On 2024-06-14 6:35 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Le 01-06-2024, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> a écrit :
>>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 08:22:43 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, at one point, the only difference between the two was (IIRC) a
>>>> Registry entry :-D
>>>
>>> I have a book, obsolete now, that was a dictionary of the Windows
>>> Registry. I can't find a current equivalent. There are many keys that
>>> control behaviors that aren't in the registry. You can create them and set
>>> the values but first you have to know the key exists.
>>
>> Yes, the registry was a great idea, the main issue being the
>> documentation. So everyone used it in creating his own entries without
>> carrying about the others use, which created a mess very fast.
>
> And it gets larger and larger, and search times increase.

It's not that bad but having configuration files for programs in a
defined area of the home directory is the more logical system.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-06-14 6:40 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Le 01-06-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 30 May 2024 06:33:30 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, people who high-paying jobs and workplaces are almost always
>>>> using Windows.
>>>
>>> You mean the managers? The pointy-haired boss types?
>>
>> They don't need Windows, Linux or MacOS. They just read mails and
>> sometime a browser. Any system would be the same for them. They are on
>> meeting 24/7 and don't really use their computers.
>
> Indeed. Though the Teams and Outlook and Calender crap are important to them.

Considering how many workplaces use Teams for communication between
staff members or for meetings, it only makes sense that they would want
to be able to access it. However, people can easily use the web version
as I do from whatever operating system they want. It's the same story
with Outlook and its calendar.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-06-15 2:30 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote at 15:01 this Friday (GMT):
>> Le 02-06-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 06:34:55 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-06-01 12:11 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You have no idea, do you? There are lots of clips on YouTube showing
>>>>> off those 1990s-era Unix systems. You want to go educate yourself, or
>>>>> shall I give you some links?
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to do so.
>>>
>>> BeOS <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzosnPSETzk> -- not technically a
>>> “Unix”, but still a good example of a state-of-the-art GUI anyway.
>>
>> I wanted to use BeOS at the time. But it was designed to run only on a
>> computer with the good sound card and the good graphic card and
>> everything else. So, as I couldn't buy a new computer only to use BeOS I
>> never tried it.
>
>
> BeOS is pretty interesting from what I've gotten to use it for.

At the time, I knew one or two guys who swore by it. They were
particularly impressed by how BeOS allowed them to play two or three
multimedia files simultaneously without slowing down the system. I was
even working with a few guys at the time who wanted to make a demo for
BeOS (like Second Reality from Future Crew) to show off how excellent it
was. However, once Windows 2000 came out, it was over. BeOS was still
the better multimedia system, but 2000 was so stable that it didn't even
matter anymore. It was stability people cared about at the time, not
multimedia features. Those who wanted to edit videos simply went to the
iMac.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Le 15-06-2024, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> a écrit :
> On 2024-06-14 6:35 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Yes, the registry was a great idea, the main issue being the
>>> documentation. So everyone used it in creating his own entries without
>>> carrying about the others use, which created a mess very fast.
>>
>> And it gets larger and larger, and search times increase.
>
> It's not that bad

It is.

> but having configuration files for programs in a
> defined area of the home directory is the more logical system.

Yes, that's what I said: the idea was great. The
implementation/documentation wasn't and it became a mess.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

No one, not even Trump, can be an isolationist when
the planet is shrinking this fast.

Relf wrote:
> No one, not even Trump, can be an isolationist when
> the planet is shrinking this fast.
>
yes they can

Relf(me): No one, not even Trump, can be an isolationist when
the planet is shrinking this fast.

zZombie(%): yes they can

No, we can't.

% wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Relf wrote:
>> No one, not even Trump, can be an isolationist when
>> the planet is shrinking this fast.
>>
> yes they can

Covid, transatlantic flights, global climate change, ICBMs, ... adduce
otherwise. Sheet, look at the worldwide resurgence of the far-right.

Harlan Ellison said something like the two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity.

Einstein said two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.

Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
truth is still putting on its shoes.”

--
It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely
the most important.
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Case of Identity"

Chris Ahlstrom wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> % wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Relf wrote:
>>> No one, not even Trump, can be an isolationist when
>>> the planet is shrinking this fast.
>>>
>> yes they can
>
> Covid, transatlantic flights, global climate change, ICBMs, ... adduce
> otherwise. Sheet, look at the worldwide resurgence of the far-right.
>
> Harlan Ellison said something like the two most common elements in the universe
> are hydrogen and stupidity.
>
> Einstein said two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
>
> Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
> truth is still putting on its shoes.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guj9DbkzyOU

King Crimson "Neurotica"

--
You will have domestic happiness and faithful friends.

