End of support Windows Playstation
Dominic Willems
Support is ending on July 11.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_98_Me_Support_to_End_in_July/1144782174
or
http://tinyurl.com/ktcdz
Rene Tschaggelar
Thanks for pointing to the great support there
was till now. -:)
Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
A Programmer
<domus.s...@removethispandora.be> wrote:
>Anyone still supporting Win 98, 98SE, Me apps?
The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially Win98SE)
are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
And the best part of it? The best OS Microsoft ever turned out is
still MS-DOS.
Oliver Townshend
> are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
I disagree totally. Win98SE was the worst ever. XP SP2 is excellent.
> And the best part of it? The best OS Microsoft ever turned out is
> still MS-DOS.
Opinions differ.
Oliver Townshend
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> > The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially Win98SE)
> > are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
I have used every version of Windows and can assure you that every 98
variant was far less stable than any CP variant.
> > And the best part of it? The best OS Microsoft ever turned out is
> > still MS-DOS.
MSDOS was a toy operating system.
You must be in a different reality
or smoking some really potent stuff.
Dominic Willems
> The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially Win98SE)
> are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
I thought they were a nightmare. Just the resource handle limitation on
its own was painful.
Not to mention the system-debilitating crashes. Never had that in 2000
or XP.
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> considering these (especially Win98SE)
> are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2)
Not in my experience. 9x/ME were the worst I've ever dealt with. In
contrast, XP has probably been the most stable for me.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Have questions?: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Want answers?: http://support.borland.com
A Programmer
<youdontn...@myemail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:02:04 +0200, "Dominic Willems"
><domus.s...@removethispandora.be> wrote:
>>
>>Not to mention the system-debilitating crashes. Never had that in 2000
>>or XP.
>>
>
>YMMV, I guess. I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with
>XP.
And lest I mention, the XP crashes are always more costly than
anything I've encountered in ME or 98. An XP crash always means lost
data.
A Programmer
<domus.s...@removethispandora.be> wrote:
>
>Not to mention the system-debilitating crashes. Never had that in 2000
>or XP.
>
YMMV, I guess. I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with
XP.
Oliver Townshend
> XP.
If you need help configuring it, we're only to willing to help. Try this
simple checklist:
1) Make sure you have a hard disk, floppies don't cut it any more.
2) You need at least 256 Meg of RAM
3) You need at least a Pentium II. Your 386 is possibly a bit past it.
The good news is, it now runs on a Macintosh. So maybe you can try again if
that 's what you've been using.
Oliver Townshend
![Jonathan Neve[Microtec]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUem5QTZ0lji1cyF1UQQSPHiId9LITt3SLe8e7HF_NHyhl0mA=s40-c)
Jonathan Neve[Microtec]
> > YMMV, I guess. I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with
> > XP.
>
> And lest I mention, the XP crashes are always more costly than
> anything I've encountered in ME or 98. An XP crash always means lost
> data.
Sounds like you might have flakey hardware...
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Neve
_______________
CopyTiger - advanced database replicator for Interbase/Firebird!
Web : http://www.microtec.fr/copycat/ct
_______________________________________
CopyCat - database replication components for Delphi/C++Builder!
Web : http://www.microtec.fr/copycat/cc
Finn Tolderlund
"A Programmer" <youdontn...@myemail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:8brp32teghig1da03...@4ax.com...
> And lest I mention, the XP crashes are always more costly than
> anything I've encountered in ME or 98. An XP crash always means lost
> data.
A crash in XP means you have bad hardware or bad drivers.
--
Finn Tolderlund
Anders Isaksson
> YMMV, I guess. I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with
> XP.
Make sure you install the Service Packs, they are needed.
Turn off Themes, use the Windows Classic setting.
But even so, I find W2000 is better (W2003 Server is probably even
better, but I don't have it).
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
Repa
I had a grand total of 2 (two) crashes using WinXP in the last 4 years or
so. Both of them were faulty hardware related (a videocard and a HDD faliure).
You seem to be the follower of the unfortunately popular philosophy of "if
anything bad happens, lets blame the OS (provided it is Windows)". Aren't
you by any chance a Linux fan?
Captain Jake
news:b8rp32lbnqjo9pd10...@4ax.com...
