ndo 3.2a

ndo 3.2a

Post by Bob B » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:57:34




Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

--
Bob

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Roy Mille » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:14:01


XP_Rocks? Eeuuu, Bob, how can you stand the M$ bloatware?
Move to a real OS, like Linux, or OS X!
Or, for that matter CP/M!

Roy

Quote:

> Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

> --
> Bob


 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Bob B » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 03:46:20


LOL! LINUX is OK but a hassle sometimes. XP does OK by me. My favorite all
time OS? DOS. Good old DOS.

--
Bob




> XP_Rocks? Eeuuu, Bob, how can you stand the M$ bloatware?
> Move to a real OS, like Linux, or OS X!
> Or, for that matter CP/M!

> Roy

> > Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

> > --
> > Bob

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Roy Mille » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:08:28



> LOL! LINUX is OK but a hassle sometimes. XP does OK by me. My favorite all
> time OS? DOS. Good old DOS.

3.3 If you needed more capabilities, there were third party items that gave
you what version 5 (and even 6) could give you.
I must admit, I rather like DR-DOS though. I'm still looking for a copy of
PC-DOS version 7

Roy

> --
> Bob





> > XP_Rocks? Eeuuu, Bob, how can you stand the M$ bloatware?
> > Move to a real OS, like Linux, or OS X!
> > Or, for that matter CP/M!

> > Roy

> > > Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

> > > --
> > > Bob

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Bob B » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:39:00


I like DR-Dos over MS-DOS as far as memory mgt., is concerned. My favorite
is MS-DOS with QEMM however.

One feature I could never get "working" bug free was dr-dos's task
switcher/manager. I'll be honest I never spent too much time on it, and
wanted it only for GEOS, but it never worked for me anyway.

--
Bob



> > LOL! LINUX is OK but a hassle sometimes. XP does OK by me. My favorite
all
> > time OS? DOS. Good old DOS.

> 3.3 If you needed more capabilities, there were third party items that
gave
> you what version 5 (and even 6) could give you.
> I must admit, I rather like DR-DOS though. I'm still looking for a copy of
> PC-DOS version 7

> Roy

> > --
> > Bob





> > > XP_Rocks? Eeuuu, Bob, how can you stand the M$ bloatware?
> > > Move to a real OS, like Linux, or OS X!
> > > Or, for that matter CP/M!

> > > Roy

> > > > Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

> > > > --
> > > > Bob

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Garret » Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:00:30




Quote:> I like DR-Dos over MS-DOS as far as memory mgt., is
> concerned. My favorite is MS-DOS with QEMM however.

I've got copies of Dr Dos 7.03 and Open Dos 7.01 here if anyone
needs a copy.  If I recall right, these were, and still are
readily available for download in some places online still.

-Garrett

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Pat » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:37:57


The Linux crowd lost the destop to Windows with their elitist attitude and
mantra of free and scalability. They'd rather "in-fight" like the Afghans
than unite under one flag. I've used every derivitive of Unix from its first
incarnation to the present. Its been a real wonder of an OS for 3 decades
but very dated and has had to many people stick their fingers in it with
private and personal agendas, which makes for tons of choices but virtually
little overall consistency.

Reagrds bloatware, I think all contemporary software is bloated inorder to
handle the cornucopia of computing needs that crop up each year, but who
cares with memory selling for practically giveaway prices. How many people
buying a new Pentium or Athlon machine are thinking that the software is
really bloated. Dude, my PC is running really bloated software and I'm
disturbed out by it. With Windows XP (based on the Windows 2000 kernel) you
get a hell of an OS that blows away the Windows 9X patchwork quilt of code,
which is really guily of having been painted and repainted a thousand times.
Atleast Windows XP is based on even cleaner code that inherits all that
Windows 2000 functionality. From Microsoft's perspective, the maintenance of
the current XP/2000 code base is to their advantage, and that of all users,
because of the commonality across the differnet targeted versions and the
"same code" convenience of maintenance.

Personally, I think Microsoft has done a hell of a job improving their
Windows, which started out very shakey with 3.0 and 95. Also, if any
software company got an Oscar for improvements, Microsoft gets one for
Windows XP. Refards Linux, it lacks enough desktop users to be impressive on
a chart that shows number of users. Moving way up scale to the enterprise,
the higher end of Windows 2000 (eg. Datacenter), supports hardware for five
9s uptime. Therefore, unlike a year ago, Windows 2000 is coming on stronger
now  in the very high end server world, and Unix is going to get its arse
blown away sooner than anticipated, especially if this recession lengthens
and IT shops look at what they are shelling out for Oracle DB and those
pricey Oracle apps.

Your protestations about Windows XP (which is based on Windows 2000 on up to
the highend) and the subject of bloatware, do not wash in this 4th Quarter
of 2001AD, the year of our Lord, god damn it!




> XP_Rocks? Eeuuu, Bob, how can you stand the M$ bloatware?
> Move to a real OS, like Linux, or OS X!
> Or, for that matter CP/M!

> Roy

> > Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

> > --
> > Bob

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Roy Mille » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 06:09:15



> The Linux crowd lost the destop to Windows with their elitist attitude and
> mantra of free and scalability. They'd rather "in-fight" like the Afghans
> than unite under one flag. I've used every derivitive of Unix from its first
> incarnation to the present. Its been a real wonder of an OS for 3 decades
> but very dated and has had to many people stick their fingers in it with
> private and personal agendas, which makes for tons of choices but virtually
> little overall consistency.

