Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #118044 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-09 00:32 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-09-09 23:54 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 287 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2018-09-09 00:32 +0200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-09 17:19 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-09 11:26 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2018-11-06 09:14 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-06 23:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-09-09 18:17 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-09 11:50 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-10 15:26 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-10 13:34 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-10 16:39 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-10 17:34 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-10 16:56 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-11 13:34 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-10 18:39 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-11 16:35 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-11 06:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 08:41 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 14:42 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-09-11 16:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 14:55 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 06:21 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 08:46 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-11 14:47 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 13:47 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-12 06:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2018-11-06 09:21 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:48 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 11:59 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server anon <noreply@mixnym.net> - 2018-09-10 20:39 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-09-10 23:20 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-11 16:30 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-11 14:59 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-11 17:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 00:28 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-11 20:46 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-09-12 18:17 +1200
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-12 19:34 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 13:59 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-09-13 16:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-13 22:39 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Elden <usenet@moondog.org> - 2018-09-14 20:13 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-15 11:54 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-15 08:41 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-15 16:04 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-15 15:55 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2018-11-06 09:24 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2018-11-06 15:53 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 12:29 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 12:34 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 12:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 12:55 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 13:35 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-06 11:17 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 17:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-06 15:05 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 20:00 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-06 17:29 -0800
OT: About OS/2 (Was:Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server) Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 09:16 -0500
Re: OT: About OS/2 (Was:Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server) SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 09:58 -0500
Re: OT: About OS/2 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-09 19:07 +0000
Re: OT: About OS/2 Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nobody <nobodysaysitalldoesntit@nobo.org> - 2018-11-06 18:14 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 20:01 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 19:06 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-06 14:13 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2018-11-07 18:58 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 18:04 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-07 17:13 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 14:58 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 09:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 09:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 10:44 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 11:13 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-07 08:43 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 11:46 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 11:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 12:05 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 12:36 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 13:11 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 12:41 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 14:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:20 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 10:13 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 07:45 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 14:12 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 14:22 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 13:22 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 19:00 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:10 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 22:16 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:18 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 10:06 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 15:00 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 12:37 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 16:19 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:31 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-09 11:56 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 15:51 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:25 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:12 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 17:46 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 08:58 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:03 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 22:13 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:22 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:06 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 22:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:29 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-10 08:38 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-10 09:53 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:13 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 14:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 13:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 07:47 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 09:15 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 11:09 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 12:14 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 10:10 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 08:48 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:33 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 11:56 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 21:07 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 22:06 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:11 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 22:19 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:32 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 09:54 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-09 11:48 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 11:45 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 21:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 12:01 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 21:33 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:13 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:19 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:23 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:29 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:46 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-09 23:27 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 16:50 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 00:19 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:29 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-10 09:40 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:17 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-09 17:59 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 15:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:20 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:41 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 00:51 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 21:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:14 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:17 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:27 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:26 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:22 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 18:56 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 12:09 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 16:08 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 16:38 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 17:26 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 18:01 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 11:30 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 18:53 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 12:54 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 21:03 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 14:52 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 22:26 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 15:39 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-11 19:26 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-12 02:43 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 20:45 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 20:43 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-12 09:03 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-12 12:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-12 13:40 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-12 18:33 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-13 08:53 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-12 16:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-12 14:22 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-12 22:00 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-13 08:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-13 23:49 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-13 19:51 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 13:22 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 09:27 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-15 12:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 17:17 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-15 12:49 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 18:01 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 13:23 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 18:36 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 19:01 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 14:32 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 19:47 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-15 15:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 21:09 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-15 20:02 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-15 13:49 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-10 09:48 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 11:16 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-10 18:20 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-10 18:57 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-11 09:06 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Spooge <sp00ge@goop.invalid> - 2018-11-11 17:11 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-11 17:26 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 21:27 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-09 15:21 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 14:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-11-08 15:05 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2018-11-08 15:35 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:09 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-09 14:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 14:50 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 14:23 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:02 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 19:04 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 19:39 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 14:50 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2018-11-09 13:19 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:38 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 20:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 21:33 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:22 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-10 10:02 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-10 13:55 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 19:47 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 20:08 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 21:45 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 22:22 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-09 14:53 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 10:20 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-09 09:29 -0600
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-09 15:13 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 20:56 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:49 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-08 20:57 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:05 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> - 2018-11-08 12:35 -0800
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:30 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 18:56 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 21:52 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-08 20:11 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 12:41 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 13:11 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-11-07 11:47 -0700
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 12:31 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 13:11 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-07 14:31 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-08 09:11 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-11-07 17:55 -0500
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:33 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 16:11 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-09-12 14:10 -0400
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-09-12 18:35 +0000
Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 23:54 +0800
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-09 14:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: About OS/2 |
| Message-ID | <2blFD.300438$nH2.115991@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #119363 |
On 2018-11-09 14:07, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 2018-11-06 20:29, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> Hence my statement: without OS/2, there was not sufficient reason to pay
>>> the high cost of the PS/2.