> YMMV, I guess. I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with
> XP.
Then it is highly probable that something is seriously wrong with your
hardware or drivers.
Ivan Cruz
> Anyone still supporting Win 98, 98SE, Me apps?
Some statistics for your amusement:
Win 95 163 active customers
Win 98 11074 active customers
Win ME 531 active customers
Win 2000 3105 active customers
Win XP 15230 active customers
Win XP-SP2?? 255 active customers
Active customers are mainly small and medium size
business in Brazil.
Ivan.
Ralf Mimoun
>> The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially
>> Win98SE) are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
>
> I disagree totally. Win98SE was the worst ever. XP SP2 is excellent.
I disagree: WinME wins the first prize hands down.
Ralf (using Win2k whenever possible :-)
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> I disagree: WinME wins the first prize hands down.
It was certainly the worst for me. I tried installing it on a couple of
machines, and it took multiple attempts on each for the install to
finally succeed, only to have it crash often on each once it was up and
running (if you can call it that).
Win98 on those machines was a breeze by comparison, and that was bad
enough.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Anyone still supporting Win 98, 98SE, Me apps?
We generally end support for OSs six months after MS does, although
we've never supported ME at all and these days we support only "Pro"
OSs. I've been looking forward to getting rid of 98 for some time.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Want to help make Delphi and InterBase better? Use QC!
http://qc.borland.com -- Vote for important issues
Larry Maturo
corrupted
registry, and I couldn't find anyway to fix it. I thought I would install
ME, and if
the Registry was still bad I would reformat. ME fixed the corrputed
Registry, and
kept me from having to reformat and reinstall. It was also extremely stable
for me.
However, the best Windows was Windows 3. The leap it took from previous
versions was just staggering.
-- Larry Maturo
"Dave Nottage [TeamB]" <rot13....@enqfbsg.pbz.nh> wrote in message
news:443d...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Tom Corey
> The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially Win98SE)
> are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
I think you meant to post this in borland.public.absurd-comedy
Tom Corey
> I had a grand total of 2 (two) crashes using WinXP in the last 4
> years or so. Both of them were faulty hardware related (a videocard
> and a HDD faliure).
I can beat that - I had a video card and a hard drive failure in my XP
box on the *same day*. It was not a good day.
David Farrell-Garcia
> YMMV, I guess. I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with
> XP.
Then you may have a defect or incompatiblity in your system that you
should address. With several hundred clients that I deal with
constantly, we have only a few that have not migrated from Win98 to XP
and viturally all of them have reported far less isssues with XP then
Win98. For sure, intitially there might have been some problems with
specific drivers not yet available for XP but those days are long gone.
David Farrell-Garcia
>
> The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially Win98SE)
> are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion. XP is the most
stable client OS from Microsoft to date.
>
> And the best part of it? The best OS Microsoft ever turned out is
> still MS-DOS.
and by that logic Pong is the best video game ever. :-)
David Farrell-Garcia
> And lest I mention, the XP crashes are always more costly than
> anything I've encountered in ME or 98. An XP crash always means lost
> data.
As a point of reference, I have not had a crash on any XP system for
seveal years.. and most will probably have a similar experience. I
can't count the number of times i have had to repair or reinstall Win98
in the past. Not once have I had to resort to that with XP.... so if
you seem to be the far minority with your XP experience perhaps you
should look at your sysem. It would be to your benefit.
David Farrell-Garcia
> If you need help configuring it, we're only to willing to help. Try
> this simple checklist:
>
> 1) Make sure you have a hard disk, floppies don't cut it any more.
> 2) You need at least 256 Meg of RAM
> 3) You need at least a Pentium II. Your 386 is possibly a bit past
> it.
LOL!
Lord Crc
XP has been rock solid as far as the OS goes. All crashes I've
encountered has been bad hardware (especially memory) or bad drivers
(especially video card drivers).
If you can't run XP on your machine but win98 "works", I would say
with >75% confidence you have faulty hardware. Try running
http://www.memtest.org/ It has helped me uncover the source to some
weird errors in the past.
- Asbjørn
Alisdair Meredith[TeamB]
> I disagree totally. Win98SE was the worst ever. XP SP2 is excellent.
Wierd. 98SE was far and away the best of the DOS-based OSes for me.
