Oh, the XP factor. I can understand that.
River: 1001. 1002. Simon: River... River: Shh. I'm counting between the lightning and the thunder to see if the storm is coming or going. .1005
'The Message'
Buffistechnology 3: "Press Some Buttons, See What Happens."
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
Gudanov - Jan 30, 2007 12:16:15 pm PST #476 of 25496
Coding and Sleeping
esse - Jan 30, 2007 12:24:40 pm PST #477 of 25496
S to the A -- using they/them pronouns!
HP Notebook
HP is not worth it. They're bricks--heavy and unwieldy and too much weight for what it is.
Toshiba would be more of a workhorse.
Kathy A - Jan 30, 2007 1:04:24 pm PST #478 of 25496
We're very stretchy. - Connie Neil
I think I'll try and get that Toshiba through Amazon as soon as my tax refund gets deposited (supposedly on February 9th, if the schedule on the IRS's website is correct). I'll just keep my fingers crossed that the company stays solvent for a while after I get it!
tommyrot - Jan 30, 2007 2:43:10 pm PST #479 of 25496
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
A History of Microsoft Windows (eta: with pretty screenshots!)
I did not know this (about the lack of overlapping windows):
Bill Gates announced the Windows project in 1983, but Microsoft's first graphical user interface -- Windows 1.0 -- wasn't released until November 1985, nearly two years after Apple introduced the Mac. Due to legal issues with Apple, Gates couldn't include key features like overlapping windows and a trash can. Looking at it now, it's not surprising it was a flop. Windows 1.0 was more an extension of MS-DOS than its own operating system, but it did allow limited multitasking and mouse support.
Also, I remember the lawsuit, but did not know about the licensing for 2.0:
Gates soon signed a licensing agreement with Apple to use some of the Macintosh GUI elements in Windows. It was a huge coup for Gates, especially when Apple later took him to court for 170 counts of copyright infringement after Windows 2.0 was released. Windows 2.0 had fully realized icons and overlapping windows, but all the alleged infringements were eventually dismissed.
In addition to the face lift, version 2.0 also enjoyed some key program support. Early versions of Word and Excel used Windows for their interfaces, even though Windows closed when the programs were exited. Aldus PageMaker, a popular desktop-publishing program that had previously run only on the Mac, also debuted for Windows 2.0. This was a pivotal moment for Windows, as it greatly expanded the operating system's usefulness and its market.
Anyone ever use a version of Windows prior to 3.0? I used Windows 2.0, but it was a runtime version that came with Pagemaker. So I only ran it when I ran Pagemaker and didn't use it for anything else. So in my mind, anyway, Win 3.0 is the first "real" version of Windows.
Also, the article is incorrect about Win 3.11 - the first comment below gets it right.
§ ita § - Jan 30, 2007 3:01:26 pm PST #480 of 25496
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I used 2.0, for Excel only, I think.
I still miss Windows 2000. I wish I'd hung onto disks.
I really don't miss WfW. Or upgrading to it...handling networking so separately...
DXMachina - Jan 30, 2007 3:26:02 pm PST #481 of 25496
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
We had the full version of 2.0 on a computer attached to one of our instruments, and kept using it until only a few years ago, because that's the only OS the software ran on. (Hewlett Packard (now Agilient) has terrific GCs, but they're terrible about software upgrade paths. We still have an instrument connected to a Windows 3.11 machine, and I still have to occasionally back up files from it to something that has more capacity over the network, which is always a wobbly trip down memory lane.)
2.0 sucked badly. It was slow and awkward, although part of my perception is no doubt colored by the fact that we already had several 3.0 machines in the lab (not to mention the Mac SE30 I was using for desktop publishing at the time) when HP foisted 2.0 upon us.
tommyrot - Jan 30, 2007 3:30:39 pm PST #482 of 25496
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Heh. I would have guessed that DX would be the most likely to have used a full version of 2.0.
I want to install a 3.1 or 3.11 virtual machine on my MacBook. Actually, I have a 3.0 installation (with Word 2.0) on a HD from a dead XT clone. (Yes, I ran Windows 3.0 on an XT. Printing was slow as fuck, but Word did work more or less OK for my resumes and cover letters....)
Eddie - Jan 30, 2007 3:57:26 pm PST #483 of 25496
Your tag here.
You can pretend you have 3.xx in current versions of Windows by Start > Run > progman
DCJensen - Jan 30, 2007 4:11:19 pm PST #484 of 25496
All is well that ends in pizza.
I have tried that on several PCs running Windows XP, and it won't even load.
Maybe SP2 or some other update killed it off.
Cass - Jan 31, 2007 5:45:24 am PST #485 of 25496
Bob's learned to live with tragedy, but he knows that this tragedy is one that won't ever leave him or get better.
Why the fuck did Google Images fancy up its results display? Now I have to hover to see image sizes and the web site it's from. Not entirely sure who that's better for. Worse for me, for sure.Did they always have the option to then search for more results just from one site in particular - like so: [link] ? Because I just saw that option and it is kinda nifty. Not sure if it is enough to get over my annoyance at the change but it's something...