On 2004-07-02 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <Garry> said:
Hi, Garry --
>Its July 2004. The original SurvPC list [EMAIL PROTECTED] has
>been in place since ... when ... 1996? 1997? ... and the LifeRaft
>verion of the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been up since early
>2001 inspired by The Great SurvPC List Outage of that year.
>We've seen quite an ebb and flow in the memberships of both lists
>over this eight (?) year period.
Yes, indeed. Time changes matters quickly in the world of computers.
One unfortunate development since we've corresponded on these SurvPC
lists is the horrid increase of spam -- for which I've had to acquire
web filter services and manage all e-mail *prior* to downloading anything
via my web mail site.
Something worth noting, though, is that throughout my online experiences
(CompuServe and Internet), I've only had two e-mail addresses: my old
CompuServe address and the one used with this message (the *only* e-mail
address I now have).
Also, during this same online period, I've only had two actual street
addresses: an apartment address, and now a home address (thanks to the
historically low interest rates).
>The very meaning of "Survivor PC" has changed radically in that
>time -- the cutting edge stuff of 1997 (or even 2000) is showing
>up in dumpsters everywhere. ...
It seems I've moved beyond the awe and despair phase of "Survivor PC"
experiences into the learn and preserve state of mind. In other words,
I believe there's a lot to learn from what has developed in the last
two decades in PC/software development that should be preserved -- and
most of it in working order -- so that we can study it closely and examine
the good and bad impact such technology has had on us -- and hopefully
come up with better ways to deal with poor design, worthwhile design, and
more fully understand the dangers of the "business" of computing.
>Where are we today? Who's living where? Using what hardware?
>Running what OS? Working in what fields or on what projects?
>It's time to get to know one another again. The list belongs
>to you who participate. Let's stir it up. Start some trouble.
>Pry into one another's lives. Get personal. Invite some
>friends. ...
My personal computer laboratory, which I call Classic Systems, Ltd.
("Where old things happen happily..."), is filled, not only with
delightful and well running SurvPCs with Internet access, but with a
lot of other curious "classic" items of the past, especially from the
twentieth century. One wall is almost completely lined with books of
all kinds. There is a trimline telephone and a rotary desktop Western
Electric telephone (fully operable from 1953). In this room I've
carefully arranged displays of items that illustrate transitions from
old to new technology -- and especially those things we formally used
on literal desktops that have been transformed into electronic imitations
onto computer screen "desktops". I even constructed, studied and
practiced with the earliest of all computers: the abacus.
My current project, though, concerns a highly surprising discovery of
software -- extremely interesting -- and disturbing, too. An IS
professional transferred to me a complete licensed copy of OS/2 V2.1
for Windows V3.1. I'd always known about IBM's OS/2, but I'd never
really had access to it. So, primarily for the learning experience
(since I still prefer my DOS programs), I installed Microsoft Windows
3.1 on my IBM PS/ValuePoint 433DX/Si (33 MHz, 500+ HDD and 12 MB RAM)
in an available partition, along with OS/2 2.1 in another partition
(using Boot Manager) formatted with the special HPFS (High Performance
File System). I configured Boot Manager to boot into PC DOS 7 by
default, but allow 30 seconds to boot into OS/2, if desired.
My main surprise was how closely OS/2 2.1 resembles Win95 (or NT? I
don't know about NT, as I've never worked with it) -- and two years
*before* (1993) Win95 was publically introduced. Beyond surface
appearances, my greatest astonishment has been the *stability* of this
OS and speed with all sorts of DOS programs running in windows, Win31
programs, OS/2 programs -- and I can't seem to crash it! Very
sophisticated for its time. A pity that it didn't surpass the popularity
of Microsoft's buggy mess -- OS/2 would certainly have been more
tolorable than Win95, if for nothing else, at least for its stability.
I can run Net-Tamer or the latest Arachne GPL version, WordStar 7a for
DOS, my Greek font program -- all under OS/2 at the same time without the
slightest complaint from my system that runs only with 12 MB RAM and
at 33 MHz.
Here follows an excerpt on OS/2 and Win31 (from an entry on OS/2) out
of The PC User's Pocket Dictionary, 1994:
"Originally, OS/2 was developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM as the
successor to DOS, while Windows was developed as a stop-gap measure
until OS/2 was ready. However, Microsoft chose to back Windows, placing
considerable resources behind the breakthrough release of Windows 3.0.
IBM took control of OS/2 development, and in Spring 1992 released OS/2
version 2.0, which was widely hailed as a major technical achievement,
winning several prestigious industry awards."
If Win95 was so similar to OS/2, and Microsoft actually was jointly
involved with IBM on OS/2 development, why on earth did Win95 (and
subsequent versions) turn out so awful? And plentiful? What am I
missing here? Why couldn't Microsoft do better with Win95? Did IBM
keep all the best code and programmers?
Perhaps all of this is old, common knowledge to those listers who've
been around in the business much longer than I have -- but I am curious
why I haven't noticed more discussion on OS/2 here. It is definately a
SurvPC-friendly OS that allows for one to comfortably run DOS in a
multitasking environment.
Any comments on this issue? Could any of you out there point me to
more links of historical interest about OS/2, and OS/2 freeware
resources, etc.?
Thanks much, one and all... ;-)
Jerry -- using his IBM PS/ValuePoint 433DX/Si | at the computer lab of
***** 33 MHz--12 MB RAM--502 MB HD--56kbps | Classic Systems, Ltd.
Net-Tamer V 1.11.2 - Registered
