Rare Apple I computer sells for $216,000 in London

[jmfbahciv]

Rod Speed wrote:

Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always
had a completely fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows
became ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop the
dinosaurs continuing to use them.


Why in the world would you want to do that?

/BAH

 

[Bill Leary]

"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
news:1beia75tov.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
That wasnt why OS/2 never flew.

The other very fundamental reason OS/2 never took off in the mass
market was because it did a pretty hopeless job of running the older
stuff that so many wanted to continue to use at least for a while.

I don't remember it that way -- my recollection was that it did as well
on those as Windows did.

Me either. I ran OS/2 and my recollection is that it ran DOS programs
better than Windows did and ran the majority of the Windows programs just as
well as Windows itself did, and a few much better than Windows did. When I
installed OS/2 I set it up for dual boot, as I was expecting that there
would be some DOS or Windows programs I'd have problems with. In practice I
rarely booted to Windows. In those cases I think it was only to run a
couple of games that wouldn't run correctly in OS/2.

Things changed over time, of course. When the newer versions of Windows
came along and OS/2 could't keep up with them I eventually had to give up on
it and switched to Windows.

I also well recall my surprise after doing so the second time the machine
crashed. Not the first time, as I'd managed to crash OS/2 on a few rare
occasions. But when Windows crashed on me the second time, in the same day,
it really gave me pause. I adjusted, of course, as everyone did. But after
having OS/2 run for months without shutting down, it was a real annoyance to
have Windows crashing a couple of times a week. Sometimes more often. And
learning to shut down when I was done for the day, so Windows wouldn't crash
due to running out of resources.

- Bill

 

[Roland Hutchinson]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:10:19 +0000, jmfbahciv wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always had a completely
fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows became
ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop the
dinosaurs continuing to use them.

Why in the world would you want to do that?

Opens us a niche or two for the mammals, innit.

--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
.... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Pfeiffer wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
Walter Bushell wrote
Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Pity IBM lacked the marketing nouse and printer support
(bloody thing wouldn't work with my HP Laserjet!!) that
Microsoft had back then.

I think IBM had (and still have) marketing nounce - it's just that
they concentrate on a rather different market, instead of trying
to get millions of people to spend a few hundred each they
prefer to get thousands of people to spend a few million each.

That is my 2c as well. If IBM had encouraged and supported home
users of OS/2, then there would have been millions of workers
telling the boss that MS Win was absolute crap compared to OS/2.

Wouldnt have done a damned thing about the very fundamental
problem, hardly any of the apps that mattered bothered to support
OS/2 properly and none were stupid enough to ignore Win.

WordPerfect was.

If IBM could have read the writing on the Mall . . . .

They wouldnt have pissed all that money against the wall on OS/2 etc.

IBM certainly had enough power to encourage developers.

Nope. The very fundamental problem was always that while ever the absolute
vast bulk of PC came with Win installed, nothing IBM did could ever change that.

Sure they could.

Nope.

At the time, they could have provided the same sort of encouragement
to the clone manufacturers to preload OS/2 that MS did for Windows.

Nope, because not enough of the apps had native OS/2
versions for that to be viable and they never did either.

I mean Apple did that for the Macintosh at the time the
Macintosh was nothing compared to the IBM empire.

Yes, because it had a much better user interface than DOS PCs hand.

Different market, different mindset.

That wasnt why OS/2 never flew.

The other very fundamental reason OS/2 never took off in the mass
market was because it did a pretty hopeless job of running the older
stuff that so many wanted to continue to use at least for a while.

I don't remember it that way -- my recollection was that it did as
well on those as Windows did.

Nope, its support for DOS apps was pathetic.

Hardly anyone was interested in changing all the apps they used.

Thats why Win left it for dead, even tho it was an inferiour product.

 

[Rod Speed]

Roland Hutchinson wrote

Joe Pfeiffer wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes
Walter Bushell wrote
Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Pity IBM lacked the marketing nouse and printer support
(bloody thing wouldn't work with my HP Laserjet!!) that
Microsoft had back then.

I think IBM had (and still have) marketing nounce - it's just
that they concentrate on a rather different market, instead of
trying to get millions of people to spend a few hundred each
they prefer to get thousands of people to spend a few million
each.

