSIWYG) display of the printed output on a
normal
character screen - and this was available not only for DOS versions,
but on
a wide variety of
On 04/04/2014 05:56 PM, CVAlkan wrote:
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe either DOS
(before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written by Microsoft. I seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.
Word for MS-DOS was typical of the approach Microsoft
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
On 04/04/2014 05:56 PM, CVAlkan wrote:
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe either DOS
(before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written by Microsoft. I
seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.
DOS was bought from
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:57:48 -0400
James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com wrote:
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
On 04/04/2014 05:56 PM, CVAlkan wrote:
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe
either DOS (before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written
by Microsoft. I
On 04/05/2014 03:05 PM, Jim Seymour wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:57:48 -0400
James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com wrote:
Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
On 04/04/2014 05:56 PM, CVAlkan wrote:
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe
either DOS (before 2.x) or the DOS
The first floppies where 8, single sided, single density and were lade for
punch card substitute: the 80kB capacity was then equivalent to a rack of 1000
80 columns punched cards. That was in the early 1970's. Before that, there was
14 amovible HDD, with a capacity of 2.5 MB, made by several
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:43:46 -0400
Kracked_P_P---webmaster webmas...@krackedpress.com wrote:
[snip]
I hated CP/M
[snip]
It was nearly indistinguishable from DOS, or DOS was nearly
indistinguishable from it, depending upon ones perspective.
The other rooms had old Apple [before Macs] and they
Thanks for all the comments -
By the way, are you the same Jim Seymour who used to have a column in PC-Mag
(I think that was it - along with Dvorak and others)?
Frank
--
View this message in context:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 23:04:42 +0200
Jean-Louis Oneto jl.on...@free.fr wrote:
The
DRI CP/M80 then CP/M86 were nothing but vaporware,
I think you must have CP/M and CP/M-86 conflated with something
else. CP/M-80 was anything *but* vapourware. In the mid-70's to
early 80's, 8080- and Z-80
I have to correct myself...
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 17:14:12 -0400
Jim Seymour jseym...@linxnet.com wrote:
[snip]
No, they didn't. Early Apple PCs ran the MOS Technologies (later:
Mostek) 6502. CP/M never ran on anything but the Intel 8080 and
Zilog Z80. (And only on the latter because it was a
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 14:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
CVAlkan fobe...@enteract.com wrote:
Thanks for all the comments -
By the way, are you the same Jim Seymour who used to have a column
in PC-Mag (I think that was it - along with Dvorak and others)?
Somebody *just* asked me that question, here, a couple
Not sure if my recollections are correct, but I don't believe either DOS
(before 2.x) or the DOS version of Word were written by Microsoft. I seem to
recall that both were purchased and re-branded.
Word for MS-DOS was typical of the approach Microsoft would perfect over
many subsequent years. Its
27 matches
Mail list logo