I agree I would prefer to use a real 32bit OS given the chances though,
and XP lets me play games as well as do real work <g>
(ME, and the first 98 are probably my least favourites though, which is
why I find it strange you pick on SE. Maybe I was just lucky?)
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
Jolyon Smith
<oliveratzipdotcomdotau> says...
> > The march of progress I guess...considering these (especially Win98SE)
> > are generally more stable than XP anything (especially SP2).
>
XP Raw And Unpatched is great.
The service packs break fundamentals - my Iomega NAS A300u was reduced
to a pile of worthless metal when Microsofts updates and service packs
fundamentally BROKE the Samba client.
What's the use of being able to create a file on a NAS if you can't
subsequently delete it?
DUH!
Not just XP - MS broke W2003 as well. I had to go back to a naked XP
client. Since no-one ever reliably figured out which MS update was at
fault, I had to disable auto-update completely and just hope and pray
that no-one ever exploited any of the security holes that that left
unplugged.
Just to rub salt in the wound, my NAS box recently died. Kaputski. It
is an ex-NAS. It is no more. And the RAID-5 fault tolerance turned out
to be not very tolerant of an electronics failure in one of the drives.
The two surviving disks are moth-balled until I can afford the $000's I
was quoted for data recovery. I replaced the HD's with some new cheap-o
IDE drives, installed Windows 2000 Server and now at least have a file
server again.
So will I be updating my naked XP? Not on your life.
I had forgotten just how F-A-S-T XP was before all those security
updates and service packs got their hooks into it!
:)
--
Jolyon Smith
Sarah
> Thanks for pointing to the great support there
> was till now. -:)
>
LOL
A Programmer
<jol...@softtech.co.newzealand> wrote:
>XP Raw And Unpatched is great.
>I had forgotten just how F-A-S-T XP was before all those security
>updates and service packs got their hooks into it!
Actually this is hitting the nail right on the head for me. I would
have put naked XP and even XP SP1 as a close second to Win98SE.
SP2 just messed so much up. Less stable, less performance (by about
200%!), more annoying than XP already was because of the security
center, and a littany of other issues I have.
A lot of it though in my preferences (MS-DOS) is the control
aspect...even though a crash would take down the whole system, you
could be 100% sure it was the app that was doing it and not the OS.
And you could even track down the error with relative speed and
precision. Not so in Windows 95 or on.
And speaking of control, you knew exactly what was going on under
MS-DOS too. You could control what drivers were loaded, optimize it
to complete efficiency - loading only the drivers you needed and not a
ton of other things. This difference exhibits itself in the 98/ME
recovery disk - where it loads a whole floppy disk full of drivers,
which 95% of them are unnecessary.
From what I can see, XP is even worse. And couple that with the
lessening amount of control the user has over the OS over time, it
just gets worse and worse. Old doesn't necessarily mean "bad". At
least with MS-DOS you knew what you were getting.
Now I don't think anyone knows anything with XP/NT/95/98/ME. I know I
don't. Often times, the "mysterious error that causes the system to
lock-up occasionally" gets no explanation (and there can be no
explanation because of that lack of user control built into the
system). So the only option is to completely reformat and reload the
system. And I can do that in my sleep now, unfortunately.
Bob
> and by that logic Pong is the best video game ever. :-)
ROFL!!
--
JED
> Anyone still supporting Win 98, 98SE, Me apps?
>
> Support is ending on July 11.
>
> http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_98_Me_Support_to_End_in_July/1
> 144782174 or
> http://tinyurl.com/ktcdz
So I should put my WinME CD on ebay before the support ends for it then?
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> and by that logic Pong is the best video game ever. :-)
Still is:
Martin James
" Tom Corey" <omtay....@otmailhay.omcay> wrote in message
news:xn0ekw00r...@newsgroups.borland.com...
or possibly borland.public.trolls-windup
The thought of ever using W98-anyVersion ever again is horrifying,
especially for development, (reboot-reboot-reboot......).
When I first got to use W2k, development/testing became fun again. Even
grossly-misbehaving apps were unable to kill it and the development IDE
could be kept up for weeks. With 98, the half-life of the IDE/OS was often
measured in minutes.
No problems with XP either.