>>
>> OS/2 was ahead of its time, too. Still is IMO. It used a VM to run
>> Windows better than MS-DOS did. Linux would be the winner of the OS wars
>> if that facility was baked into its kernel: Imagine being able to run
>> any OS under Linux....
>
> Yeah, similar to HP's 9000 Series 500 systems of the early eighties
> which had a micro-kernel [1] on top of which one could run HP-UX (HP's
> version of UNIX) or (IIRC) BASIC Language System.
>
> Later we moved to using some crap made at Berkeley University [2]! :-)
>
> [1] The micro-kernel's name was 'SUN Operating System', many years
> before Sun had their OS of the 'same' name ('SunOS').
>
> [2] Just kidding. BSD was much, much better than (AT&T's) System III
> which we had before.
>
Thanks for these details.
--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nobody <nobodysaysitalldoesntit@nobo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <idh4vjj9rvvn$.iintpv47y98v$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #119194 |
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:51:05 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote: > On 2018-11-06 2:17 p.m., Alan Baker wrote: >> On 2018-11-06 10:35 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: >>> On 2018-11-06 11:55 a.m., nospam wrote: >>>> In article <IwkED.534647$MK2.144959@fx35.iad>, SilverSlimer >>>> <silver@slim.er> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often >>>>>> illegally. >>>>> >>>>> Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off. >>>> >>>> yes it was. >>>> >>>>> The reverse >>>>> engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot >>>>> more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an >>>>> answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the >>>>> PS/2 if >>>>> not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you >>>>> can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more >>>>> than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting >>>>> product. >>>>> For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to >>>>> sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why >>>>> would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install >>>>> Windows >>>>> 3.1? >>>> >>>> in other words, windows was a factor. >>> >>> Only on OS/2's demise, not on the PS/2's. >>> >>> >> >> Without OS/2, there wasn't really any good reason to buy a PS/2... > > Nah, I don't believe that's correct. Despite the fact that the PS/2 > introduced technologies which didn't catch on at first (PS/2 ports) or > at all (MCA), it doesn't change the fact that those technologies were > very good in general. Additionally, PS/2 computers were remarkably > sturdy despite their high cost. You can still find videos on Youtube of > people opening up PS/2s from three decades ago which work as well as > they could. The PS/2 was years ahead of it's time. Bus mastering that could be controlled and customized in BIOS using the driver disks that came with the hardware was only one advantage. Those machines were rock solid but very, very expensive and designed for business not home use. As for OS/2, the CEO of IBM at the time seperated the business units and made them autonomous and fully responsible for their own profit. This resulted in the consumer PC division, Aptiva I believe, selling Windows with PC's instead of OS/2. Of course this translated into "if IBM doesn't even load their own OS/2 on their own PC's it must suck". IBM basically proved, once again, that they were incapable of marketing anything to home users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 20:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tPqED.487190$oM2.372690@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #119196 |
On 2018-11-06 6:14 p.m., nobody wrote: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:51:05 -0500, SilverSlimer wrote: > >> On 2018-11-06 2:17 p.m., Alan Baker wrote: >>> On 2018-11-06 10:35 AM, SilverSlimer wrote: >>>> On 2018-11-06 11:55 a.m., nospam wrote: >>>>> In article <IwkED.534647$MK2.144959@fx35.iad>, SilverSlimer >>>>> <silver@slim.er> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often >>>>>>> illegally. >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off. >>>>> >>>>> yes it was. >>>>> >>>>>> The reverse >>>>>> engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot >>>>>> more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an >>>>>> answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the >>>>>> PS/2 if >>>>>> not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you >>>>>> can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more >>>>>> than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting >>>>>> product. >>>>>> For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to >>>>>> sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why >>>>>> would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install >>>>>> Windows >>>>>> 3.1? >>>>> >>>>> in other words, windows was a factor. >>>> >>>> Only on OS/2's demise, not on the PS/2's. