Well, no. They started again...with a new architect.
No, they never trioed to rewrite it. They added their own user interface (which was good) and they tuned it to run on cheaper hardware. But there was never a rewrite. Most of the code was the same model until the end.
There were equal number of fixpacks for version 1.
Complete fabrication.
v3 always worked smoothly for me, on varied hardware. v2 was iffy until they got the Microsoft bugs out.
There was no version 5. It stopped at 4.5.
Nothing at all to do with the fact that Microsoft told every hardware manufacturer that, if they bundled OS/2 with just one machine, they'd have to pay much more for Windows?
I don't have problem with Windows updates. They just work. When I have to use Windows, which I admit isn't a lot.
It doesn't really matter much either, the fancy interface is a bit heavy on graphic memory but not the system RAM. Also I expect most users spend their time running full screen applications so the desktop doesn't really matter.
That is true, if battstat was well written it wouldn't need to. A lot of badly written apps fall foul of UAC but not the ones that followed the guidelines. I blame the programmers not M$ for tightening up the security.
That isn't what I heard. As Microsoft wanted OS/2 v3 to be Windows compatable and IBM was totally against that idea. Microsoft's OS/2 v3 wasn't finished or anything. And it became clear to Microsoft that IBM wanted to own everything. As IBM didn't want to make the same mistake with PC-DOS vs. MS-DOS ever again.
So Bill Gates knew if Microsoft was to survive, that IBM and Microsoft had to part company. And I am sure Microsoft made a lot of changes to NT (aka OS/2 v3) that they wouldn't have otherwise. But deep down it was based on Microsoft's OS/2 v3 code I was told even by IBM insiders. Who by the way saw some of the source code.
What new interface? I used the last version of OS/2 v2 a lot (I dunno, was it OS/2 v2.11?). And yes OS/2 v3 (aka Warp) the interface changed. I don't know if I would call it good or not. But it wasn't a big change per se. Sort of like between Windows 2000 and XP are different I would say. And like the difference between Windows 2000 and XP, OS/2 v2 and v3, the core was mostly the same.
Whoa! I didn't see this at all. As OS/2 v2 would run on almost anything. Well a 386 or better I think. And OS/2 v3 (aka Warp) required something like a Pentium (aka 586).
I was a beta tester for OS/2 v3 for one. And second of all I had lots of insider talks with IBM programmers. And they wanted for some reason (I think because they had to pay Microsoft a fee for every copy of OS/2 with Microsoft code in it) and to get rid of all Microsoft code. This was a big priority for them. And it was easy with a simple text editor to read any file to find Microsoft copywrites in plain ASCII in many OS/2 v3 files.
I am clueless about running OS/2 v1, so you got me there. OS/2 v2 didn't go too high from what I remember. But OS/2 v3 was over 35 plus fixpacs and I lost count after that. And IBM spelled it Fixpac and not Fixpacks, btw. Oops! Even I got it wrong. It was spelled Fixpak now that I think about it.
Really? I was in direct contact with IBM programmers and giving them a hard time about all of this. It is funny before OS/2 Warp (aka OS/2 v3) release. We beta testers had two versions to test and it was going perfectly. It was really solid and I liked it a lot. Then unknown to many of us beta testers, a tiny group of others got a third version. I don't know who these people were, but IBM got a green light from them and they released OS/2 Warp (aka v3). What a disaster! The biggest difference between the second and third beta copies were IBM rewrote many of the drivers. And this was the released version which many of us beta testers couldn't ever get the dang thing to install. What was IBM thinking?
I dunno somewhere around fixpak 40 something, OS/2 v3 did start to come around. And OS/2 v3 the last version wasn't too bad from what I recall. Far better then the early OS/2 v3 versions anyway.
Are you sure? As I heard it stopped at v4 for consumers, but for some commercial customers actually got v5. Of course we OS/2 users were promised that IBM would never abandon OS/2 users and keep supporting it forever. Well that all changed when they were losing money from OS/2 (I not not sure if they ever made any money from OS/2 to be honest) and we see how well IBM promises are.
And nothing to do with the fact that IBM said internally that IBM will never sell any IBM machine with Windows anymore (this has been verified) eh? You don't understand, this means IBM declared war with Microsoft. And in war, all is fair. And Microsoft easily won once IBM customers started to drop off in droves because IBM machines didn't offer Windows and they didn't want that OS/2 crap. At the time IMHO, OS/2 didn't hit crap status yet, but the majority of the people had voted with their pocketbooks nevertheless.
It depends on many factors. Odd third party drivers for one plays a big part. Cheap inexpensive computer manufactures taking shortcuts are another. I too on some computers things went very smoothly. But for some others, not so well.
The jump to Windows XP SP2 upgrade was the worst for me. I updated 4 or
5 computers and yes they worked per se. But the performance went down the tubes. I was a big believer that SP2 was just trash until I learned that if you grabbed a Windows XP SP2 install disc, everything works just fine. So a clean install of XP SP2 works really nicely. Some people swear that they had no problems with upgrading to SP2. And I don't doubt them at all. But some of us really did have tons of problems with the upgrade too.