Try using a tabbed-browser on '98 - the GDI/whatever pool runs out after a
few pages have been loaded and the OS falls over, (again).
Wintendo - Yuk!
Rgds,
Martin
Captain Jake
> SP2 just messed so much up. Less stable, less performance (by about
> 200%!),
LOL. Man, something is seriously wrong with your system if you saw a 200%
loss in performance by applying SP2.
> more annoying than XP already was because of the security
> center, and a littany of other issues I have.
>
> A lot of it though in my preferences (MS-DOS) is the control
> aspect...even though a crash would take down the whole system, you
> could be 100% sure it was the app that was doing it and not the OS.
Unless you had MSDOS 4.0 or early releases of 6.x.
> And you could even track down the error with relative speed and
> precision.
Huh? If an app took down the whole system you had no way to know what
happened.
> Now I don't think anyone knows anything with XP/NT/95/98/ME. I know I
> don't. Often times, the "mysterious error that causes the system to
> lock-up occasionally" gets no explanation (and there can be no
> explanation because of that lack of user control built into the
> system).
Did you look in the event log?
> So the only option is to completely reformat and reload the
> system.
No, the answer is to find out why your hardware or drivers are messing up,
which you can easily do by looking in the event log. Reinstalling XP is a
waste of time, as the problem is not with XP.
Jon Robertson
> Wierd. 98SE was far and away the best of the DOS-based OSes for me.
Me too. Well, MS-DOS 6.22 was pretty good. And with GeoWorks Ensemble
available well before Windows 3.1, I never caught onto the Win31 craze.
> (ME, and the first 98 are probably my least favourites though, which
> is why I find it strange you pick on SE. Maybe I was just lucky?)
I hate ME. I've never seen an installation of ME that was stable.
I've fixed several friends computers by "downgrading" their ME to
Win98SE.
Today, I can't stand Win95. On rare occasions, I'll come across a
Win95 install. There's so much new since Win95 that I'm used to, that
I end up growling a lot... :)
--
Jon Robertson
Borland Certified Advanced Delphi 7 Developer
MedEvolve, Inc
http://www.medevolve.com
Jon Robertson
> Try using a tabbed-browser on '98 - the GDI/whatever pool runs out
> after a few pages have been loaded and the OS falls over, (again).
Maybe that's what is wrong with Firefox's tab browsing. I love tab
browsing. But in cases where I need dozens of web pages open at the
same time, using tabs causes my XP SP2 w/ 768 MB machine to become
unusable. But opening the same number of pages in multiple windows
doesn't. Also, tabbed browsing seems to consume more memory (at least,
according to Task Manager).
It's ironic, because tons of windows in IE does the same thing as tabs
in Firefox. At least with Firefox, tons of separate windows doesn't
bring my machine down.
roman modic
"Jon Robertson" <jonrob...@medevolve.dontspamme.com> wrote in message news:443e6f3b$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Martin James wrote:
>
>> Try using a tabbed-browser on '98 - the GDI/whatever pool runs out
>> after a few pages have been loaded and the OS falls over, (again).
>
> Maybe that's what is wrong with Firefox's tab browsing. I love tab
> browsing. But in cases where I need dozens of web pages open at the
> same time, using tabs causes my XP SP2 w/ 768 MB machine to become
> unusable. But opening the same number of pages in multiple windows
> doesn't. Also, tabbed browsing seems to consume more memory (at least,
> according to Task Manager).
>
> It's ironic, because tons of windows in IE does the same thing as tabs
> in Firefox. At least with Firefox, tons of separate windows doesn't
> bring my machine down.
Maxthon works great with Windows 98 SE:
http://www.redherring.com/PrintArticle.aspx?a=16289§or=Industries
Roman
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Maybe that's what is wrong with Firefox's tab browsing. I love tab
> browsing. But in cases where I need dozens of web pages open at the
> same time, using tabs causes my XP SP2 w/ 768 MB machine to become
> unusable. But opening the same number of pages in multiple windows
> doesn't. Also, tabbed browsing seems to consume more memory (at
> least, according to Task Manager).