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Without OS/2, there wasn't really any good reason to buy a PS/2... >> >> Nah, I don't believe that's correct. Despite the fact that the PS/2 >> introduced technologies which didn't catch on at first (PS/2 ports) or >> at all (MCA), it doesn't change the fact that those technologies were >> very good in general. Additionally, PS/2 computers were remarkably >> sturdy despite their high cost. You can still find videos on Youtube of >> people opening up PS/2s from three decades ago which work as well as >> they could. > > The PS/2 was years ahead of it's time. > Bus mastering that could be controlled and customized in BIOS using the > driver disks that came with the hardware was only one advantage. > Those machines were rock solid but very, very expensive and designed for > business not home use. > > As for OS/2, the CEO of IBM at the time seperated the business units and > made them autonomous and fully responsible for their own profit. > This resulted in the consumer PC division, Aptiva I believe, selling > Windows with PC's instead of OS/2. Of course this translated into "if IBM > doesn't even load their own OS/2 on their own PC's it must suck". > > IBM basically proved, once again, that they were incapable of marketing > anything to home users. The decision to put Windows on IBM machines has to be the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed. I was one of those people thinking that if even IBM doesn't use OS/2, it has no chance. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 19:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <prsonc$jlu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119186 |
SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to > sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why > would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows > 3.1? Because Microsoft were working together with IBM to develop it as the future for Windows. However, they bailed and developed/focused on windows 95 and NT instead. It was a good OS but had no applications. The IBM office application that came with it "works", I think, was awful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fJlED.1305203$4S3.1028608@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #119190 |
On 2018-11-06 2:06 p.m., Chris wrote: > SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: >> For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to >> sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why >> would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows >> 3.1? > > Because Microsoft were working together with IBM to develop it as the > future for Windows. However, they bailed and developed/focused on windows > 95 and NT instead. Yes, but that happened around 1989 if I remember correctly. Microsoft was cautious and convinced IBM that it was planning to sell Windows as a complement to DOS but not a competitor to OS/2. It's amazing, looking back, how IBM was able to get fooled _twice_ by Microsoft. > It was a good OS but had no applications. The IBM office application that > came with it "works", I think, was awful. At least it came with one at a time when office suites had to be paid for and cost a fortune in many cases. It was a choice between IBM Works for free with OS/2 or DOS with WordPerfect or Microsoft Office for a few hundred dollars. It turns out that people preferred to spend the few hundred. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 18:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server |
| Message-ID | <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-Qx8GjmzdYtGy@localhost> |
| In reply to | #119186 |
On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:51:37 UTC, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > On 2018-11-06 11:34 a.m., nospam wrote: > > In article <nckED.1299847$4S3.1098076@fx47.iad>, SilverSlimer > > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > > > >>>> My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy > >>>> hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in > >>>> comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its > >>>> marketplace failure. > >>> > >>> OS/2 ⤲ half an operating system? > >> > >> Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would > >> work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate > >> the computer space. > >> > >> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a > >> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more > >> for a lot less money. > > > > no they couldn't. those were toys. > > 1) Could you write essays and do spreadsheets on the Amiga or the Atari ST? > 2) Could you edit graphics and make banners? > 3) Could you play games in addition to doing useful work? > > They might have served as a console to many people, but both computers > could still be as useful as a PS/2 was. > > > what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often > > illegally. > > Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off. The reverse > engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot > more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an > answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the PS/2 if > not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you > can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more > than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting product. > For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to > sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why > would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows > 3.1? The reason I switched from DOS to OS/2 was that I needed access to both a TCP/IP LAN and to Netware. I could do that with DOS by swapping config.syses and autoexec.bats and rebooting but that was a pain. OS/2 as early as v. 1 or 2 (I forget which) could run both protocols simultaneously. I put OS/2 on my home computer(s) and stayed with it until 2006, when I got an iMac. I am running OS/2 right now in a VM, because ProNews/2 is still my favorite news reader. -- John Varela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 18:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <HbKED.641702$cL2.249511@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #119223 |
