Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #59695 > unrolled thread

Kids react to old computers

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 09:55 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-26 19:25 +0200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2014-05-26 19:02 +0100
      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-27 08:53 +1200
        Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 13:59 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-27 01:18 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-05-28 13:53 +1200
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-28 08:30 +0200
            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 19:01 +1200
            Re: Kids react to old computers jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-05-28 19:34 +1200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-28 10:06 +0200
                Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-28 09:06 +0000
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-05-28 12:30 +0200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-29 08:58 +1200
                Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-03 16:59 +0200
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-04 09:24 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-04 08:50 +0200
                      Re: Kids react to old computers David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-06-04 08:11 +0100
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-04 19:19 +1200
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-04 14:39 +0200
                          Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-05 09:33 +1200
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2014-06-05 09:05 +0200
                Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 09:06 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-07 14:04 -0700
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-08 00:17 +0000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-08 14:36 -0600
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-09 01:12 +0000
                          Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-08 21:22 -0400
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-09 13:40 +1200
                              Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-09 15:13 -0600
                                Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-10 09:34 +1200
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-09 08:03 -0600
                              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-10 09:18 +1200
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-09 13:42 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:43 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-08 09:17 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:44 -0400
                      Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 13:59 +1000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-08 16:10 +1200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-26 19:05 +0100
      Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 13:53 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-26 17:23 -0400
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 18:09 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-27 01:19 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-26 22:23 +0100
          Re: Kids react to old computers bknight@conramp.net - 2014-05-26 16:48 -0500
            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 15:10 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-05-27 08:43 +1000
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 18:08 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-27 13:31 +0100
          Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-27 05:14 +0000
          Re: Kids react to old computers "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-05-27 17:04 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-27 15:38 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2014-05-27 23:58 +0100
    Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 12:14 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-26 13:49 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 14:12 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-26 17:57 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-26 18:07 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 18:39 -0700
              Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-26 20:20 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:23 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-07 20:13 -0700
              Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-07 20:31 -0700
                Re: Kids react to old computers "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-07-14 17:45 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-15 10:19 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-26 18:19 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 17:24 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-26 22:16 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-27 08:41 +0100
          Re: Kids react to old computers TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2014-05-26 21:48 -0500
        Re: Kids react to old computers mortman <mortn@comcast.net> - 2014-05-26 21:12 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Recliner <recliner2-news@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-26 21:00 -0500
          Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 19:35 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-27 16:08 +1200
            Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-26 22:00 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-27 18:06 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 18:16 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-05-27 10:22 -0500
            Re: Kids react to old computers Harry Mudd <Agent001@Section-31.org> - 2014-06-04 22:48 -0400
          Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-27 12:39 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-05-27 16:13 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 09:02 +1200
                Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-27 18:15 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 17:10 +1200
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-05-28 15:44 +0000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-31 07:47 -0700
                Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-05-28 00:41 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 21:50 -0700
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-28 18:11 +1200
      Re: Kids react to old computers erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-05-27 10:20 -0500
    Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-27 01:17 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-05-27 10:18 -0500
      Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 09:17 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-27 09:36 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-05-27 09:47 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-05-27 12:27 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-27 16:40 -0400
      Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-05-28 00:25 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-31 11:12 -0400
          Re: Kids react to old computers Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-06-01 14:45 +0000
            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-02 09:24 +1200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-02 14:45 +1200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-01 19:42 +0200
      Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-01 14:01 -0400
        Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-02 09:01 +0200
          Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-02 11:29 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 06:14 +0200
              Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-06 01:33 -0400
                Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-05 23:22 -0700
                  Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-06 02:36 -0400
                    Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-06 02:41 -0400
                      Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:21 +0200
                        Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-07 10:13 -0400
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-06 00:00 -0700
                    Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:20 +0200
                      Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 11:52 +1000
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-08 04:08 +0000
                          Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:48 +1000
                        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-07 23:43 -0700
                          Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 19:36 +1000
                            Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-08 03:09 -0700
                              Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:15 +1000
                      Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-07 10:13 -0400
                Re: Kids react to old computers Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:18 +0200
                  Re: Kids react to old computers Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-07 18:03 +0100
                    Re: Kids react to old computers News <News@Group.Post> - 2014-06-07 14:08 -0400
                  Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 11:51 +1000
                  Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-07 13:46 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-06 18:36 +1200
        Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:51 +1000
      Re: Kids react to old computers Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-01 21:54 -0400
    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 09:05 -0400
      Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-09 06:58 -0700
        Re: Kids react to old computers Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-09 07:01 -0700
          Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-09 07:02 -0700
            Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-09 12:24 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-09 18:00 +0000
            Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-09 16:01 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-09 16:21 -0400
              Re: Kids react to old computers Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-09 13:40 -0700
      Re: Kids react to old computers Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-09 07:04 -0700