I really believe that Microsoft does learn from mistakes they made from the past. At least the ones that really mattered. And that was the last time I had seen Microsoft make a really bad mistake (although Vista some feels was another one, but I don't think it was that bad as what I mentioned). The two ones before that was Microsoft Bob and Windows ME. Otherwise they seem to know how far they can push it without losing too many customers.
Btw, Windows ME from all I have heard... half loved it and half hated it. And I don't doubt for a second that it worked well for half of the users (I almost got Windows ME working pretty well myself - although that means if you got it working well, don't mess with it!). Although working well for 50% IMHO is still a pretty sad number. So I have no problems as rating it one of the worst that Microsoft OS had ever produced. And as for MS Bob... did anybody like that one? Personally I have never heard from one single individual that did. But I am sure there must be one out there that did. Pretty sad, eh? Version 1 of MS Bob and that was the end of the line.
They employed Dave Cutler, from DEC. NT was really 'son of VMS'. And that's obvious if you look at the internals. And I have seen the source code. There is nothing much in common with OS/2 v2.
In OS/2 v2. The Workplace Shell was *entirely* IBM's, and the reason OS/2 v2 from IBM was delayed about a year.
I don't know what you were trying to do. But OS/2 v3 was a LOT leaner than v2. In the same way that 1.3 (IBM only) was an improvement on v2.
Of course. And they *never* got rid of the MS code, right to the end.
It changed over time...Fixpack and Fixpak. But never Fixpac!
I sdon't know why you seem to have had so much trouble, I really don't. It just ran for me, no problem.
I had a commecrcial maintenance contract, and was also in contact with many users. 4.5 (well, the 4.52 update) was the last release. Yes, big boys could continue maintenance for a very high price.
Well, I don't use cheap hardware, never have. My machines run until they get too old to run the code.
I principally use BSD now, and that's good because I've used it for 33 years now!
Wow really? Why is the folder called Data if you are not supposed to store data in them? Is this the same folder as Application Data found in Windows XP? If so, I have lots of applications that stores stuff in these folders which are highly respectable programs. Heck I see Microsoft using the Application Data folder too. That is where the address book is stored for one.
Really? If it wasn't for BattStat, I wouldn't know the wear percentage of my batteries, my CPU and HD temps, the amount of watts going in or out of the battery, etc. Why in the world would I want to stop using this program for? There is nothing else out there to replace it. That is like asking somebody to pull out their dash gauges out of their automobile.
I believe another one that triggers it is my Palm software from '99. Here is another one that there isn't a replacement for and it works just fine as is. Why should I stop using it?
And did you know that UAC protection is worthless anyway? All it does is give somebody a false sense of security anyway. As malware can bypass it anyway by design.
formatting link
> AFAIK, UAC can be either on or off. There are no other options. It
You forget, some of us don't run compromised systems. And we don't need or want crappy protection that clueless people think they need. As malware can bypass it anyway. So what is the point?
Why would anybody want that? What's next? Outlaw any computer older than two years old? I am sure Microsoft would love that one.
That is the claim, but I find old viruses die off very quickly in the wild. Even those who don't update their anti-virus stops those.
Look, your anti-virus application monitors every thing that is opened, coming in from the Internet, etc. So your computer doesn't have all of the holes plugged, thus who cares? You never have all of the security holes plugged even if you install every single security update anyway. As there are always going to be new holes found all of the time. Now and in the future.
Thus if you have one hole or zillions, your anti-virus will see it before it gets a chance to install itself and it will stop it right there. This is what anti-virus real-time scanning programs do. And this is what these people get paid for. To stop any malware from entering your system. Just keep it up-to-date and all you have to worry about is
0 day malware. And security patches wouldn't help you there anyway. So why bother?
I know and that is scary. And who knows what else they have already installed without our knowledge. I wouldn't doubt for a second that under the umbrella of national security they already have government approval to have plenty of backdoors in the OS already.
There is a way around this. Just don't accept updates. As you don't need them anyway.
Oh I am sure they have used it. I remember when Microsoft first opened their knowledgebase back in the 90's. You had to register back then to get in there. And they asked for my name and address. When I submitted my information I was shocked at the next screen.
It said are you so and so who works at such and such place. And is your bosses name so and so and is this your bosses phone number?
Hell what kind of database does Microsoft have there? What else do they know about me that they didn't tell me? The make and model of my vehicle and plate number? How much I earn a year? When I leave for work and come home? Where I shop at? What time I go to bed?
I never ever gave Microsoft any of this information except my name and address. Why on Earth does Microsoft need to know all of this information for anyway? And if Microsoft knows it, who else knows all of this?
In the most common cases, the problem is caused by using software for older hardware. Two examples, both happen to be scannes, an HP 5490C's HP Precision Scan Pro, and a Nikon LS-2000's Nikon Scan. There is nothing wrong with the programs, they were written at a time when the way that they were written was perfectly fine.