On 2018-11-07 1:58 p.m., John Varela wrote: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:51:37 UTC, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> > wrote: > >> On 2018-11-06 11:34 a.m., nospam wrote: >>> In article <nckED.1299847$4S3.1098076@fx47.iad>, SilverSlimer >>> <silver@slim.er> wrote: >>> >>>>>> My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy >>>>>> hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in >>>>>> comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its >>>>>> marketplace failure. >>>>> >>>>> OS/2 ⤲ half an operating system? >>>> >>>> Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would >>>> work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate >>>> the computer space. >>>> >>>> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a >>>> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more >>>> for a lot less money. >>> >>> no they couldn't. those were toys. >> >> 1) Could you write essays and do spreadsheets on the Amiga or the Atari ST? >> 2) Could you edit graphics and make banners? >> 3) Could you play games in addition to doing useful work? >> >> They might have served as a console to many people, but both computers >> could still be as useful as a PS/2 was. >> >>> what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often >>> illegally. >> >> Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off. The reverse >> engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot >> more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an >> answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the PS/2 if >> not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you >> can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more >> than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting product. >> For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to >> sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why >> would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows >> 3.1? > > The reason I switched from DOS to OS/2 was that I needed access to > both a TCP/IP LAN and to Netware. I could do that with DOS by > swapping config.syses and autoexec.bats and rebooting but that was a > pain. OS/2 as early as v. 1 or 2 (I forget which) could run both > protocols simultaneously. I put OS/2 on my home computer(s) and > stayed with it until 2006, when I got an iMac. I am running OS/2 > right now in a VM, because ProNews/2 is still my favorite news > reader. I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <071120181713287751%leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> |
| In reply to | #119233 |
In article <HbKED.641702$cL2.249511@fx43.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time > since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough > to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive > to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little > reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was > also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would > have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. I'm truly enjoying this afc flashback thread. The subject is a little more modern and crossposted, but that's OK. leo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 14:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c3FD.470394$um3.243911@fx32.iad> |
| In reply to | #119233 |
SilverSlimer wrote: > I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time > since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough > to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive > to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little > reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was > also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would > have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. I used it with substandard hardware (386 with 4MBs) by stripping it down. No WPS was the big thing. Originally I used it as a DOS replacement and it worked very well. Wanted to download stuff from a BBS while doing other stuff, OS/2 just worked. Wanted to run 2+ Win3.1 programs without one crashing and taking the other down, OS/2 allowed that, while downloading from a BBS. Generally OS/2 was a better DOS and Windows. Used a better file system with better caching, making it faster much of the time. Want to run and multi-task multiple Win (and/or DOS) programs, OS/2 did it well. Eventually I got more ram and a faster processor (33Mhz 486 DLC that plugged into my 386 board) and started using the WPS and native programs and never looked back. Typing this on OS/2 running on real hardware. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f96FD.309760$SG2.132401@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #119310 |