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#59695 — Kids react to old computers

They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.

-- Michelle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7EpEnglgk

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#59696

Am 26.05.2014 18:55, schrieb Michelle Steiner:
> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
>
> -- Michelle
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7EpEnglgk

Great! And the video brought back tons of memories of my first steps in 
IT, on an Apple //e... :-)

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59697

On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.

Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did 
also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked 
a lot more familiar to those kids.

-- 
Xbox: GallusNumpty  Steam: scottishwildcat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59702

In article <llvvim$aqs$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum
<com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> > reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
> 
> Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did 
> also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked 
> a lot more familiar to those kids.

You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59703

In article <270520140853439814%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.

And even with the Apple //e, runing in HIRES mode.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59742

On 5/26/2014 1:59 PM PT, Michelle Steiner typed:

> In article <270520140853439814%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.
>
> And even with the Apple //e, runing in HIRES mode.

They had a GUI word processor too instead of plain text ones like in 
AppleWorks. I forgot its name though.
-- 
"What is it all but a trouble of ants... In the gleam of a million... 
million of suns? --Alfred Lord Tennyson
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59774

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <llvvim$aqs$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum
> <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> > On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > > They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> > > reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
> > 
> > Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did
> > also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked
> > a lot more familiar to those kids.
> 
> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.

Don't forget GEM OS on the Atari.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59792

Am 28.05.2014 03:53, schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <llvvim$aqs$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum
>> <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
>>> On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
>>>> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
>>>
>>> Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did
>>> also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked
>>> a lot more familiar to those kids.
>>
>> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.
>
> Don't forget GEM OS on the Atari.

Why not bring up AmigaOS on the Amiga? Or the first MacIntosh? Or the 
Lisa? Or the first Windows version? Perhaps because they don't quite 
match as the hardware they were running on was much, much more powerful 
than the hardware of (any) Apple 2 or and C-64? ;-)

And AFAIR there never was GEM for the Atari 400 or the Atari 800 (which 
were the matching computers for an Apple 2 or a C-64)... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59793

In article <lm3vqp$l2f$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
wrote:> Am 28.05.2014 03:53, schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> In article <llvvim$aqs$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum
> >> <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> >>> On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> >>>> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
> >>>
> >>> Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did
> >>> also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked
> >>> a lot more familiar to those kids.
> >>
> >> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.
> >
> > Don't forget GEM OS on the Atari.
> 
> Why not bring up AmigaOS on the Amiga? Or the first MacIntosh? Or the 
> Lisa? Or the first Windows version? Perhaps because they don't quite 
> match as the hardware they were running on was much, much more powerful 
> than the hardware of (any) Apple 2 or and C-64? ;-)
> 
> And AFAIR there never was GEM for the Atari 400 or the Atari 800 (which 
> were the matching computers for an Apple 2 or a C-64)... ;-)

I was about to say the same thing ... although, I'm not certain (and
don't have the time nor inclination to check) the release dates of C64
GUI / Apple II GS compared to the Atari ST / Amiga / Mac / Windoze. 
:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59794

Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:

> Am 28.05.2014 03:53, schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
> > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <llvvim$aqs$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum
> >> <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> >>> On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>>> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
> >>>> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
> >>>
> >>> Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did
> >>> also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked
> >>> a lot more familiar to those kids.
> >>
> >> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.
> >
> > Don't forget GEM OS on the Atari.
> 
> Why not bring up AmigaOS on the Amiga? Or the first MacIntosh? Or the
> Lisa? Or the first Windows version? Perhaps because they don't quite 
> match as the hardware they were running on was much, much more powerful
> than the hardware of (any) Apple 2 or and C-64? ;-)
> 
> And AFAIR there never was GEM for the Atari 400 or the Atari 800 (which
> were the matching computers for an Apple 2 or a C-64)... ;-)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael

True that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TOS never ran on equivalent
generation computers, my bad :-) Though it evolved from versions of GEM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager that ran on
the CPC Amstrad (amongst others), which I'd call roughly the same
generation.

Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools had, and
then Macs), so most of my experience with other old platforms is later
on running them in emulation on Macs and WinPCs.

I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of early home
computing history *wistful sigh* :-)

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59795

Am 28.05.2014 09:34, schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
> Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 28.05.2014 03:53, schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <llvvim$aqs$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Calum
>>>> <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
>>>>> On 26/05/2014 17:55, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>>>>> They're using an Apple ][, but would have had essentially the same
>>>>>> reaction if it had been a Commodore PET or TRS-80.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fun and depressing as always... though of course, the Apple II GS did
>>>>> also come with a mouse and a desktop GUI that would probably have looked
>>>>> a lot more familiar to those kids.
>>>>
>>>> You could also get a GUI for the older Commodore 64.
>>>
>>> Don't forget GEM OS on the Atari.
>>
>> Why not bring up AmigaOS on the Amiga? Or the first MacIntosh? Or the
>> Lisa? Or the first Windows version? Perhaps because they don't quite
>> match as the hardware they were running on was much, much more powerful
>> than the hardware of (any) Apple 2 or and C-64? ;-)
>>
>> And AFAIR there never was GEM for the Atari 400 or the Atari 800 (which
>> were the matching computers for an Apple 2 or a C-64)... ;-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Michael
>
> True that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TOS never ran on equivalent
> generation computers, my bad :-) Though it evolved from versions of GEM
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager that ran on
> the CPC Amstrad (amongst others), which I'd call roughly the same
> generation.

The CPC certainly falls into the same class of computers as the Apple 
2/C64, judged by its computing power/CPU type.

> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools had, and
> then Macs), so most of my experience with other old platforms is later
> on running them in emulation on Macs and WinPCs.

I remember a nice idea some colleagues and I had at University: Run a 
MacIntosh emulator on our Atari STs (same Motorola 68000 CPU back then), 
on that emulator run an Apple 2 simulator (we had that at the 
University), and on that run the UCSD system (UCSD Pascal). Technically 
speaking: Run an OS emulation on a 16bit machine, on the emulation run 
the simulation of an 8bit computer, and on that run a virtual 16bit 
machine. We were expecting to see the bits being changed with a visible 
takt... ;-)

Good old times! :-)

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59796

In message <lm45e8$rcu$1@news.sap-ag.de> 
  Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
> MacIntosh

Why do you keep doing that? That is not the correct spelling and has
never been the correct spelling.

-- 
'In the Fyres of Struggle let us bake New Men, who Will Notte heed the
old Lies.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59797

Am 28.05.2014 11:06, schrieb Lewis:
> In message <lm45e8$rcu$1@news.sap-ag.de>
>    Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>> MacIntosh
>
> Why do you keep doing that? That is not the correct spelling and has
> never been the correct spelling.

Because I seem to remember that I read it that way back then... If I'm 
wrong on that - who cares? ;-) I think everybody around here knows what 
I'm talking about... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59811

In article <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
<snip>
> 
> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools had, and
> then Macs), so most of my experience with other old platforms is later
> on running them in emulation on Macs and WinPCs.
> 
> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of early home
> computing history *wistful sigh* :-)

Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore Vic20 /
C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.

