Re: No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sends it to Chinese server

[John Varela]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:51:37 UTC, SilverSlimer <sil...@slim.er>
wrote:

> On 2018-11-06 11:34 a.m., nospam wrote:
> > In article <nckED.1299847$4S3.1...@fx47.iad>, SilverSlimer
> > <sil...@slim.er> wrote:
> >
> >>>> My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
> >>>> hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
> >>>> comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
> >>>> marketplace failure.
> >>>
> >>> OS/2 ⤲ half an operating system?
> >>
> >> Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would
> >> work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate
> >> the computer space.
> >>
> >> Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a
> >> space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more
> >> for a lot less money.
> >
> > no they couldn't. those were toys.
>
> 1) Could you write essays and do spreadsheets on the Amiga or the Atari ST?
> 2) Could you edit graphics and make banners?
> 3) Could you play games in addition to doing useful work?
>
> They might have served as a console to many people, but both computers
> could still be as useful as a PS/2 was.
>
> > what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often
> > illegally.
>
> Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off. The reverse
> engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot
> more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an
> answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the PS/2 if
> not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you
> can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more
> than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting product.
> For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to
> sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why
> would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows
> 3.1?

The reason I switched from DOS to OS/2 was that I needed access to
both a TCP/IP LAN and to Netware. I could do that with DOS by
swapping config.syses and autoexec.bats and rebooting but that was a
pain. OS/2 as early as v. 1 or 2 (I forget which) could run both
protocols simultaneously. I put OS/2 on my home computer(s) and
stayed with it until 2006, when I got an iMac. I am running OS/2
right now in a VM, because ProNews/2 is still my favorite news
reader.

--
John Varela

[SilverSlimer]

I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time
since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough
to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive
to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little
reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was
also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would
have been better off had it won the race over Windows either.


--
SilverSlimer
Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights
Minds: @silverslimer

[Leonard Blaisdell]

In article <HbKED.641702$cL2.2...@fx43.iad>, SilverSlimer

<sil...@slim.er> wrote:

> I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time
> since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough
> to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive
> to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little
> reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was
> also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would
> have been better off had it won the race over Windows either.

I'm truly enjoying this afc flashback thread. The subject is a little
more modern and crossposted, but that's OK.

leo

[Dave Yeo]

SilverSlimer wrote:
> I never had the chance to use OS/2 for any significant length of time
> since my hardware - when OS/2 was still competing - wasn't good enough
> to run it and because the system itself seemed fairly counterintuitive
> to me. Add the fact that software was scarce and there truly was little
> reason to use it, IMO. My experience with IBM itself, at the time, was
> also fairly negative so I'm not convinced that the PC platform would
> have been better off had it won the race over Windows either.

I used it with substandard hardware (386 with 4MBs) by stripping it
down. No WPS was the big thing. Originally I used it as a DOS
replacement and it worked very well. Wanted to download stuff from a BBS
while doing other stuff, OS/2 just worked. Wanted to run 2+ Win3.1
programs without one crashing and taking the other down, OS/2 allowed
that, while downloading from a BBS.
Generally OS/2 was a better DOS and Windows. Used a better file system
with better caching, making it faster much of the time. Want to run and
multi-task multiple Win (and/or DOS) programs, OS/2 did it well.
Eventually I got more ram and a faster processor (33Mhz 486 DLC that
plugged into my 386 board) and started using the WPS and native programs
and never looked back.
Typing this on OS/2 running on real hardware.
Dave

[SilverSlimer]

If I remember correctly, I only really used it on a 386DX-33 with 4MB of
RAM and I was underwhelmed but I definitely didn't strip it down to make
it more usable. I was also in my mid-teens at the time and I wasn't
concerned with the computer being useful as much as I was with it doing
nifty things. It's too bad it didn't become more popular than it did but
IBM can only really blame itself.

However, OS/2 is still technically being developed as far as I know.
Dunno if eComstation is still the only company providing OS/2 support
though. Apparently, someone else is producing an OS/2-based system.


--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer

[SilverSlimer]

On 2018-11-08 5:58 p.m., Dave Yeo wrote:

I was right: <https://www.arcanoae.com/arcaos/>


--
SilverSlimer
Minds: @silverslimer