[at-l] Re: Off topic....for sure!

[charles at uswnet.com (Charles Copeland)]

I still have the Microsoft OS/2 developer kit from 1987 - including the 
manuals and videotapes!!!  I also have all the subsequent versions os OS/2 
and Windows from 1.0 to the present.  I did throw away my TRS-80s a few 
years ago but I kept my Lisas!!

:-)

Charles


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Mathews" <mathews@uga.edu>
To: "Don Malling" <dmallin@attglobal.net>
Cc: "At-list" <at-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:18 PM
Subject: [at-l] Re: Off topic....for sure!


>I installed release 1 of IBM's OS/2 and I was thankful that I was an 
>mainframe system's programmer. The steps you had to use to install it and 
>the terminology they through at you was easy enough for someone with my 
>experience, but if you were a newbie to any kind of computing I'm sure it 
>was overwhelming.  I do recall that it was reasonably easy to use, stable, 
>and more forgiving.  What IBM failed to do (in my opinion) was make it user 
>friendly enough, including the install.  I think I still have shrink 
>wrapped version of it in the attic, along with a shrink wrapped version of 
>Windows 3.0!  I guess that secret is out....I am a pack rat.  Along with 
>all that stuff, I have the old green cards, examples of old time core 
>memory, and odds and end like that.  what I am going to do with that stuff? 
>well I've toyed with the idea of making an ECM for my TR3 or TR4  ;-)
>
> Doug
>
> At 12:40 PM 4/21/2005, you wrote:
>>Interesting to note that IBM's OS/2 was a real operating system from day 
>>1 -- some 15 or so years ago. It ran in protected mode with preemptive 
>>multi-tasking. (unlike M$'s amateurish attempts at cooperative 
>>multi-tasking and crash on everything else in the system mode -- real 
>>junk).
>>
>>And it beat 95 to market, and could run any 16 bit Windows code better 
>>than 95.
>>
>>But as one person on the list once said it lacked quality because it 
>>didn't sell, and the M$ crap did sell. Kind'a like pornography and 
>>Triumphs I guess -- pornography sells and Triumphs didn't. So there you 
>>have it.
>>
>>
>>Don Malling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l@backcountry.net
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>
>