I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early home
computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the BBC /
Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were simply rubbish. I
had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc. and they
were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
joystick, which was horrible enough.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60002

Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
> In article <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools had, and
>> then Macs), so most of my experience with other old platforms is later
>> on running them in emulation on Macs and WinPCs.
>>
>> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of early home
>> computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
>
> Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore Vic20 /
> C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
>
> I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early home
> computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the BBC /
> Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were simply rubbish.

I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the Commodore 64 (and 
even more so the VIC-20) was a video game console with a keyboard, but 
hardly a computer.

> I
> had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc. and they
> were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
> superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
> joystick, which was horrible enough.

You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)? That's like 
comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your information: TOS was 
the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and it was text/command-based. 
However, it was hardly ever used directly, instead all the (needed) 
functions were available via the graphical UI GEM (being developed by 
Digital Research). And GEM was actually a match for the Macintosh OS of 
that time (and definitively much better than any Windows version prior 
to Windows 3, some might even argue for everything before Win95), though 
certainly not as refined in some aspects. Comparing GEM (+TOS) on an 
Atari ST with the GUIs available for the C64 is like comparing a Porsche 
911 with a Volkswagen Beetle: Both will get you from A to B, but in a 
much different way... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60055

In article <lmknrq$ibn$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
wrote:
> Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
> > In article <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> > Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >>
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools had, and
> >> then Macs), so most of my experience with other old platforms is later
> >> on running them in emulation on Macs and WinPCs.
> >>
> >> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of early home
> >> computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
> >
> > Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore Vic20 /
> > C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
> >
> > I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early home
> > computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the BBC /
> > Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were simply rubbish.
> 
> I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the Commodore 64 (and 
> even more so the VIC-20) was a video game console with a keyboard, but 
> hardly a computer.

The C64 in particular was a real computer, but the hopeless management
at Commodore failed to market it properly, as they did even worse a few
years later with the Amiga and flushed themselves down the toilet.
There were many small businesses, farmers, etc. using C64 and even
VIC20 as a computer, but it's main popularity was as a home computer
thanks to the games.



> > I had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc. and they
> > were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful for a supposedly
> > superior machine, it was barely better than using the C64 GUI with a
> > joystick, which was horrible enough.
> 
> You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)? That's like 
> comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your information: TOS was 
> the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and it was text/command-based. 
> However, it was hardly ever used directly, instead all the (needed) 
> functions were available via the graphical UI GEM (being developed by 
> Digital Research). And GEM was actually a match for the Macintosh OS of 
> that time (and definitively much better than any Windows version prior 
> to Windows 3, some might even argue for everything before Win95), though 
> certainly not as refined in some aspects. Comparing GEM (+TOS) on an 
> Atari ST with the GUIs available for the C64 is like comparing a Porsche 
> 911 with a Volkswagen Beetle: Both will get you from A to B, but in a 
> much different way... ;-)

I did mean GEM on the Atari ST ... and yes it was slow, ugly, clunky,
unsuable crap, just like the C64 GUI (GEOS), and not even remotely
comparable to the Macintosh's OS (the Apple II GS on the other hand is
a bit of a different story). At least the C64's GEOS had an excuse
since it was controlled for most people using a joystick.

Windows 3 was just abysmal garbage as well, Windows 95 was the real
start of that OS and still way behind Apple in most ways ... at still
is with Windoze 8.

The Amiga OS was infintely better than the Atari's OS, but still
nowhere near Apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60114

Am 03.06.2014 23:24, schrieb Your Name:
> In article <lmknrq$ibn$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
> <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>> Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
>>> In article <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>>> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools
>>>> had, and then Macs), so most of my experience with other old
>>>> platforms is later on running them in emulation on Macs and
>>>> WinPCs.
>>>>
>>>> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of early
>>>> home computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
>>>
>>> Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore
>>> Vic20 / C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early home
>>> computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the BBC /
>>> Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were simply
>>> rubbish.
>>
>> I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the Commodore 64
>> (and even more so the VIC-20) was a video game console with a
>> keyboard, but hardly a computer.
>
> The C64 in particular was a real computer,

That's arguable, I for my part won't agree beyond a certain point.