That is my 2c as well. If IBM had encouraged and supported home
users of OS/2, then there would have been millions of workers
telling the boss that MS Win was absolute crap compared to OS/2.

Wouldnt have done a damned thing about the very fundamental
problem, hardly any of the apps that mattered bothered to
support OS/2 properly and none were stupid enough to ignore Win.

WordPerfect was.

If IBM could have read the writing on the Mall . . . .

They wouldnt have pissed all that money against the wall on OS/2 etc.

IBM certainly had enough power to encourage developers.

Nope. The very fundamental problem was always that while ever the
absolute vast bulk of PC came with Win installed, nothing IBM did
could ever change that.

Sure they could. At the time, they could have provided the same
sort of encouragement to the clone manufacturers to preload OS/2
that MS did for Windows.

I mean Apple did that for the Macintosh at the time the Macintosh
was nothing compared to the IBM empire.

Yes, because it had a much better user interface than DOS PCs hand.

Different market, different mindset.

That wasnt why OS/2 never flew.

The other very fundamental reason OS/2 never took off in the mass
market was because it did a pretty hopeless job of running the older
stuff that so many wanted to continue to use at least for a while.

I don't remember it that way -- my recollection was that it did as
well on those as Windows did.

"A better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows"

Just a glib slogan. The reality was that the support for DOS apps was pathetic.

In spades with the apps that dealt with the hardware directly, like the comms apps that universally did that.

Yes, the approach OS/2 took to not allowing dos apps to do anything they liked with the hardware
was certainly the way to go stability wise, but it had the massive downside that there were hordes
of dos apps like that that just didnt work on OS/2 and the authors just werent interested in doing
OS/2 versions of their apps while ever OS/2 only ever had a tiny subset of the market.

That was the chicken and egg situation that even an IBM couldnt do a damned thing about.

 

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always
had a completely fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows
became ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop the dinosaurs continuing to use them.

Why in the world would you want to do that?

Because the support for the hardware ended up being a complete pain in the arse.

With teletypes in spades.

We eventually ended up with the ludicrous situation where a very senior support
person had to do all the teletype maintenance because they were so fucking hard
to work on compared with what replaced them. Even he hated the damned things.

The cost of 029 card punches etc was utterly obscene compared with what
replaced them essentially because they were complex mechanical devices.

Some other operations had to get blank cards from me because we were the
last operation that bothered to have punched cards etc.

 

[Walter Bushell]

In article <G4mdnXeEFLtqu2zRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:

I also well recall my surprise after doing so the second time the machine
crashed. Not the first time, as I'd managed to crash OS/2 on a few rare
occasions. But when Windows crashed on me the second time, in the same day,
it really gave me pause. I adjusted, of course, as everyone did. But after
having OS/2 run for months without shutting down, it was a real annoyance to
have Windows crashing a couple of times a week. Sometimes more often. And
learning to shut down when I was done for the day, so Windows wouldn't crash
due to running out of resources.

And generations of computer users got trained to expect the OS to crash
all the time and have to run malware protection all the time.

--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?

 

[Rod Speed]

Bill Leary wrote

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

That wasnt why OS/2 never flew.

The other very fundamental reason OS/2 never took off in the mass
market was because it did a pretty hopeless job of running the older
stuff that so many wanted to continue to use at least for a while.

I don't remember it that way -- my recollection was that it did as well on those as Windows did.

Me either. I ran OS/2 and my recollection is that it ran DOS programs
better than Windows did

Nope, particularly apps that dealt with the hardware directly. Comms
apps in spades, and they universally banged on the hardware directly.

There are still quite a few of them around, mostly used for
more obscure stuff like PLCs and hardware controllers etc.

Games in spades.

and ran the majority of the Windows programs just as well as Windows itself did, and a few much better than Windows
did.

Thats wrong too, particularly the stuff that didnt things the way they were supposed to be done.

When I installed OS/2 I set it up for dual boot, as I was expecting that there would be some DOS or Windows programs
I'd have problems with. In practice I rarely booted to Windows. In those cases I think it was only to run a couple
of games that wouldn't run correctly in OS/2.

You clearly werent using the PC for controlling any obscure hardware.

The lack of support for games alone killed the OS/2 market
in the days before consoles dominated the games market.

You still see the same problem with games and linux today.