On 2018-11-08 5:58 p.m., Dave Yeo wrote: > SilverSlimer wrote: >> I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time >> since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough >> to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive >> to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little >> reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was >> also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would >> have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. > > I used it with substandard hardware (386 with 4MBs) by stripping it > down. No WPS was the big thing. Originally I used it as a DOS > replacement and it worked very well. Wanted to download stuff from a BBS > while doing other stuff, OS/2 just worked. Wanted to run 2+ Win3.1 > programs without one crashing and taking the other down, OS/2 allowed > that, while downloading from a BBS. > Generally OS/2 was a better DOS and Windows. Used a better file system > with better caching, making it faster much of the time. Want to run and > multi-task multiple Win (and/or DOS) programs, OS/2 did it well. > Eventually I got more ram and a faster processor (33Mhz 486 DLC that > plugged into my 386 board) and started using the WPS and native programs > and never looked back. > Typing this on OS/2 running on real hardware. If I remember correctly, I only really used it on a 386DX-33 with 4MB of RAM and I was underwhelmed but I definitely didn't strip it down to make it more usable. I was also in my mid-teens at the time and I wasn't concerned with the computer being useful as much as I was with it doing nifty things. It's too bad it didn't become more popular than it did but IBM can only really blame itself. However, OS/2 is still technically being developed as far as I know. Dunno if eComstation is still the only company providing OS/2 support though. Apparently, someone else is producing an OS/2-based system. -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-08 21:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <me6FD.201649$TK1.10560@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #119310 |
On 2018-11-08 5:58 p.m., Dave Yeo wrote: > SilverSlimer wrote: >> I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time >> since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough >> to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive >> to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little >> reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was >> also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would >> have been better off had it won the race over Windows either. > > I used it with substandard hardware (386 with 4MBs) by stripping it > down. No WPS was the big thing. Originally I used it as a DOS > replacement and it worked very well. Wanted to download stuff from a BBS > while doing other stuff, OS/2 just worked. Wanted to run 2+ Win3.1 > programs without one crashing and taking the other down, OS/2 allowed > that, while downloading from a BBS. > Generally OS/2 was a better DOS and Windows. Used a better file system > with better caching, making it faster much of the time. Want to run and > multi-task multiple Win (and/or DOS) programs, OS/2 did it well. > Eventually I got more ram and a faster processor (33Mhz 486 DLC that > plugged into my 386 board) and started using the WPS and native programs > and never looked back. > Typing this on OS/2 running on real hardware. I was right: <https://www.arcanoae.com/arcaos/> -- SilverSlimer Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tBCED.517250$OM2.454815@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #119185 |
On 2018-11-06 11:34, nospam wrote: > In article <nckED.1299847$4S3.1098076@fx47.iad>, SilverSlimer > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>> My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy >>>> hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in >>>> comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its >>>> marketplace failure. >>> >>> OS/2 ⤲ half an operating system? >> >> Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would >> work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate >> the computer space. >> >> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a >> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more >> for a lot less money. > > no they couldn't. those were toys. The Amiga was another machine ahead of its time. A class in our sister school made a great little video illustrating the hiker's mantra to "Leave no trace (in the bush)", all using bundled/built-in software. the Amiga could play a video in the background while you working in the foreground, though why you would that distraction was never satisfactorily explained. One of several machines whose innovations we now take for granted on all three major platforms. > what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often > illegally. True. The Justice Dept went after them, but a regime change in Washington stopped that attempt to make MS play fair. The EU scored a couple of victories (eg, forcing MS to stop embedding IE in the OS), but all in all MS illustrates the dictum that all private fortunes are the result of some kind of crime. Best, -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com "Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 09:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <071120180933002666%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119204 |