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:23:23 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 6/6/2024 8:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:31:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/4/2024 7:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember, the big advance in Windows 95 was in actually having a
>>>> “Start” menu for the first time.
>>>
>>> Another feature for bereft-of-ideas GuhNoo/FOSS copycats to clone.
>>
>> *nix systems had application menus some years before that. Remember
>> they had GUIs before Microsoft Windows even existed.
>
> "Microsoft first demonstrated a window manager to the press in September
> 1983."

Windows had no application menu until Windows 95.

On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:56:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 6/7/2024 8:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 10:05:30 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> I want to see if it becomes a pain in the ass.
>>
>> But you’re already inured, desensitized, numbed after years, decades of
>> suff^H^H^H^Husing Windows. So how would you know when it becomes a pain
>> in a normal person’s arse?
>
> Since you don't run Windows you don't know how unobtrusive Windows
> Updates actually are.

“DO NOT TURN OFF YOUR MACHINE!”

Yes, we know ...

On 14 Jun 2024 13:47:08 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Yes the [CAPS LOCK] key is the worst key on the keyboard.

I use it for my Compose key.

On 14 Jun 2024 15:05:04 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 01-06-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>
>> You mean the managers? The pointy-haired boss types?
>
> They don't need Windows, Linux or MacOS. They just read mails and
> sometime a browser. Any system would be the same for them. They are on
> meeting 24/7 and don't really use their computers.

In the early days of computers, bosses wouldn’t even touch them. They saw
that as something their secretaries would use.

On 2024-06-25 02:46, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:23:23 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 6/6/2024 8:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:31:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Remember, the big advance in Windows 95 was in actually having a
>>>>> “Start” menu for the first time.
>>>>
>>>> Another feature for bereft-of-ideas GuhNoo/FOSS copycats to clone.
>>>
>>> *nix systems had application menus some years before that. Remember
>>> they had GUIs before Microsoft Windows even existed.
>>
>> "Microsoft first demonstrated a window manager to the press in September
>> 1983."
>
> Windows had no application menu until Windows 95.

Isn't DFS referring to IBM'S TopView there? If I recall correctly, it
was a decent idea which unfortunately went nowhere.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:23:23 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 6/6/2024 8:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:31:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Remember, the big advance in Windows 95 was in actually having a
>>>>> “Start” menu for the first time.
>>>>
>>>> Another feature for bereft-of-ideas GuhNoo/FOSS copycats to clone.
>>>
>>> *nix systems had application menus some years before that. Remember
>>> they had GUIs before Microsoft Windows even existed.
>>
>> "Microsoft first demonstrated a window manager to the press in September
>> 1983."
>
> Windows had no application menu until Windows 95.

"In 1973, Xerox PARC developed the Alto personal computer. It had a bitmapped
screen, and was the first computer to demonstrate the desktop metaphor and
graphical user interface (GUI)."

--
The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
-- Mark Twain

DFS wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 6/6/2024 8:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:31:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/4/2024 7:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember, the big advance in Windows 95 was in actually having a
>>>> “Start” menu for the first time.
>>>
>>> Another feature for bereft-of-ideas GuhNoo/FOSS copycats to clone.
>>
>> *nix systems had application menus some years before that. Remember they
>> had GUIs before Microsoft Windows even existed.
>
> "Microsoft first demonstrated a window manager to the press in September
> 1983."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_1.0

Its development began after the Microsoft co-founder and spearhead of
Windows 1.0, Bill Gates, saw a demonstration of a similar software suite,
Visi On, at COMDEX in 1982. The operating environment was showcased to the
public in November 1983, although it ended up being released two years
later.

:-D

Microsoft probably had to incorporate some ideas from GEM. :-)

> "In 1983, W Window System was ported to the VAXstation 100 (and, hence,
> to UNIX)."
>
> https://lunduke.substack.com/p/w-the-window-system-before-x-that

Interest link from DFS.

--
Exercise caution in your daily affairs.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 06:37:38 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Isn't DFS referring to IBM'S TopView there? If I recall correctly, it
> was a decent idea which unfortunately went nowhere.

I never used IBM's version but Quarterdeck Software's DESQview was
similar. It wasn't a GUI but allowed you to run programs in multiple
terminal windows. Running more than one program at a time? Whodda thunk
it! They also had the QRAM and QEMM-386 memory managers.

The 386 and Windows 3 killed the product.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Its development began after the Microsoft co-founder and spearhead of
> Windows 1.0, Bill Gates, saw a demonstration of a similar software suite,
> Visi On, at COMDEX in 1982. The operating environment was showcased to the
> public in November 1983, although it ended up being released two years
> later.
>
>:-D
>
>Microsoft probably had to incorporate some ideas from GEM. :-)

M$ was behind a slew of other companies.

