Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question

The M$ ones know what they're doing .. they just don't have to give a
5h!t if people LIKE what and how they do it .. so they don't

CrazyCam wrote:
> Bob Milutinovic wrote:
>
>> NT was written by DEC programmers.
>
> As in proper programmers that know what they are doing.
>
> regards,
> CrazyCam
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

Bob Milutinovic wrote:

> [1] Windows/NT and OS/2[2] were different beasts altogether - NT was written
> by DEC programmers, OS/2 was written by IBM.

Half truths and inaccuracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2

OS/2 2.0 was the basis for BOTH NT and OS2 3.x (and 4.x etc)

It was co-developed by Microsloth and the big blue elephant.

OS/2 3.0 was in beta when M$ pulled the pin and was a joint exercise up
to the divorce (which is to say the vast majority of the code - the main
change post break up was IBM did further development on the GUI.

NT had many of the same underpinnings as OS2 2.0 - the key difference
was the GUI (a 32 bit version of the Windows 3.1 interface) NT 3.1,
3.51, 4 and Win Server 2000 all retained support for OS/2 binaries; and
a concept that was bought over from VMS in the way that virtualisation
was setup.

What became NT was supposed to be OS2 3.0, instad IBMthen developd 3.0
thmselves (along different lines to MS - more as an extension of 2.0
then a new technology direction).

The DC developers were the ex VMS guys Cutler bought across, and he's
the reason there was both a level of VMSsupport in NT as well as th
development of NT3.51 for the Dec Alpha in 64 bit
>
> [2] Yes, there _was_ a Mickey$oft version of OS/2 2.0, the development of
> which they contributed to, but their marketing arm saw the damage it was
> causing to the Windows market, so dropped it.

Rather inaccurate MS and IBM co wrote OS2 2.0, it was post it's
completion that they split up. The IBM and M$ versions are the same
product. Same as a Toyota Lexcen from the early 90's was still just a
commodore.

They dropped support of OS2 primarly because IBM and M$ had very
different marketing aims - IBM wanted to use it to tie people into
buying their hardware (hey it worked on the mainframe, why wouldn't it
work on these pesky little PCs ?). Unfortunately IBM never really GOT
the PC market. IBM's goals would have rather constrained M$'s ability to
make money - the split had nothing to do with technlogy and everythingto
do with money and power.

The OS/2 saga is a classic example of the importance of understanding
your market and making sure you are strategically aligned with your
partners.

Doesn't matter whether you have the best technology you have to meet
other customer needs as well (and being free to choose your hardware
supplier was too important to PC buyers - the IBM PCs were always too
slow and too dear)

JL
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

Get Tweak Vi and the boot loader editor plugin (it'll ask if you want
it on install)

http://www.totalidea.com/content/tweakvi/tweakvi-index.html

That will allow you to edit the boot.ini without any risk of cocking
it up

Alternatively just open boot.ini and edit the entries directly

Personally I hate vista with a passion but the XP Media Centre PC
software refuses to install on my main PC (the Vista one works and
that's the primary use of that PC). I've turned off as much off the
new gui as I can though - bloody horrible thing

JL


On Sep 4, 8:43 am, Yeebok <h... RemoveThis @there.com> wrote:
> After installing 64bit vista onto a new partition .. and another and
> another and so on .. I am not so keen on the 64bit version. It installs
> fine and all that, then reboots .. and sits there .. so you reinstall it
> to the same partition and it adds itself to the bootlist each time. The
> 'repair' option tells me it boots successfully .. So I have 4 partitions
> one with XP one with V32.. I now have one I've had to format to delete
> the windows install files (that damned security thing got cursed a lot
> yesterday). I had to move 228Gb of files just so I could format the
> partition I was installing to .. (can you say @#$%^*%^$!! ?).
>
> It's to the point where I am now so determined to make the bastard work
> I'm removing all my drives bar the empty one. and am gonna try
> installing with just that in the case. To think it "just worked" for Dad
> whereas he had nothing but trouble with 32bit .. and I've had the
> opposite .. for a "yes/no" device they're pretty temperamental
>
>
>
> Toosmoky wrote:
> > Yeebok wrote:
>
> >> Overall much to my personal chagrin I'm quite liking Vista itself -
> >> the PC I have is grunty enough to absorb any bloatiness for the things
> >> I use it for which includes some pretty serious gaming and modding.
>
> > I'm the local guru at work and I find that the more I use/fix Vista the
> > more I'm determined to hang onto XP. I do have a version of Vista
> > running in a virtual machine for testing but it bluescreens on startup
> > about 25% of the time...- Hide quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

Probably vista's poxy security hiding it

BTW having just re-read your initial note - the hanging on completion
of install with repair telling you there's nothing wrong is a video
driver issue in my experience.