In article <tBCED.517250$OM2.454815@fx37.iad>, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a > >> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more > >> for a lot less money. > > > > no they couldn't. those were toys. > > The Amiga was another machine ahead of its time. no it wasn't. the amiga was in every way a toy. it had less software support than the mac did and what it did have was not professional quality, almost no stores sold it because it wasn't compelling and it crashed if you looked at it wrong. > A class in our sister > school made a great little video illustrating the hiker's mantra to > "Leave no trace (in the bush)", all using bundled/built-in software. the > Amiga could play a video in the background while you working in the > foreground, though why you would that distraction was never > satisfactorily explained. One of several machines whose innovations we > now take for granted on all three major platforms. nothing it did was innovative, one of many reasons why it failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 10:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yLDED.344840$vJ1.54108@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #119205 |
On 2018-11-07 8:33 a.m., nospam wrote: > In article <tBCED.517250$OM2.454815@fx37.iad>, Wolf K > <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >>>> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a >>>> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more >>>> for a lot less money. >>> >>> no they couldn't. those were toys. >> >> The Amiga was another machine ahead of its time. > > no it wasn't. the amiga was in every way a toy. it had less software > support than the mac did and what it did have was not professional > quality, almost no stores sold it because it wasn't compelling and it > crashed if you looked at it wrong. A whole bunch of lies and it's trivial to verify nowadays. The Amiga was first released as a production tool despite the fact that it was first envisioned and became somewhat of a console. Look at the Amiga 1000 and you'll know that it looked like and was very much a production computer. That the Amiga 500 was eventually released and marketed in the same fashion as the Commodore 500 (and available on store shelves _everywhere_ despite what you claim) does not change that it was produced to be a workstation and simply became a console because that's what Commodore knew how to sell. I can't say good things about the operating system since I don't know it that well but it was indeed ahead of its time since it could multitask AND the Amiga could run Mac software better than Macs themselves if you purchased the software to do so. >> A class in our sister >> school made a great little video illustrating the hiker's mantra to >> "Leave no trace (in the bush)", all using bundled/built-in software. the >> Amiga could play a video in the background while you working in the >> foreground, though why you would that distraction was never >> satisfactorily explained. One of several machines whose innovations we >> now take for granted on all three major platforms. > > nothing it did was innovative, one of many reasons why it failed. It failed because Commodore didn't know what to do with it since Tramiel, the real genius, left the company. They also dragged their feet in improving the product which is why the Amiga 600, 500+ and 1200 were barely any better than the original product despite being released some 8 years later. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <071120181113045080%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119207 |
In article <yLDED.344840$vJ1.54108@fx05.iad>, SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a > >>>> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more > >>>> for a lot less money. > >>> > >>> no they couldn't. those were toys. > >> > >> The Amiga was another machine ahead of its time. > > > > no it wasn't. the amiga was in every way a toy. it had less software > > support than the mac did and what it did have was not professional > > quality, almost no stores sold it because it wasn't compelling and it > > crashed if you looked at it wrong. > > A whole bunch of lies and it's trivial to verify nowadays. nothing about it is a lie. > The Amiga was first released as a production tool despite the fact that > it was first envisioned and became somewhat of a console. Look at the > Amiga 1000 and you'll know that it looked like and was very much a > production computer. That the Amiga 500 was eventually released and > marketed in the same fashion as the Commodore 500 (and available on > store shelves _everywhere_ despite what you claim) does not change that > it was produced to be a workstation and simply became a console because > that's what Commodore knew how to sell. complete nonsense. major software developers ignored the amiga. businesses definitely ignored it. very, very few computer stores sold it. even the mac had far more traction than the amiga ever did. it was a toy. microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os, not amiga os, and even that took a decade for windows to be even somewhat useful, with windows '95. hobbyists liked the amiga because it was cheap and had some games. otherwise, it was nothing special. the amusement of the bouncing ball demo wore