You can try turning down the page cache:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Everything You Need to Know About InterBase Character Sets:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/articles/403.aspx
Captain Jake
news:443e6f3b$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> browsing. But in cases where I need dozens of web pages open at the
> same time, using tabs causes my XP SP2 w/ 768 MB machine to become
> unusable. But opening the same number of pages in multiple windows
> doesn't. Also, tabbed browsing seems to consume more memory (at least,
> according to Task Manager).
Weird. I don't experience this. I rarely see Netscape 8.0's memory usage go
above about 80MB.
David Farrell-Garcia
> Dominic Willems wrote:
> So I should put my WinME CD on ebay before the support ends for it
> then?
Yep but check first to see how much it is to list it. If it is more
then 45 cents then have exceeded the value of the product. :-)
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> I have system-debilitating crashes all the time with XP.
Sure sounds like you need new hardware.
In around 3 years, I had only one crash with XP.
And that crash was because of BDS 2005.
ram...@bigpond.net.au
> You seem to be the follower of the unfortunately popular philosophy of
> "if anything bad happens, lets blame the OS (provided it is
> Windows)". Aren't you by any chance a Linux fan?
Hey, dont blame us Linux fans !
I am a Linux fan still think that XP is the most stable OS that MS have released.
I suspect that the OP is a renegade CP-M fan !
Jon Robertson
> You can try turning down the page cache:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
Thanks for the link, Craig. Honestly, I don't know much about
Firefox's internals (or Mozilla's).
For clarification, that blog is discussing a new feature in FF 1.5,
which stores the rendered version of recently visited pages so that the
back/forward functionality is faster. This is above and beyond any
disk/memory caching already performed. I did set this to a much lower
number.
However, the dev guys say this is global, not a per-tab. So this
should behave the same whether tabs or multiple windows are used.
I did not, however, realize that FF cached pages in memory. Disk
caching is fine for me. I've turned off memory caching and I'll wait
and see if this solves my problems. (browser.cache.memory.enable false)
Jon Robertson
> Weird. I don't experience this. I rarely see Netscape 8.0's memory
> usage go above about 80MB.
I really think it depends on each user's browsing patterns. What types
of sites they visit (images, javascript, flash etc), how many
windows/tabs are open simultaneously, and what extensions/plugins are
installed.
Jolyon Smith
jonrob...@medevolve.dontspamme.com says...
> Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] wrote:
>
> > Wierd. 98SE was far and away the best of the DOS-based OSes for me.
>
> Me too. Well, MS-DOS 6.22 was pretty good. And with GeoWorks Ensemble
> available well before Windows 3.1, I never caught onto the Win31 craze.
WOW! Another GeoWorks Ensemble user? I thought I was alone in the
world!
Whatever happened to GeoWorks?
:)
--
Jolyon Smith
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> Whatever happened to GeoWorks?
I seem to remember inquiring about the programming SDK and finding out they
wanted me to pay ~$1500. At that time I was not about to cough up that kind
of money just to see if I could write a program for it and *then* see if I
could sell something.
Not long after, for $130, I bought Turbo Pascal for Windows and happily made
money writing my first Windows application.
*That* is what happened to Geoworks.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: http://www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
Working for yourself is great because you get to work half days, and
you can choose any twelve hours you want.
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
> >
> > Whatever happened to GeoWorks?
>
> I seem to remember inquiring about the programming SDK and finding out they
> wanted me to pay ~$1500. At that time I was not about to cough up that kind
> of money just to see if I could write a program for it and *then* see if I
> could sell something.
I seem to recall that at that time $1500 was the going rate for an SDK
(the "going rate" being set by Microsoft, natch). Although it wasn't my
££'s so I don't know how much the MS SDK actually cost (as an Amiga
owner/developer I never lost the instinctive smile that surfaced every
time I considered the idea that using MS own tools, Windows development
was something you did in character mode!)
We were busy using the Gupta-then-Centura-now-Gupta-again toolset which
also carried an eye wateringly hefty price tag - as did just about any
Windows toolset in those days, PLUS requiring a runtime engine, which
cost additional $$$'s per user seat!
We also ended up with TPW, primarily for authoring DLL's to plug into
the back-end of our SQLWindows system, but on the strength of TPW I got
heavily into HiSpeed Pascal (on the Amiga) so when offered the chance to
participate in the Delphi EEP, it was a natural next step. And the
rest, as they say, is history.
