> On Jul 31, 2024, at 4:50 PM, Tony Jones via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:41 PM Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>> this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:41 PM Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
>
> > this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a
> third xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to
>
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
> this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a
> third xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to
> transition gradually to a different UI, but unless
> one of them could be like the win 3.1 UI, n
this is linux, right? so I could have one be kde, one gnome and maybe a third
xfce? might try playing with it someday, or good if I want to transition
gradually to a different UI, but unless
one of them could be like the win 3.1 UI, not being unable to join them
together and drag individual a
On 2024-07-31 18:41, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
I have multiple desktops, but they are all the same UI. my "wish" was
to have different UIs on different desktops, a big order, I realize, it
requires some underlying shared tool kit and being friendly with each
other.
If you press CONTROL+
Sorry, should have specified...I don't use winblows that much, I would Like
those features on Linux.
think i installed something old on some operating system and it blew up when I
exceed some max for the old system. long filenames, or special characters in
filenames, or something. maybe that
> -Original Message-
> From: CAREY SCHUG via cctalk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 3:15 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Cc: CAREY SCHUG
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS am I the only person who liked the win 3.1 UI?
>
> Am i the ONLY person who preferred the
Windows 2000 certainly had all the same support for fast graphics graphics
as Windows XP. Plenty of gamers actually preferred Win2k over XP because it
was lighter weight and could deliver better frame rates under some
circumstances.
Mike
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024, 10:06 AM cz via cctalk wrote:
> Win
I don't recall anything I liked about 3.1, but certainly all those
gesture-based actions that came later are a plague.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 3:15 PM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Am i the ONLY person who preferred the win 3.1 user interface? Probably,
> since I have
We were given an expensive device (X-ray fluorescence
analyzer) that had a dying computer. The instrument had an
ISA bus card to interface to it. I cloned the hard drive,
and tried to get it to boot properly on a new "industrial"
computer that had ISA slots. The original OS was DOS 3.1
That
Am i the ONLY person who preferred the win 3.1 user interface? Probably, since
I have never seen one like it on linux, and everybody else complains about it.
1. I don't like "active anything" that pops up when I move the mouse one pixel
further than I intended, or hides itself just as I am clic
Windows NT and 2000 did not have the "cut through" ability for apps to
talk to video without going through security proxies, thus games were
always terrible on them.
Windows XP was the first OS (well aside from Windows 95/ME/whatever)
that allowed fast access. This made it a security sinkhole,
On 7/31/2024 7:25 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct.
Windows NT 3.1 utilized the Windows 3.1 UI look and feel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1
Windows NT 3.5 continu
On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 06:14, Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
>
> In the interest of facts, I don't think this is correct.
>
> Windows NT 3.1 utilized the Windows 3.1 UI look and feel
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_3.1
>
> Windows NT 3.5 continued the 3.1 look and feel.
>
> https://en.wi
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 23:10, Ali via cctalk wrote:
>
> Unfortunately FreeDOS (as expected given the nature of the project)
> progresses very slowly.
Fair.
There are quarterly updates but they keep very quiet about them.
https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/tes
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 17:28, The Doctor via cctalk
wrote:
>
> But, can you integrate the Pico into the Mac Plus chassis and peripherals in
> the same way?
> Replica and cloned boards are probably going to be more important as time
> goes by.
It's a fair point. That would be a lot more work bu
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Brain via cctalk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 6:14 AM
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Cc: Jim Brain
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
>
> On 7/30/2024 6:58 AM, cz via cctalk wrote:
> > But Windows 2000 was a re-architected version of NT that people hated
>
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 6:26 AM Tony Jones via cctalk
wrote:
>
> I forget at which NT release you could do advanced things like changing the
> IP address without needing to reboot :-).
>
I've been playing with some HP 16700 logic analysers recently - HPUX 10
from the late 90s. Setting the date a
On 7/30/24 17:09, Ali via cctalk wrote:
Tuxera Systems acquired Datalight in 2019 and now sells ROM-DOS. They
claim it's still fully compatible with MS-DOS.
Single User ROM-DOS costs $55 USD, and the SDK for building it embedded
is "Call for a Quote".
$55 isn't that bad. If it was a real comm
19 matches
Mail list logo