And hardware that isnt bog standard in spades.

Even just with a PVR, there is much less support in linux and none in OS/2 at all.

Things changed over time, of course. When the newer versions of Windows came along and OS/2 could't keep up with them
I eventually had to give up on it and switched to Windows.

And those who need to use anything at all unusual hardware
wise never bothered with OS/2 and games in spades.

I also well recall my surprise after doing so the second time the
machine crashed. Not the first time, as I'd managed to crash OS/2 on
a few rare occasions. But when Windows crashed on me the second
time, in the same day, it really gave me pause. I adjusted, of
course, as everyone did. But after having OS/2 run for months
without shutting down, it was a real annoyance to have Windows
crashing a couple of times a week. Sometimes more often. And
learning to shut down when I was done for the day, so Windows
wouldn't crash due to running out of resources.

Yes, it was technically much more bullet proof, but it never could do a
damned thing about the fact that no one much bothered with supporting
OS/2 with native apps and with hardware and games in spades.

Even very basic stuff like support for USB devices was pathetic.

 

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <proto-A12D7B.13004427112010@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com
(Walter Bushell) writes:

In article <G4mdnXeEFLtqu2zRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:

I also well recall my surprise after doing so the second time the
machine crashed. Not the first time, as I'd managed to crash OS/2
on a few rare occasions. But when Windows crashed on me the second
time, in the same day, it really gave me pause. I adjusted, of
course, as everyone did. But after having OS/2 run for months
without shutting down, it was a real annoyance to have Windows
crashing a couple of times a week. Sometimes more often. And
learning to shut down when I was done for the day, so Windows
wouldn't crash due to running out of resources.

And generations of computer users got trained to expect the OS to
crash all the time and have to run malware protection all the time.

And that, to me, is Microsoft's greatest crime against humanity.

--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

 

[Bill Leary]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8lcvkfFts3U1@mid.individual.net...

Bill Leary wrote
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

That wasnt why OS/2 never flew.

The other very fundamental reason OS/2 never took off in the mass
market was because it did a pretty hopeless job of running the older
stuff that so many wanted to continue to use at least for a while.

I don't remember it that way -- my recollection was that it did as well
on those as Windows did.

Me either. I ran OS/2 and my recollection is that it ran DOS programs
better than Windows did

Nope, particularly apps that dealt with the hardware directly. Comms
apps in spades, and they universally banged on the hardware directly.

I was running the DOS version of ProComm under OS/2. There was some,
admittedly obscure, setting that had to be changed in the program profile to
permit direct hardware access. Once that was done it worked fine. In fact,
doing some comm software testing, I ran ProComm in it's host mode to out one
comm port to a modem, and my test software through another comm port to
another modem and dialed up my own machine. I used my OS/2 system mostly as
a development platform for DOS programs and a few Windows apps as well.

There are still quite a few of them around, mostly used for
more obscure stuff like PLCs and hardware controllers etc.

Mostly legacy machine control or financial applications these days.

Games in spades.

Perhaps. I didn't play a lot of games.

and ran the majority of the Windows programs just as well as Windows
itself did, and a few much better than Windows did.

Thats wrong too, particularly the stuff that didnt things the way they
were supposed to be done.

Your experience was rather radically different than mine and, apparently,
others.

When I installed OS/2 I set it up for dual boot, as I was expecting that
there would be some DOS or Windows programs I'd have problems with. In
practice I rarely booted to Windows. In those cases I think it was only
to run a couple of games that wouldn't run correctly in OS/2.

You clearly werent using the PC for controlling any obscure hardware.

Modems, printers, scanners, machine tools, that sort of thing.

The lack of support for games alone killed the OS/2 market
in the days before consoles dominated the games market.

The few games I used ran fine, with a couple of exceptions. But I did hear
this particular complaint quite a bit at the time.

((..additional similar comments omitted..))

- Bill

 

[William Hamblen]

Rod Speed wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot<steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always
had a completely fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows
became ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop the dinosaurs continuing to use them.

Why in the world would you want to do that?

Because the support for the hardware ended up being a complete pain in the arse.

You didn't need to get rid of the keypunches, just the card readers.

Bud

 

[Rod Speed]

Bill Leary wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Bill Leary wrote
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

That wasnt why OS/2 never flew.