:)
I still think the GeoWorks concept of a scalable UI (albeit with only
two notches on the scale: novice vs expert) was a good one.
I honestly don't remember too much more about GeoWorks, other than that
it was pre-emptively multi-tasking, was able to host Windows in a
session that was somehow more stable than running Windows "naked" (as I
typed that a vague memory surfaced that this was because it could only
host Windows in real mode, but I could be wrong on that), and came on
far fewer disks than Windows at the time!
lol
--
Jolyon Smith
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> I seem to recall that at that time $1500 was the going rate for an SDK
> (the "going rate" being set by Microsoft, natch).
AFAIK, MS *never* charged for the SDK per se, it was included in the price
of a development tool (hence why I could program against Windows with TPW
for just $130).
> I honestly don't remember too much more about GeoWorks, other than
> that it was pre-emptively multi-tasking, was able to host Windows in a
> session that was somehow more stable than running Windows "naked" (as
> I typed that a vague memory surfaced that this was because it could
> only host Windows in real mode, but I could be wrong on that), and
> came on far fewer disks than Windows at the time!
Geoworks' claim to fame was that it ran circles around Windows in
performance. It was supposedly written in pure assembler. I wasn't aware it
could host Windows, but that's entirely possible since 16 bit Windows was
really still a shell around DOS.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: http://www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." - John Adams
Jon Robertson
> Geoworks' claim to fame was that it ran circles around Windows in
> performance.
Absolutely. The available apps had more functionality than other
equivalents, too. For example, GeoWrite was an excellent WSIWYG word
processor for it's time.
It all started with GEOS for the Commodore 64. That was excellent and
make the C64 do some business things not possible with PCs or Macs at
the time (Macs were still B/W, IIRC).
> I wasn't aware it could host Windows, but that's entirely possible
> since 16 bit Windows was really still a shell around DOS.
I don't remember that "feature". But I wouldn't have tried. With
GeoWorks installed, I never needed Win31.
Matt Claessen
"Wayne Niddery [TeamB]" <wnid...@chaffaci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:4444ea1c$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
>>
> AFAIK, MS *never* charged for the SDK per se, it was included in the price
> of a development tool (hence why I could program against Windows with TPW
> for just $130).
>
I still have the docs that came with Microsoft C 6.0, including a pricelist
for all add-ons:
$500 for the Windows SDK
$150 for the RTL source
$150 for MASM 5.1
Must have been around 1990. Only later, they bundled the SDK with the C
compiler.
regards, Matt
John Herbster
"Dominic Willems" wrote
> Anyone still supporting Win 98, 98SE, Me apps?
Yes! Win98, Win98SE, Win2K, WinXP, but not WinME.
> Support is ending on July 11.
I guess that means it will be foreverafter stable!
--JohnH
Jolyon Smith
says...
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
> >
> > I seem to recall that at that time $1500 was the going rate for an SDK
> > (the "going rate" being set by Microsoft, natch).
>
> AFAIK, MS *never* charged for the SDK per se, it was included in the price
> of a development tool (hence why I could program against Windows with TPW
> for just $130).
Ah, but you didn't get the Windows SDK with TPW (or SQL Windows or VB or
etc etc) - you got Pascal units sufficient to support Windows
development, but you didn't get the SDK.
That was the big attraction of things like TPW - Windows development
without the need for an SDK license.
> Geoworks' claim to fame was that it ran circles around Windows in
> performance. It was supposedly written in pure assembler. I wasn't aware it
> could host Windows, but that's entirely possible since 16 bit Windows was
> really still a shell around DOS.
Well yes, "hosting Windows" in GeoWorks was just a DOS session, but iirc
you could type WIN from that DOS box and get Windows running in that
session.
GeoWorks was a curio for us - it was never the subject of any
development effort, just something we installed and played with for a
while. I don't even remember how we got hold of it. Perhaps some trade
show freebie or some-such.....
--
Jolyon Smith
Jonathan Neve[Microtec]
Why, you've got a last name to be proud of... :)
(Sorry, completely off-topic!)
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Neve
_______________
CopyTiger - advanced database replicator for Interbase/Firebird!
Web : http://www.microtec.fr/copycat/ct
_______________________________________
CopyCat - database replication components for Delphi/C++Builder!
Web : http://www.microtec.fr/copycat/cc