off very, very quickly, as in minutes. > I can't say good things about > the operating system since I don't know it that well but it was indeed > ahead of its time since it could multitask AND the Amiga could run Mac > software better than Macs themselves if you purchased the software to do > so. absolutely false. the amiga wasn't ahead of anything. many other systems could multitask, including the mac, plus the mac emulator on the amiga was a complete joke. it ran a few things but not particularly well and nowhere near what an actual mac could do. > >> A class in our sister > >> school made a great little video illustrating the hiker's mantra to > >> "Leave no trace (in the bush)", all using bundled/built-in software. the > >> Amiga could play a video in the background while you working in the > >> foreground, though why you would that distraction was never > >> satisfactorily explained. One of several machines whose innovations we > >> now take for granted on all three major platforms. > > > > nothing it did was innovative, one of many reasons why it failed. > > It failed because Commodore didn't know what to do with it since > Tramiel, the real genius, left the company. They also dragged their feet > in improving the product which is why the Amiga 600, 500+ and 1200 were > barely any better than the original product despite being released some > 8 years later. it failed because it was a toy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 08:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <prv4n5$1sjm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #119208 |
On 2018-11-07 7:13 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <yLDED.344840$vJ1.54108@fx05.iad>, SilverSlimer > <silver@slim.er> wrote: > >>>>>> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a >>>>>> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more >>>>>> for a lot less money. >>>>> >>>>> no they couldn't. those were toys. >>>> >>>> The Amiga was another machine ahead of its time. >>> >>> no it wasn't. the amiga was in every way a toy. it had less software >>> support than the mac did and what it did have was not professional >>> quality, almost no stores sold it because it wasn't compelling and it >>> crashed if you looked at it wrong. >> >> A whole bunch of lies and it's trivial to verify nowadays. > > nothing about it is a lie. > >> The Amiga was first released as a production tool despite the fact that >> it was first envisioned and became somewhat of a console. Look at the >> Amiga 1000 and you'll know that it looked like and was very much a >> production computer. That the Amiga 500 was eventually released and >> marketed in the same fashion as the Commodore 500 (and available on >> store shelves _everywhere_ despite what you claim) does not change that >> it was produced to be a workstation and simply became a console because >> that's what Commodore knew how to sell. > > complete nonsense. > > major software developers ignored the amiga. businesses definitely > ignored it. very, very few computer stores sold it. even the mac had > far more traction than the amiga ever did. it was a toy. With the exception of its use later on as a platform for the Newtek Video Toaster...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <071120181146184688%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119210 |
In article <prv4n5$1sjm$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Alan Baker <nunya@ness.biz> wrote: > > major software developers ignored the amiga. businesses definitely > > ignored it. very, very few computer stores sold it. even the mac had > > far more traction than the amiga ever did. it was a toy. > > With the exception of its use later on as a platform for the Newtek > Video Toaster... that was *much* later and it too was a toy. pros at the time were using custom hardware that plugged into macs and pcs for video production, either internally or an external box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 11:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uKEED.198613$LL1.84557@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #119208 |
On 2018-11-07 10:13, nospam wrote: > microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os, IOW, mac os was really DOS? There's something wrong with your memory of those far off days. Or else your confusing the user interface with the OS. mac OS > not amiga os, > and even that took a decade for windows to be even somewhat useful, > with windows '95. Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was essentially useless until 3.x. To control user access, you had to go into DOS. But that was so limited in the early versions of DOS that any attempt to limit access could be over-ridden during boot, something our students found out almost immediately. From Win95 one, user access was better controlled, but still easy to work around. Windows NT was the first non-DOS version. It was a derivative of OS/2, whose first version MS developed for IBM. Up to Windows 2000 IIRC, a system folder was labelled OS/2. There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both. I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine, and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable. As was Commodore's OS, but that's another story. -- Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.com "Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 12:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <071120181205555306%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #119212 |
