Subj : Re: Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive" To : All From : not.my.real@email.address Date : Thu Jan 31 2019 07:14 pm Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.PO STED!not-for-mail From: "Auric__" Newsgroups: alt.windows-xp,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,mi crosoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general Subject: Re: Proposal to Keep WinXP Support "Alive" Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:54:14 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <669769ce-c1a1-4f17-90f0-68768fc8dab6@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:54:14 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="07f673def80e8b10909ee3d1b6b2fd16"; logging-data="8078"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Vw4ZaoHYXRowD0/sFAQ8P" User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01 X-Face: +,&^!i3LPqz7/qfxgF[JJqAP^>bTVLZ-zj})PmI{auZ']fwMM4mh`$]b0sacD4p@R[yU'Mf=.T}|aW6 ^#_lm6U|e|/#d:nfRn29,GBLvX=ygRH(?h.=KFfJ\INamt#H|)k@,x[ko$(d~iAo'<1XzB@%]; Cancel-Lock: sha1:zmhGKT31Mix4iT50xHYuFH+5QUc= Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org alt.windows-xp:4007 alt.os.windows-xp:5413 microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment:2463 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:30881 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:106106 knuttle wrote: > On 12/23/2012 7:10 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message , knuttle > >>>> wrote: >>> >>> I am not against new things in the operating system. In fact I was >>> using >>> OS/2 when most people were extolling the virtue of the first version of >>> Windows. Why because it was far superior to Windows. >> >> In your opinion. (Which Windows are you talking about - 3.1 [or even >> earlier], or the '9x series [95/98/Me]?) "First version" isn't something I'd normally consider up for debate... but then, "the first version of Windows" (i.e. Windows 1.0) predates OS/2 by a couple of years. (If you were truly using OS/2 when Windows 1.0 came out, I'd like to borrow your time machine.) As for "extolling the virtue" of Win1, let me qoute Wikipedia (The Web's Largest Source of Disinformation[tm]): "[...] when finally released, Windows 1.0 aroused little interest." (*I* didn't even hear of Windows until around 1989-ish.) Also, the first version of OS/2 was essentially "DOS plus"; no GUI provided until OS/2 1.1, a year and a half after OS/2 1.0, and nearly half a year after the release of Windows 2.1. Until then, any comparison between OS/2 & Windows would've been apples and oranges. >>> I gladly upgraded to XP as it was based on part of the code that made >>> OS/2 far superior and stable. I'm a bit curious about this. If you upgraded to XP (from what, may I ask?) for that reason, did you switch to NT3.1 when it first came out? It was the first Windows system based on the OS/2 codebase. >> So you accepted the new when it meant it wasn't new to you (-:. > > I have worked with FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, DOS, WINDOWS and OS/2 Oh god. COBOL. I'm so sorry. > My first programmable device was a TI-59 calculator. My first computer > was a TI-99/4a, my next was an Apple II? (1983). The first PC operating > system I used was DOS. I then got the first Window OS when it replaced > DOS 6. After using it for a period I bought OS/2 and installed it. The first actual Windows OS was NT3. Win16 and the 9x line were just shells on top of DOS. Just sayin'. -- Excuse me while I change into something more formidable. --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1 * Origin: Prison Board BBS Mesquite Tx //telnet.RDFIG.NET www. (1:124/5013) .