89C51ED2
in [Design]
|
From: donald on 13 Sep 2008 08:27 Eeyore wrote: > Reminds me. What was IBM's GUI ? Many say it was vastly superior to Windows. I've seen it > once or twice. Wasn't it 32 bit from the off ? They fell out over it didn't they ? > > Graham > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
From: krw on 13 Sep 2008 09:32 In article <0KydnS5Nxc63jFbVnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, donald(a)notinmyinbox.com says... > krw wrote: > > In article <_sOdnQIvUtt3SlfVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > donald(a)notinmyinbox.com says... > >> Rich Grise wrote: > >>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:34:28 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > >>>> krw wrote: > >>>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >>>>>> Ir runs under DOS. > >>>>> ...assuming DOS still runs. You do like to take risks! > >>>> What a silly comment. DOS is the only stable product ever to come from Microsoft. > >>> Actually, it didn't come from Microsoft. It came from Digital Reasearch; M$ > >>> just brokered the usurious deal with IBM that gave us the 8088 PC and all > >>> the rest. > >>> > >>> Cheers! > >>> Rich > >>> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos > >> > >> Check the dates of MS/PC-DOS and DR-DOS. > > > > PC-DOS was from IBM. MS-DOS from M$. > > > > > From link above: > > "History > > The original 1981 arrangement between IBM and Microsoft was that > _Microsoft_would_provide_ the base product and that both firms would > work on developing different parts of it into a more powerful and robust > system, and then share the resultant code. MS-DOS and PC-DOS were to be > marketed separately: IBM selling to itself for the IBM PC, and Microsoft > selling to the open market. However, at no time did IBM acquire the > ownership of the source code of the operating system for its own PCs." That is wrong, at least the way its written (and you understand it). IBM wrote its own PC DOS 3x and beyond. There were elements that were M$ property, just like there were elements of OS/2 that were M $ property, but the source code was IBMs and very different from what M$' delivered with similar version numbers. -- Keith
From: nospam on 13 Sep 2008 09:47 donald <donald(a)notinmyinbox.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: >> Reminds me. What was IBM's GUI ? Many say it was vastly superior to Windows. I've seen it >> once or twice. Wasn't it 32 bit from the off ? They fell out over it didn't they ? >> >> Graham >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 OS/2 wasn't 32 bit from the off, rather the opposite. IBM insisted that OS/2 ran on brain dead 80286's in many soon to be obsolete PS/2 boxes owned by their hardware customers. That crippled its ability to run DOS applications. At the same time Microsoft embraced the 80386 and its virtualisation capabilities with Windows/386 and later Windows 3.0 which allowed you to run and multitask many DOS application alongside native Windows applications. IMO IBM's decision to provide backwards hardware compatibility for boxes that would be obsolete within months at the expensive of backwards software compatibility for applications which would remain useful for many years was one of the most profound in the history of personal computing. It effectively killed the only competition Windows had allowing it to establish an insurmountable user and application base which remains today. --
From: krw on 13 Sep 2008 10:17 In article <48CB9DCE.C4EE4183(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > donald wrote: > > > krw wrote: > > > donald(a)notinmyinbox.com says... > > >> Rich Grise wrote: > > >>> Eeyore wrote: > > >>>> krw wrote: > > >>>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > >>>>>> Ir runs under DOS. > > >>>>> ...assuming DOS still runs. You do like to take risks! > > >>>> What a silly comment. DOS is the only stable product ever to come from Microsoft. > > >>> Actually, it didn't come from Microsoft. It came from Digital Reasearch; M$ > > >>> just brokered the usurious deal with IBM that gave us the 8088 PC and all > > >>> the rest. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers! > > >>> Rich > > >>> > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos > > >> > > >> Check the dates of MS/PC-DOS and DR-DOS. > > > > > > PC-DOS was from IBM. MS-DOS from M$. > > > > > From link above: > > > > "History > > > > The original 1981 arrangement between IBM and Microsoft was that > > _Microsoft_would_provide_ the base product and that both firms would > > work on developing different parts of it into a more powerful and robust > > system, and then share the resultant code. MS-DOS and PC-DOS were to be > > marketed separately: IBM selling to itself for the IBM PC, and Microsoft > > selling to the open market. However, at no time did IBM acquire the > > ownership of the source code of the operating system for its own PCs." > > Reminds me. What was IBM's GUI ? Many say it was vastly superior to Windows. I've seen it > once or twice. Wasn't it 32 bit from the off ? They fell out over it didn't they ? The GUI was the WorkPlace Shell, part of OS/2. It was vastly superior to anything today including Linux, but that's another argument. ;-) The original (1.x) was 16bit, because the '286 was still the target processor. While OS/2 was a good multi-tasker out of the gate, it wasn't until 3.0 that it blew the doors off DOS/Win. IBM and M$ fell out over NT. M$ was contracted to do OS/2 V3 but reneged and did NT3 instead. -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 13 Sep 2008 15:01
nospam wrote: > donald <donald(a)notinmyinbox.com> wrote: > >Eeyore wrote: > >> Reminds me. What was IBM's GUI ? Many say it was vastly superior to Windows. I've >> seen > it once or twice. Wasn't it 32 bit from the off ? They fell out over it didn't they ? > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2 > > OS/2 wasn't 32 bit from the off, rather the opposite. > > IBM insisted that OS/2 ran on brain dead 80286's in many soon to be > obsolete PS/2 boxes owned by their hardware customers. That crippled its > ability to run DOS applications. > > At the same time Microsoft embraced the 80386 and its virtualisation > capabilities with Windows/386 and later Windows 3.0 which allowed you to > run and multitask many DOS application alongside native Windows > applications. > > IMO IBM's decision to provide backwards hardware compatibility for boxes > that would be obsolete within months at the expensive of backwards software > compatibility for applications which would remain useful for many years was > one of the most profound in the history of personal computing. It > effectively killed the only competition Windows had allowing it to > establish an insurmountable user and application base which remains today. Fascinating what you discover when these threads ramble on ! Graham |