In article <uKEED.198613$LL1.84557@fx23.iad>, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os, > > IOW, mac os was really DOS? There's something wrong with your memory of > those far off days. Or else your confusing the user interface with the > OS. mac OS i didn't say macos was dos. i said microsoft copied macos to create windows. > > not amiga os, > > and even that took a decade for windows to be even somewhat useful, > > with windows '95. > > Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use > settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was > essentially useless until 3.x. win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said, windows '95 was when it was actually usable. > To control user access, you had to go > into DOS. But that was so limited in the early versions of DOS that any > attempt to limit access could be over-ridden during boot, something our > students found out almost immediately. From Win95 one, user access was > better controlled, but still easy to work around. > > Windows NT was the first non-DOS version. It was a derivative of OS/2, > whose first version MS developed for IBM. Up to Windows 2000 IIRC, a > system folder was labelled OS/2 so far, so good. > There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both. > I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device > customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine, > and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable. complete nonsense. apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with full documentation as to how to do it. because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed, doing things not possible on dos or windows. > As was > Commodore's OS, but that's another story. actually, not as much, but the key problem was it had very little software available compared to mac, dos and windows. software developers were not interested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-07 12:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <SoFED.470277$um3.190179@fx32.iad> |
| In reply to | #119213 |
On 2018-11-07 11:05 a.m., nospam wrote: > In article <uKEED.198613$LL1.84557@fx23.iad>, Wolf K > <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >>> microsoft windows was mostly a copy of classic mac os, >> >> IOW, mac os was really DOS? There's something wrong with your memory of >> those far off days. Or else your confusing the user interface with the >> OS. mac OS > > i didn't say macos was dos. i said microsoft copied macos to create > windows. > >>> not amiga os, >>> and even that took a decade for windows to be even somewhat useful, >>> with windows '95. >> >> Windows was DOS with a pre-built menu system plus a few simple to use >> settings (such as customising the menus for different users). It was >> essentially useless until 3.x. > > win 3.x was only slightly better than earlier versions. as i said, > windows '95 was when it was actually usable. Not true, essentially since many companies at the time used Windows 3.11 for their businesses and some still use it to this day. >> To control user access, you had to go >> into DOS. But that was so limited in the early versions of DOS that any >> attempt to limit access could be over-ridden during boot, something our >> students found out almost immediately. From Win95 one, user access was >> better controlled, but still easy to work around. >> >> Windows NT was the first non-DOS version. It was a derivative of OS/2, >> whose first version MS developed for IBM. Up to Windows 2000 IIRC, a >> system folder was labelled OS/2 > > so far, so good. > >> There's more. FWIW, I preferred DOS over Windows, and OS/2 over both. >> I liked Mac OS, but didn't like Apple's unwillingness to permit device >> customisation beyond what they decided was acceptable. A DOS machine, >> and hence Windows, was almost infinitely customisable. > > complete nonsense. > > apple did not stop *anyone* from customizing anything, and in fact, mac > os was designed to be tweaked and modified in all sorts of ways, with > full documentation as to how to do it. > > because of that, a whole category of mac software and hardware existed, > doing things not possible on dos or windows. That must be why Steve Jobs specifically stated that he wanted the Mac to have proprietary ports, no internal expansion slots and an operating system which looked the same no matter whose machine you were using. In other words, that must be why Jobs did the exact opposite of what Wozniak did with the Apple ][ whereupon he insisted on forcing people to upgrade a whole computer to get one or two additional functions. >> As was >> Commodore's OS, but that's another story. > > actually, not as much, but the key problem was it had very little > software available compared to mac, dos and windows. software > developers were not interested. In comparison, sure. THAT is a correct statement especially the further users got into the lifespan of a Commodore Amiga machine. However, fewer titles does not translate into a machine being completely ignored by the public or developers either. -- SilverSlimer Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights Minds: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web