The other very fundamental reason OS/2 never took off in the mass
market was because it did a pretty hopeless job of running the older stuff that so many wanted to continue to use
at least for a while.

I don't remember it that way -- my recollection was that it did as
well on those as Windows did.

Me either. I ran OS/2 and my recollection is that it ran DOS
programs better than Windows did

Nope, particularly apps that dealt with the hardware directly. Comms
apps in spades, and they universally banged on the hardware directly.

I was running the DOS version of ProComm under OS/2. There was some,
admittedly obscure, setting that had to be changed in the program profile to permit direct hardware access. Once that
was done it worked fine.

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

In fact, doing some comm software testing, I ran ProComm
in it's host mode to out one comm port to a modem, and my test
software through another comm port to another modem and dialed up my own machine. I used my OS/2 system mostly as a
development platform for DOS programs and a few Windows apps as well.

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

There are still quite a few of them around, mostly used for
more obscure stuff like PLCs and hardware controllers etc.

Mostly legacy machine control or financial applications these days.

Nope, quite a few apps used to program hardware.

Games in spades.

Perhaps. I didn't play a lot of games.

But the market did. Thats what matters as far as it flying was concerned.

and ran the majority of the Windows programs just as well as Windows itself did, and a few much better than Windows
did.

Thats wrong too, particularly the stuff that didnt things the way
they were supposed to be done.

Your experience was rather radically different than mine

I didnt even say what my experience was and you just ignored the point
I made that they didnt run better under OS/2 than under DOS or Win.

and, apparently, others.

Not one of whom used OS/2 for programming devices etc.

When I installed OS/2 I set it up for dual boot, as I was expecting
that there would be some DOS or Windows programs I'd have problems
with. In practice I rarely booted to Windows. In those cases I think it was only to run a couple of games that
wouldn't run correctly in OS/2.

You clearly werent using the PC for controlling any obscure hardware.

Modems, printers, scanners,

Nothing obscure about any of those.

machine tools, that sort of thing.

The lack of support for games alone killed the OS/2 market
in the days before consoles dominated the games market.

The few games I used ran fine, with a couple of exceptions. But I did hear this particular complaint quite a bit at
the time.

And it was what killed OS/2's prospects stone dead in the market.

>> ((..additional similar comments omitted..))

 

[Rod Speed]

William Hamblen wrote

Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot<steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always
had a completely fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows
became ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop
the dinosaurs continuing to use them.

Why in the world would you want to do that?

Because the support for the hardware ended up being a complete pain in the arse.

You didn't need to get rid of the keypunches, just the card readers.

The card readers werent the problem.

And the key punchers are useless without card readers anyway.

 

[Bill Leary]

I thought I recognized your "style." I should have looked you up earlier.
I probably wouldn't have bothered to respond at all.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ldjhpFk5lU1@mid.individual.net...

Bill Leary wrote
I was running the DOS version of ProComm under OS/2. There was some,
admittedly obscure, setting that had to be changed in the program profile
to permit direct hardware access. Once that was done it worked fine.

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

Yes, it did.

In fact, doing some comm software testing, I ran ProComm
in it's host mode to out one comm port to a modem, and my test
software through another comm port to another modem and dialed up my own
machine. I used my OS/2 system mostly as a development platform for DOS
programs and a few Windows apps as well.

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

Yes, it did.

As did my editors, compilers, linkers, and so on. The only thing that
didn't work well was the debugger. But even at that it was better than
Windows, because the debugger wouldn't work at all under Windows.

That was a lot of the point of using OS/2 rather than Windows. Bit the
really big point was that if a program being tested went weird, and they
often did, under Windows more often than not I had to hit RESET to recover.
Under OS/2 I just closed the window with the errant program and moved on.

As for the rest of your comments, ...

Your experience was rather radically different than mine

I didnt even say what my experience was

I, and others, have commented from personal experience. I'll listen to
people who have "been there and done that" but there's no point at all in a
discussion with someone who doesn't have, or won't share, their own
experiences.

Game over.

- Bill

 

[Rod Speed]

Bill Leary wrote:

I thought I recognized your "style." I should have looked you up earlier. I probably wouldn't have bothered to
respond at all.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Bill Leary wrote

I was running the DOS version of ProComm under OS/2. There was some, admittedly obscure, setting that had to be
changed in the program profile to permit direct hardware access. Once that was done it worked fine.