> Reagrds bloatware, I think all contemporary software is bloated inorder to
> handle the cornucopia of computing needs that crop up each year, but who
> cares with memory selling for practically giveaway prices. How many people
> buying a new Pentium or Athlon machine are thinking that the software is
> really bloated. Dude, my PC is running really bloated software and I'm
> disturbed out by it. With Windows XP (based on the Windows 2000 kernel) you
> get a hell of an OS that blows away the Windows 9X patchwork quilt of code,
> which is really guily of having been painted and repainted a thousand times.
> Atleast Windows XP is based on even cleaner code that inherits all that
> Windows 2000 functionality. From Microsoft's perspective, the maintenance of
> the current XP/2000 code base is to their advantage, and that of all users,
> because of the commonality across the differnet targeted versions and the
> "same code" convenience of maintenance.

> Personally, I think Microsoft has done a hell of a job improving their
> Windows, which started out very shakey with 3.0 and 95. Also, if any
> software company got an Oscar for improvements, Microsoft gets one for
> Windows XP. Refards Linux, it lacks enough desktop users to be impressive on
> a chart that shows number of users. Moving way up scale to the enterprise,
> the higher end of Windows 2000 (eg. Datacenter), supports hardware for five
> 9s uptime. Therefore, unlike a year ago, Windows 2000 is coming on stronger
> now  in the very high end server world, and Unix is going to get its arse
> blown away sooner than anticipated, especially if this recession lengthens
> and IT shops look at what they are shelling out for Oracle DB and those
> pricey Oracle apps.

> Your protestations about Windows XP (which is based on Windows 2000 on up to
> the highend) and the subject of bloatware, do not wash in this 4th Quarter
> of 2001AD, the year of our Lord, god damn it!

Whew, you should really learn to take a breath now and again!

BTW - thanks for making my points for me

Roy

- Show quoted text -





> > XP_Rocks? Eeuuu, Bob, how can you stand the M$ bloatware?
> > Move to a real OS, like Linux, or OS X!
> > Or, for that matter CP/M!

> > Roy

> > > Note i am VERY selective about my replies ;)

> > > --
> > > Bob

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Pat » Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:53:23



Quote:

> BTW - thanks for making my points for me

You're welcome!

http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D1863%2526a%253D10884,00.asp

http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO64104,00.html

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by William Tanksl » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 04:36:46



>The Linux crowd lost the destop to Windows with their elitist attitude and
>mantra of free and scalability.

A bizzare statement.  The Linux crowd never had the desktop.  Two years
ago, it was obvious that they never would.  Now the outcome is a little
more is doubt -- there are two obvious possibilities, both of them
progressing very fast.

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Pat » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:48:19


Thanks for the erudite critique, Professor Linus Tanksley. ;-)



> >The Linux crowd lost the destop to Windows with their elitist attitude
and
> >mantra of free and scalability.

> A bizzare statement.  The Linux crowd never had the desktop.  Two years
> ago, it was obvious that they never would.  Now the outcome is a little
> more is doubt -- there are two obvious possibilities, both of them
> progressing very fast.

> --
> -William "Billy" Tanksley

 
 
 

ndo 3.2a

Post by Stephen Haffl » Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:16:09



> I like DR-Dos over MS-DOS as far as memory mgt., is concerned. My favorite
> is MS-DOS with QEMM however.

> One feature I could never get "working" bug free was dr-dos's task
> switcher/manager. I'll be honest I never spent too much time on it, and
> wanted it only for GEOS, but it never worked for me anyway.

Hi Bob,

I really enjoyed how GWE 2.01, and then NDO worked with DR-DOS version
6.0.  The task switcher in that version was the most stable.  Subsequent
  versions by Novell and then Caldera/Lineo/whatever they are today were
never as stable.  Plus, 6.0's task switcher had the clipboard functions
as well.  In the switch to 7.x's TaskManager, they lost the
functionality in trade for a multitasking function that would not work
with GEOS anyway.

I've been tied up lately, so I'm catching up this evening.  I haven't
tried XP yet, but do have to use NT (4.0, sp6) at work.  I agree that
Linux is still a bit too much of a hassle.  OS/2 still works for me, and
W95 for my wife's computer (for the scanner, camera, and CD burner).

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving.  We did.

TTYL,

Stephen

--
TTYL,

Stephen
Team OS/2, Team GEOS, Team PPoint/IREX
OS/2 & New Deal Office - A great combination.

 
 
 

1. For Roy Miller and other people who would like to buy NDO 3.2a

Hello Roy,

I have bought my NDO 3.2a from a Canadian company named USI.
I just spoke to a gentleman named Bill from USI and he told me that
they still have NDO 3.2a for sale.

You can find the NewDeal products they have at:
http://www.computersjust4u.com/

Their phone number is 1-877-507-2537.

Look for the category NewDeal Software on the left side of the screen.
If you cannot find it, give it a try later or give them a call. They are
updating their site.

Please post your answer on the newsgroup or remove CUT from my
email address for a direct reply.

2. access.db doesn't work right

3. Etherodi and NDO 3.2a

4. Win '95 & Fax

5. Geoworks Pro apps & NDO 3.2a

6. Can ISDN communicate with analog modem?

7. Looking for a copy of NDO 3.2a and GeoBasic

8. How to convert ANSI to Unicode for chinese?

9. NDO 3.2A on a Nokia 9110?

10. Need software for NDO 3.2a

11. Problem with Windows Me and NDO 3.2a

12. NDO 3.2a Upgrade Disks

13. pdf-files - NDO 3.2a