> but the hopeless management at Commodore failed to market it
> properly, as they did even worse a few years later with the Amiga and
> flushed themselves down the toilet. There were many small businesses,
> farmers, etc. using C64 and even VIC20 as a computer, but it's main
> popularity was as a home computer thanks to the games.

There were business back then running their software on every available
computer - but in my eyes that won't make those machines 'business
computers'...

>>> I had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc. and
>>> they were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful for a
>>> supposedly superior machine, it was barely better than using the
>>> C64 GUI with a joystick, which was horrible enough.
>>
>> You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)? That's
>> like comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your
>> information: TOS was the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and it
>> was text/command-based. However, it was hardly ever used directly,
>> instead all the (needed) functions were available via the graphical
>> UI GEM (being developed by Digital Research). And GEM was actually
>> a match for the Macintosh OS of that time (and definitively much
>> better than any Windows version prior to Windows 3, some might even
>> argue for everything before Win95), though certainly not as refined
>> in some aspects. Comparing GEM (+TOS) on an Atari ST with the GUIs
>> available for the C64 is like comparing a Porsche 911 with a
>> Volkswagen Beetle: Both will get you from A to B, but in a much
>> different way... ;-)
>
> I did mean GEM on the Atari ST ... and yes it was slow, ugly,
> clunky, unsuable crap,

I used my Atari ST for quite some years, and I can't follow you on any
of your claims.

> just like the C64 GUI (GEOS), and not even remotely comparable to the
> Macintosh's OS (the Apple II GS on the other hand is a bit of a
> different story). At least the C64's GEOS had an excuse since it was
> controlled for most people using a joystick.

You keep comparing 8bit machines with GUIs with 16bit machines with GUIs
- quite unfair in my eyes...

> Windows 3 was just abysmal garbage as well,

It was not good (certainly not for today's usability standards), but you
could use it to get real things done. BTDT.

> Windows 95 was the real start of that OS

It was a new UI paradigm (actually they basically copied the general
ideas from the Mac), but the technical basis was still DOS and (lots of)
Win 3.1... But I agree, it was the first Windows version that was
actually fun to use... :-)

> and still way behind Apple in most ways ... at still is with Windoze
> 8.

Windows 8 is fine (I guess) if used on a tablet or similar, but the
usability is horrible if used on a classical PC with a PC (and no
touchscreen). My point of view. 'One size fits all' is no good idea for
UIs...

> The Amiga OS was infintely better than the Atari's OS,

I used both, and I always preferred the Atari GUI (especially after I
had switched to Mag!X, giving full multi-tasking) over the Amiga-UI...
Taste differs... :-)

> but still nowhere near Apple.

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60119

On 04/06/2014 07:50, Michael Eyd wrote:
[]
> Windows 8 is fine (I guess) if used on a tablet or similar, but the
> usability is horrible if used on a classical PC with a PC (and no
> touchscreen). My point of view. 'One size fits all' is no good idea for
> UIs...
[]
> Michael

Windows 8 is fine on a Desktop PC as well (including for iTunes).  I use 
it on three PCs with a mouse and no touch-screen, like many other folk, 
and all it needed was the free Classic Shell to be installed and all is 
back to normal.

   http://www.classicshell.net/

You might reconsider your point of view if you tried Classic Shell.
-- 
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60121

In article <lmmfjt$f8q$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>
wrote:

> Am 03.06.2014 23:24, schrieb Your Name:
> > In article <lmknrq$ibn$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
> > <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
> >> Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
> >>> In article <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> >>> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my schools
> >>>> had, and then Macs), so most of my experience with other old
> >>>> platforms is later on running them in emulation on Macs and
> >>>> WinPCs.
> >>>>
> >>>> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of early
> >>>> home computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
> >>>
> >>> Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore
> >>> Vic20 / C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early home
> >>> computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the BBC /
> >>> Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were simply
> >>> rubbish.
> >>
> >> I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the Commodore 64
> >> (and even more so the VIC-20) was a video game console with a
> >> keyboard, but hardly a computer.
> >
> > The C64 in particular was a real computer,
> 
> That's arguable, I for my part won't agree beyond a certain point.
> 
> > but the hopeless management at Commodore failed to market it
> > properly, as they did even worse a few years later with the Amiga and
> > flushed themselves down the toilet. There were many small businesses,
> > farmers, etc. using C64 and even VIC20 as a computer, but it's main
> > popularity was as a home computer thanks to the games.
> 
> There were business back then running their software on every available
> computer - but in my eyes that won't make those machines 'business
> computers'...

I never said it was a "business computer", just a "real computer".  :-)




> >>> I had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc. and
> >>> they were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful for a
> >>> supposedly superior machine, it was barely better than using the
> >>> C64 GUI with a joystick, which was horrible enough.
> >>
> >> You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)? That's
> >> like comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your
> >> information: TOS was the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and it
> >> was text/command-based. However, it was hardly ever used directly,
> >> instead all the (needed) functions were available via the graphical
> >> UI GEM (being developed by Digital Research). And GEM was actually
> >> a match for the Macintosh OS of that time (and definitively much
> >> better than any Windows version prior to Windows 3, some might even
> >> argue for everything before Win95), though certainly not as refined
> >> in some aspects. Comparing GEM (+TOS) on an Atari ST with the GUIs
> >> available for the C64 is like comparing a Porsche 911 with a
> >> Volkswagen Beetle: Both will get you from A to B, but in a much
> >> different way... ;-)
> >
> > I did mean GEM on the Atari ST ... and yes it was slow, ugly,
> > clunky, unsuable crap,
> 
> I used my Atari ST for quite some years, and I can't follow you on any
> of your claims.

Ah weel, you should have bought a real computer and seen what a real OS
was like.  ;-)



> > just like the C64 GUI (GEOS), and not even remotely comparable to the
> > Macintosh's OS (the Apple II GS on the other hand is a bit of a
> > different story). At least the C64's GEOS had an excuse since it was
> > controlled for most people using a joystick.
> 
> You keep comparing 8bit machines with GUIs with 16bit machines with GUIs
> - quite unfair in my eyes...

That's because the Atari ST's GUI was awful!



> > Windows 3 was just abysmal garbage as well,
> 
> It was not good (certainly not for today's usability standards), but you
> could use it to get real things done. BTDT.

You could use DOS to get things done, but that was horrible as well.



> > Windows 95 was the real start of that OS
> 
> It was a new UI paradigm (actually they basically copied the general
> ideas from the Mac), but the technical basis was still DOS and (lots of)
> Win 3.1... But I agree, it was the first Windows version that was
> actually fun to use... :-)

No version of Windoze is "fun to use" - they're all horrible. Windows
95 was simply that first version that was even remotely usable, and as
you said, it's because they tried to copy the Mac which already had the
best OS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60126

Am 04.06.2014 09:19, schrieb Your Name:
> In article <lmmfjt$f8q$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
> <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 03.06.2014 23:24, schrieb Your Name:
>>> In article <lmknrq$ibn$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd
>>> <invalid@eyd.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 28.05.2014 22:58, schrieb Your Name:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
>>>>> Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though I was almost always an Apple II guy (what my
>>>>>> schools had, and then Macs), so most of my experience with
>>>>>> other old platforms is later on running them in emulation
>>>>>> on Macs and WinPCs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I often feel I missed some of the most exciting parts of
>>>>>> early home computing history *wistful sigh* :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, I had Apple II at school, Macs at university, Commodore
>>>>> Vic20 / C64 / Amiga at home, and now a Mac at home.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't worry about missing the "exciting parts of early
>>>>> home computing history". Apart from Commodore and perhaps the
>>>>> BBC / Archimedes, most of the early computers makes were
>>>>> simply rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> I beg to differ! Compared to an Apple 2 especially the
>>>> Commodore 64 (and even more so the VIC-20) was a video game
>>>> console with a keyboard, but hardly a computer.
>>>
>>> The C64 in particular was a real computer,
>>
>> That's arguable, I for my part won't agree beyond a certain point.
>>
>>> but the hopeless management at Commodore failed to market it
>>> properly, as they did even worse a few years later with the Amiga
>>> and flushed themselves down the toilet. There were many small
>>> businesses, farmers, etc. using C64 and even VIC20 as a computer,
>>> but it's main popularity was as a home computer thanks to the
>>> games.
>>
>> There were business back then running their software on every
>> available computer - but in my eyes that won't make those machines
>> 'business computers'...
>
> I never said it was a "business computer", just a "real computer".
> :-)

