Roddles looking in a mirror....
Roddles looking in a mirror....
Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
re:
gone 404 ... but lives on the wayback machine
kildall using cp67/cms at npg school (wiki mentions he fulfilled draft obligation by teaching at npg)
melinda's virtual machine history going back to science center, cp40 & cp67.
-- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
Well, the topic was Apple I, which implies consumer=grade systems.
Burroughs (PPoE) had the capability to share files between multiple systems (a al NFS/AppleTalk/NetWare) in the 1960's with up to 8 hosts accessing a single spindle using FPM (file protect memory) and later SSP (Shared Systems Processor) for block-level lockout.
scott
Yet IE is still trying to catch up to Firefox.
No truer words were ever spoken.
Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
Scott Lurndal wrote
Nope, that bit wasnt.
Networking doesnt, particularly between separate machines.
Irrelevant to whether Win networking was anything like what Novell did, particularly for stupid users.
Scott Lurndal wrote
Irrelevant to whether there has been any INNOVATION with IE.
The iPhone is Irrelevant, just like Roddles
Some gutless f****it desperately cowering behind SG1 wrote just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.
DOS 1.0 was *very* much like CP/M, enough so that Kildall used the similarity as leverage to get IBM to agree to sell CP/M for the PC as well. DOS 2.0 was a total rewrite. -- Joe
-- Joe Thompson - E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/ "...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe
Sure it was. It allowed programs to run (actually executing operations) in the background. Until Win95, Windows didn't support anything better than MultiFinder's capabilities. -- Joe
-- Joe Thompson - E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/ "...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe
Joe Thompson wrote
they could if they ever decided to.
MS.
Nothing like a COPY of CP/M.
Thats not how that happened. If it really was a COPY of CP/M, he would have sued and won.
It was never a COPY of CP/M or even close either.
If it had been, there would have been no need for different versions of the apps.
they could if they ever decided to.
The most it did was share an api structure etc and had significant changes in the detail with how CP/M operated, most obviously with the automatic flushing to disk etc.
Nothing like a COPY of CP/M, it just used a similar API so it was easy to port apps to it etc.
sued and won.
apps.
Joe Thompson wrote
anyway.
Nope, it was an addon, not multitasking as part of the OS.
Irrelevant to the FACT that multitasking on Win was there well before MultiFinder.
It replaced the single-tasking Finder with a multitasking one. I'd call that "part of the OS", akin to installing an extra module in a Linux kernel. -- Joe
-- Joe Thompson - E-mail addresses in headers are valid. | http://www.orion-com.com/ "...the FDA takes a dim view of exploding pharmaceuticals..." -- Derek Lowe
Joe Thompson wrote
anyway.
More fool you. That the shell, not the OS.
Nothing like it, actually.
And regardless, multitasking showed up with Win well before MultiFinder anyway.
anyway.
And
MultiFinder was the name of an extension software for the Apple Macintosh, introduced on August 11, 1987 and included with System Software 5. ... With the release of System 7, the MultiFinder extension was integrated with the operating system,
anyway.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.