OSX, OS/2, ECS, and Blue Lion (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)
other at oryx.us
Sun Jul 17 12:33:26 CDT 2016
windows 95 - yea, even bill gates stated that windows 95 was the pinnacle.
ease of installation - maybe due to the fact that the bulk, if not all of us
here are experienced users, I've never understood the belly-aching concerning
installation. Not for DOS/windows, not for OS/2, not for BSD, not for Linux,
not for Solaris. Specifically when you are giving the installer the entire disk
for the OS as a new system install. Just grab the disk then go. Other
settings, like network, even if it is dhcp, have to be added somewhere, be it
during the install or after the fact.
OS/2 vs the windows GUI - sorry, but the best that anyone is going to be able to
convince me on here is personal preference. Its a GUI on top of the OS where
end users double click icons.
Aside from the single thread input queue on early WPS, the sole advantage I ever
saw that windows had over OS/2 was that early on, the *.ini files were text
based on windows vs binary on OS/2. At some point, ms followed IBM and moved to
binary *.ini files. I don't remember at what version.
There were nice GUI based applications (3rd party) for editing OS/2 *.ini files,
but it was never as nice as having actual ASCII text based files.
On 07/17/16 09:48 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
> I am ambivalent. I don't particularly like it any more, but the
> reasons are secondary: the poor security, the copy protection, the
> poor performance because of the requirement for anti-malware, etc.
> The core product was pretty good once. Windows 3.0 was a technical
> triumph, Windows for Workgroups impressive, and Win95 a tour de force.
> For me, Win 2K was about the peak; XP started the trend of adding
> bloat, although it did have worthwhile features too.
> Win95 was vastly easier to get installed & working than OS/2 2, it had
> a better shell -- sorry, but it really was -- better compatibility and
> better performance. No, the stability wasn't as good, but while OS/2 2
> was better, NT 3.x was better than OS/2 2.x et seq.
> It would be technically possible to produce a streamlined,
> stripped-down Windows that was a bloody good OS, but MS lacks the
> will. Shame.
More information about the cctech