However you argued around businesses... ;-)

>>>>> I had friends with TRS-80, various Sinclair toys, Atari, etc.
>>>>> and they were all inferior machines. The Atari TOS was awful
>>>>> for a supposedly superior machine, it was barely better than
>>>>> using the C64 GUI with a joystick, which was horrible
>>>>> enough.
>>>>
>>>> You compare Atari TOS with a GUI (on whichever machine)?
>>>> That's like comparing an Apple ][ with a Macintosh... For your
>>>> information: TOS was the basic OS for the Atari ST series, and
>>>> it was text/command-based. However, it was hardly ever used
>>>> directly, instead all the (needed) functions were available via
>>>> the graphical UI GEM (being developed by Digital Research). And
>>>> GEM was actually a match for the Macintosh OS of that time (and
>>>> definitively much better than any Windows version prior to
>>>> Windows 3, some might even argue for everything before Win95),
>>>> though certainly not as refined in some aspects. Comparing GEM
>>>> (+TOS) on an Atari ST with the GUIs available for the C64 is
>>>> like comparing a Porsche 911 with a Volkswagen Beetle: Both
>>>> will get you from A to B, but in a much different way... ;-)
>>>
>>> I did mean GEM on the Atari ST ... and yes it was slow, ugly,
>>> clunky, unsuable crap,
>>
>> I used my Atari ST for quite some years, and I can't follow you on
>> any of your claims.
>
> Ah weel, you should have bought a real computer and seen what a real
> OS was like.  ;-)

That's why I bought the Atari, and was very happy with it! Leaving the
Mac outside (way outside my financial possibilities at that time), the
Atari ST was from my point of view the best computer you could buy at
that time. Not perfect, but very good. :-)

Your views may differ though... ;-)

>>> just like the C64 GUI (GEOS), and not even remotely comparable to
>>> the Macintosh's OS (the Apple II GS on the other hand is a bit of
>>> a different story). At least the C64's GEOS had an excuse since
>>> it was controlled for most people using a joystick.
>>
>> You keep comparing 8bit machines with GUIs with 16bit machines with
>> GUIs - quite unfair in my eyes...
>
> That's because the Atari ST's GUI was awful!

Sounds really like you were (are) one of the Amiga fraction, that
couldn't stand that the Atari was selling so much better... ;-)

>>> Windows 3 was just abysmal garbage as well,
>>
>> It was not good (certainly not for today's usability standards),
>> but you could use it to get real things done. BTDT.
>
> You could use DOS to get things done, but that was horrible as well.

Actually I even used Apple DOS 3.3 (on an Apple //e) to get things
done... ;-)

>>> Windows 95 was the real start of that OS
>>
>> It was a new UI paradigm (actually they basically copied the
>> general ideas from the Mac), but the technical basis was still DOS
>> and (lots of) Win 3.1... But I agree, it was the first Windows
>> version that was actually fun to use... :-)
>
> No version of Windoze is "fun to use" - they're all horrible.

For me Win 95/98, Win XP and Win 7 are quite ok to use, with rest
falling behind (some more, some less)...

> Windows 95 was simply that first version that was even remotely
> usable, and as you said, it's because they tried to copy the Mac
> which already had the best OS.

I can't say too much about the qualities of the Macintosh OS back then,
but at least for the UI part I agree. :-)

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web