But the only alternative is to replace the HARDWARE.
And that is not feasible.
Nikon has stopped making film scanners, no one else ever made comparable
35mm film scanners, and even the later Nikon scanners that they did make don't scan 35mm NEGATIVES as well as the LS-2000.
As for the HP scanner (this is a conventional flatbed document scanner with ADF), I have never found a scanner/software combination as good as the HP 5470/5490 series and HP Precision Scan Pro [the SOFTWARE base that HP began using after HP Precision Scan Pro is what I call "toy scanning software" and is junk].
If you update all the time, a few updates will bite you.
If you don't use automatic update, you will miss an update whose absence will bite you.
The system is rigged; we [users] lose. Either way.
But, overall, for most people, doing all "CRITICAL" updates (e.g. auto update on ... which ONLY installs CRITICAL updates automatically) is the better course.
[In large part because for most real-world people, anything other than "auto updates" becomes, in reality, almost no updates at all, almost never.]
Heck lots of applications write in the Program Folder. Off of the top of my head, instant messengers (which stores the chat logs there), anti-virus software (which updates the virus database there), Microsoft Office (which stores saved templates there), Faststone Capture (stores saved screen shots there), etc.
Oh okay that is good to know. How close was DEC RT-11 compared to VMS?
Oh okay.
Oh okay. I remember it just the opposite. Btw, my OS/2 Warp won't install on anything with a drive larger than 512MB I think it was. As it reports the drive is too small. Great IBM quality, eh?
Oh okay. No wonder they killed it. Sounds like they where just paying Microsoft for every copy they sold anyway. I remember Microsoft taking IBM to court. Because IBM told MS that they only sold some low amount of OS/2 copies. But bragging elsewhere they sold a much larger amount. And I guess the real truth never came out in court. But IBM ended paying the difference to MS anyway.
Well I remember just FixPak. Could have been since OS/2 Warp.
OS/2 had lots of driver issues. Some worked and some didn't. I had to use some of the drivers from the beta copies to get OS/2 up and running. I also remember OS/2 being really picky about the timing of the RAM. So some RAM would work and some wouldn't. The same RAM that wouldn't ran fine under Windows.
Lots of cheap hardware keeps on running 20+ years believe it or not. I still have lots of them from the 80's still running just fine. These cheap netbooks for example, costing about $200, I am expecting they will keep running for the next 20 years too.
enough to get me to buy one of Apple's overpriced laptops. Not that they care though. When I was recently by the local mall's Apple store (Phoenix area) it was jam packed...
Since I for the first time had to deal with Apple material I was again and again confronted with badly designed toy stuff. If there is something I will never buy, then it is from Apple.
In news:hqic3j$25a$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org, Barry Watzman typed on Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:49:02 -0400:
You say so, but facts are facts. I know a few people personally who doesn't grab security updates for their computers. No downside for them for many years now. Most stopped because they had been burned when a security update messing something up.
Why take the chance?
That is what most experts will claim. But facts are facts and many actually don't use security updates and things are fine. I have never heard anybody on the Internet complaining that they forgot to get a security update and now they are infected. At least those with updated anti-virus software anyway.
First of all. Here is what works for me for security.
1) One really needs a stealth firewall. That keeps hackers on the Internet from knowing that your computer is even connected. The Windows XP one is one of these.
2) Use a good anti-virus program. Having a good one will block anything trying to make its way through any port, security hole in the OS, or from any other source your computer is connected too.
Since you have the firewall and anti-virus watching your back, your OS could be littered with security holes and what would it matter? As they still can't get through to infect your system anyway.
Plugging security holes is only important if you want to use your computer without any firewall and anti-virus checker. Now and only now it matters a lot. But that wouldn't be such a hot idea anyway now would it?
I actually tried this once as a test. Installed the original Windows
2000 release, no firewall, no anti-virus, nor any updates back in 2002. Although I had it networked to another computer and that one was setup to scan the unprotected one. And that was very interesting. Two servers slipped two viruses on the computer within 90 seconds and I didn't even access any of those servers. Those bots finds unprotected computers really fast. Pretty clever! But not clever enough to fool me. lol
Just think, there are tons of people running older unsupported Windows OS that hasn't seen a security update in many years. Yet these people are not getting infected with viruses now are they? There is a good reason why not.
And I have been using this one as a test bench and I quit all updates since last May. Works just like it always have and I haven't had one single problem. And I quit updates on my other computers for a couple of months now and they too are fine.
Remember too, there are always security holes in virtually any OS. And they seem to be never ending and you will never plug them all anyway. So you should never trust plugging any of them will really help anything. Because security updates only help on computers without real-time scanning anti-virus software. And even then viruses can still get through anyway. So what's the point?
In news: snipped-for-privacy@bancom.co.uk, tony sayer typed on Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:52:42 +0100:
Hi Tony! It was connected up by dial-up. If it had a router connected, that never would have happened (well a correctly setup router anyway). And the viruses were inert until the user rebooted the computer. Then the viruses would install themselves and infect the system.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.