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

Yes, it did.

Pigs arse it did.

In fact, doing some comm software testing, I ran ProComm
in it's host mode to out one comm port to a modem, and my test
software through another comm port to another modem and dialed up
my own machine. I used my OS/2 system mostly as a development
platform for DOS programs and a few Windows apps as well.

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

Yes, it did.

Pigs arse it did.

As did my editors, compilers, linkers, and so on.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you are lying.

The only thing that didn't work well was the debugger. But even at that it was better than Windows, because the
debugger wouldn't work at all under Windows.

That was a lot of the point of using OS/2 rather than Windows. Bit the really big point was that if a program being
tested went weird, and they often did, under Windows more often than not I had to hit RESET to recover.

Thats a lie too.

Under OS/2 I just closed the window with the errant program and moved on.

Another lie, particularly when debugging a new driver.

As for the rest of your comments, ...

Your experience was rather radically different than mine

I didnt even say what my experience was

I, and others, have commented from personal experience.

So did I.

I'll listen to people who have "been there and done that" but there's no point at all in a discussion with someone who
doesn't have, or won't share, their own experiences.

Game over.

Nope, everyone with a clue can see that your lies and pathetic excuse for bullshit stands out like dogs balls.

If the sun shone out of OS/2's arse, how come you arent running it now ?

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:

William Hamblen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot<steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always
had a completely fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows
became ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop
the dinosaurs continuing to use them.

Why in the world would you want to do that?

Because the support for the hardware ended up being a complete pain in the arse.

You didn't need to get rid of the keypunches, just the card readers.

The card readers werent the problem.

And the key punchers are useless without card readers anyway.

There is some remote possility that that was the point.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Rod Speed]

Joe Pfeiffer wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
William Hamblen wrote
Rod Speed wrote
jmfbahciv wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Walter Bushell wrote
Ahem A Rivet's Shot<steveo@eircom.net> wrote
Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

WordPervert was never gunna survive, it always
had a completely fucked user interface.

Surprising then that it was so popular right up until Windows
became ubiquitous. I quite liked WordPerfect's interface.

I have head many laments about WordPerfect's demise.

I heard many laments about the demise of punched cards too.

I had to physically remove the last of the card punches to stop
the dinosaurs continuing to use them.

Why in the world would you want to do that?

Because the support for the hardware ended up being a complete pain in the arse.

You didn't need to get rid of the keypunches, just the card readers.

The card readers werent the problem.

And the key punches are useless without card readers anyway.

There is some remote possility that that was the point.

Nope, the punches are useless without the readers.

 

[terryc]

Rod Speed wrote:

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

Yes, it did.

Pigs arse it did.

We have a winner.
Congratulations Bill.

 

[Roland Hutchinson]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:31:18 -0800, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

In article <proto-A12D7B.13004427112010@news.panix.com>, proto@panix.com
(Walter Bushell) writes:

In article <G4mdnXeEFLtqu2zRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Bill
Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:

I also well recall my surprise after doing so the second time the
machine crashed. Not the first time, as I'd managed to crash OS/2 on
a few rare occasions. But when Windows crashed on me the second time,
in the same day, it really gave me pause. I adjusted, of course, as
everyone did. But after having OS/2 run for months without shutting
down, it was a real annoyance to have Windows crashing a couple of
times a week. Sometimes more often. And learning to shut down when I
was done for the day, so Windows wouldn't crash due to running out of
resources.

And generations of computer users got trained to expect the OS to crash
all the time and have to run malware protection all the time.

And that, to me, is Microsoft's greatest crime against humanity.

Hey, if you didn't like the warranty (which amounted to "This diskette is
guaranteed to be a diskette; oh, and by the way you can't sue us for
anything else no matter what happens") you didn't have to play. Still
don't.

But, that said, I completely agree with you. We could have had our
flying cars and vacation homes on the Moon by now without all that lost
productivity.

--
Roland Hutchinson

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
.... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote

But it didnt run better than it did on Win or DOS.

Yes, it did.

Pigs arse it did.

We have a winner.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

No surprise that you're completely unemployable.