--
"You call Snit a liar for making a claim nearly identical to your own
claim." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly

On 2024-06-25 15:11, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 06:37:38 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> Isn't DFS referring to IBM'S TopView there? If I recall correctly, it
>> was a decent idea which unfortunately went nowhere.
>
> I never used IBM's version but Quarterdeck Software's DESQview was
> similar. It wasn't a GUI but allowed you to run programs in multiple
> terminal windows. Running more than one program at a time? Whodda thunk
> it! They also had the QRAM and QEMM-386 memory managers.
>
> The 386 and Windows 3 killed the product.

I remember hearing about DESQview when I was talking to a BBS's SysOp
back in 1991 when I knew nothing about computers. I was curious as to
why they would sacrifice using their computer to make others happy. He
pointed out that he wasn't; he ran the BBS in one window and went on
with his day in another. At the time, the thought that someone could do
that seemed so futuristic to me.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:19:07 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> I remember hearing about DESQview when I was talking to a BBS's SysOp
> back in 1991 when I knew nothing about computers. I was curious as to
> why they would sacrifice using their computer to make others happy. He
> pointed out that he wasn't; he ran the BBS in one window and went on
> with his day in another. At the time, the thought that someone could do
> that seemed so futuristic to me.

There were TSRs like Borland Sidekick that were more popular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borland_Sidekick?amp=&amp=&amp=

You could do interesting things with DOS and there were some strange
things that came out of the design. They uses a 8253 programmable interval
timer for various things. Channel 0 was IRQ-0 and provided a 55 msec tick.
No great planning there. They needed a 3.579 MHz frequency for the NTSC
color burst so it would work with a TV, divided that by 3 and fed it to
the PIT. The larges number you could load into the hip was 0xFFFF and it
would generate the interrupt when it rolled over.

As an aside, a lot of things used 3.579 crystals since they were dirt
cheap. 55 msec is rather slow so you could load another value to get a 10
msec interrupt but then you had to do the math in the interrupt handler to
simulate the original 55 msec or things got wonky. If you were trying to
do something like a Morse code trainer it got interesting.

iirc channel 3 of the PIT was wired to the onboard speaker. That meant you
could screw around with than to get interesting sound effects like falling
bombs or machine guns.

Some BIOSs used this feature to play Beethoven's 'Für Elise' just before
the CPU melted down.

The 386 took a lot of fun out of life. It wasn't as easy to screw around
with the hardware. There is a parallel to cars. Other than CAIs and cat
backs which may of may not do anything messing with a modern car isn't
easy without screwing it up entirely.

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 12:17 this Tuesday (GMT):
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 23:23:23 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2024 8:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:31:56 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, the big advance in Windows 95 was in actually having a
>>>>>> “Start” menu for the first time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another feature for bereft-of-ideas GuhNoo/FOSS copycats to clone.
>>>>
>>>> *nix systems had application menus some years before that. Remember
>>>> they had GUIs before Microsoft Windows even existed.
>>>
>>> "Microsoft first demonstrated a window manager to the press in September
>>> 1983."
>>
>> Windows had no application menu until Windows 95.
>
> "In 1973, Xerox PARC developed the Alto personal computer. It had a bitmapped
> screen, and was the first computer to demonstrate the desktop metaphor and
> graphical user interface (GUI)."

Oh yeah, didn't they end up making no money off that?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:19:07 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

>
> back in 1991 when I knew nothing about computers.
>

23 fucking years later and you STILL know nothing about
computers.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Truth is funny!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 06:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Oh yeah, didn't they end up making no money off that?

Xerox as a company made enough money they could afford to have a hobby.

Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:19:07 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> back in 1991 when I knew nothing about computers.
>
>23 fucking years later and you STILL know nothing about
>computers.
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Truth is funny!
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

You are such a jackass.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 26 Jun 2024 16:49:22 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 06:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> "In 1973, Xerox PARC developed the Alto personal computer. It had a
>>> bitmapped screen, and was the first computer to demonstrate the
>>> desktop metaphor and graphical user interface (GUI)."
>>>
>> Oh yeah, didn't they end up making no money off that?
>
> Xerox as a company made enough money they could afford to have a hobby.

PARC prospered for as long as parent company Xerox grew fat off the
profits from those photocopier patents. After they expired, not so much.

Compare Bell Labs, which similarly had its heyday back when parent company
AT&T controlled essentially the entire US phone network.

So in both cases, a Government-granted monopoly created the environment
for a groundbreaking research organization to flourish. A lesson in there
somewhere?