They are starting: patent wars on Linux

>Windows 3.0 was the first with an actual API. People could start writing 'Windows' programs now.

No, that's not true. People could write Windows programs from the very start, although the original Windows API amounted to little more than a toolkit to let Mac apps be ported to PCs more easily.

Windows 3.0 was the first commercially significant Windows because it could support virtual memory and could multitask DOS programs by exploiting the 386 to a greater degree than Windows/386 did.

It was funny..DOS multitasking was actually better than Windows multitasking because Windows apps multitasked on a cooperative basis whereas DOS apps were sliced by the OS.

dino,

Thanks for the clarification!

jacog,

How could I have forgotten about Reversi!

I bought a copy of Microsoft Game Pack for Win3.1, with BattleZone, Centipede, and a couple of other things.

Silly, I still have it installed on my Wife's machine here. Far better games than come in Windows, and the single 1.4M floppy disk is still readable.

Bob -

I'm often amazed when I go back and look at some of the old games. Less emphasis on amazing graphics, more emphasis on fun. And, of course, they don't need a Cray to run.

> And, of course, they don't need a Cray to run.

Hahaha, nor does Microsoft go back and revisit.

When one won Solitare on Windows 3.1, one was given the reward of seeing the cards hop down and bounce, one by one. Bounce, bounce, bounce, and off.

But that routine was not timed by a clock in the software. It was left to take as much time as it took to draw the graphics of the card moving, which on a 386-33 was a nice, smooth bouncing. On a Pentium 100, it went by quite a bit (imagine, maybe 3 times as fast?) quicker. Now, on gigahertz machines, one cannot see the individual cards, and the "prize" is over seemingly before it's even begun.

Yet, BattleZone and the other Game Pack games still work at exactly the same speed they did in 1991 (even if they do take up only a small portion of the screen).

Obviously, those games were not actually written by Microsoft.

>Obviously, those games were not actually written by Microsoft.

Cold. Plus, you ignore the possibility of being written by Microsoft developers who were later fired for unacceptable competence.

Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore.

>Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore.

You predicting a win by the Greens? Or are you forgetting that Bill Gates is a well-connected Democrat?

> Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore.

Considering the causes that have carefully been fundedto play the political by BG&Co after being reminded to play the political game by the last prosecution, I wouldn't put much confidence in a change in party.

Smart money backs both sides in a race.

>Smart money backs both sides in a race.

Yeah. I think winning is primarily a race to be the ones getting 60 instead of 40.

Prediction: After the next election, it'll be way, way harder for MS to pull this kind of crap anymore.

I don't live in the US and even I know that's unlikely. There is no difference worth talking about between either party. You vote for personalities not policies. It's the same over here in the UK. Sure there are minor differences but essentially, on all policies that matter, you'd have a hard time getting a cigarette paper between them.

> you'd have a hard time getting a cigarette paper between them.

Which is why it's so hard to get an impeachment.

>Which is why it's so hard to get an impeachment.

OTOH, if they are using those cigarette papers, it might explain some of the legislation we get...

Quoting:Windows 1.0: HYPERLINK@www.youtube.com

Hehehe. I actually have Windows 1.21 here, complete with dead-tree manual. It's two 5.25" SS SD floppies.

I have a working XT stashed in the basement with DOS 3.01 and Windows 1.03 as I recall. haha

Hehe. Mine came with an XT and DOS 3 as well. One of those big Tulip-brand boxes. Dos came with a dead-tree manual as well, with 50% of it dedicated to GW-Basic. That's how I taught myself how to program. The XT lasted for ages. The PC after that was a Pentium 100 Mhz running Win95. I've never, ever used Win 3.x. I just skipped that part of history :-)

Quoting:It was funny..DOS multitasking was actually better than Windows multitasking because Windows apps multitasked on a cooperative basis whereas DOS apps were sliced by the OS.

What brand/version of DOS was that? Neither MS-DOS nor PC-DOS had multitasking built-in. The only way to get close to multitasking was by adding QEMU (if I recall correctly) or some such.

I make this point all the time...

The heritage of Unix and Unix like operating systems is a system designed for multiple users running multiple programs interfacing with multiple terminals and ouputting to multiple peripherals.

The heritage of MS Windows is DOS; an OS designed for one user with one monitor and one keyboard running one program connected to one printer.

Is it any wonder the former is better than the latter?

> What brand/version of DOS was that? Neither MS-DOS nor PC-DOS had multitasking built-in.

He meant DOS multi-tasking under Windows.

>He meant DOS multi-tasking under Windows.

Yes. Windows 3.0 was able to pre-emptively multi-task DOS apps. DOS itself knew nothing about what was going on.

Quoting:Yes. Windows 3.0 was able to pre-emptively multi-task DOS apps. DOS itself knew nothing about what was going on.

That makes sense.