JL

On Sep 4, 10:25 am, Yeebok <h... DeleteThis @there.com> wrote:
> Thanks heaps JL - could not find boot.ini to edit it on any drive .. got
> these $drveltr.$ files tho .. anyway, ta!
>
>
>
> JL wrote:
> > Get Tweak Vi and the boot loader editor plugin (it'll ask if you want
> > it on install)
>
> >http://www.totalidea.com/content/tweakvi/tweakvi-index.html
>
> > That will allow you to edit the boot.ini without any risk of cocking
> > it up
>
> > Alternatively just open boot.ini and edit the entries directly
>
> > Personally I hate vista with a passion but the XP Media Centre PC
> > software refuses to install on my main PC (the Vista one works and
> > that's the primary use of that PC). I've turned off as much off the
> > new gui as I can though - bloody horrible thing
>
> > JL
>
> > On Sep 4, 8:43 am, Yeebok <h... DeleteThis @there.com> wrote:
> >> After installing 64bit vista onto a new partition .. and another and
> >> another and so on .. I am not so keen on the 64bit version. It installs
> >> fine and all that, then reboots .. and sits there .. so you reinstall it
> >> to the same partition and it adds itself to the bootlist each time. The
> >> 'repair' option tells me it boots successfully .. So I have 4 partitions
> >> one with XP one with V32.. I now have one I've had to format to delete
> >> the windows install files (that damned security thing got cursed a lot
> >> yesterday). I had to move 228Gb of files just so I could format the
> >> partition I was installing to .. (can you say @#$%^*%^$!! ?).
>
> >> It's to the point where I am now so determined to make the bastard work
> >> I'm removing all my drives bar the empty one. and am gonna try
> >> installing with just that in the case. To think it "just worked" for Dad
> >> whereas he had nothing but trouble with 32bit .. and I've had the
> >> opposite .. for a "yes/no" device they're pretty temperamental
>
> >> Toosmoky wrote:
> >>> Yeebok wrote:
> >>>> Overall much to my personal chagrin I'm quite liking Vista itself -
> >>>> the PC I have is grunty enough to absorb any bloatiness for the things
> >>>> I use it for which includes some pretty serious gaming and modding.
> >>> I'm the local guru at work and I find that the more I use/fix Vista the
> >>> more I'm determined to hang onto XP. I do have a version of Vista
> >>> running in a virtual machine for testing but it bluescreens on startup
> >>> about 25% of the time...- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

After installing 64bit vista onto a new partition .. and another and
another and so on .. I am not so keen on the 64bit version. It installs
fine and all that, then reboots .. and sits there .. so you reinstall it
to the same partition and it adds itself to the bootlist each time. The
'repair' option tells me it boots successfully .. So I have 4 partitions
one with XP one with V32.. I now have one I've had to format to delete
the windows install files (that damned security thing got cursed a lot
yesterday). I had to move 228Gb of files just so I could format the
partition I was installing to .. (can you say @#$%^*%^$!! ?).

It's to the point where I am now so determined to make the bastard work
I'm removing all my drives bar the empty one. and am gonna try
installing with just that in the case. To think it "just worked" for Dad
whereas he had nothing but trouble with 32bit .. and I've had the
opposite .. for a "yes/no" device they're pretty temperamental


Toosmoky wrote:
> Yeebok wrote:
>
>> Overall much to my personal chagrin I'm quite liking Vista itself -
>> the PC I have is grunty enough to absorb any bloatiness for the things
>> I use it for which includes some pretty serious gaming and modding.
>
> I'm the local guru at work and I find that the more I use/fix Vista the
> more I'm determined to hang onto XP. I do have a version of Vista
> running in a virtual machine for testing but it bluescreens on startup
> about 25% of the time...
>
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

Thanks heaps JL - could not find boot.ini to edit it on any drive .. got
these $drveltr.$ files tho .. anyway, ta!

JL wrote:
> Get Tweak Vi and the boot loader editor plugin (it'll ask if you want
> it on install)
>
> http://www.totalidea.com/content/tweakvi/tweakvi-index.html
>
> That will allow you to edit the boot.ini without any risk of cocking
> it up
>
> Alternatively just open boot.ini and edit the entries directly
>
> Personally I hate vista with a passion but the XP Media Centre PC
> software refuses to install on my main PC (the Vista one works and
> that's the primary use of that PC). I've turned off as much off the
> new gui as I can though - bloody horrible thing
>
> JL
>
>
> On Sep 4, 8:43 am, Yeebok <h... RemoveThis @there.com> wrote:
>> After installing 64bit vista onto a new partition .. and another and
>> another and so on .. I am not so keen on the 64bit version. It installs
>> fine and all that, then reboots .. and sits there .. so you reinstall it
>> to the same partition and it adds itself to the bootlist each time. The
>> 'repair' option tells me it boots successfully .. So I have 4 partitions
>> one with XP one with V32.. I now have one I've had to format to delete
>> the windows install files (that damned security thing got cursed a lot
>> yesterday). I had to move 228Gb of files just so I could format the
>> partition I was installing to .. (can you say @#$%^*%^$!! ?).
>>
>> It's to the point where I am now so determined to make the bastard work
>> I'm removing all my drives bar the empty one. and am gonna try
>> installing with just that in the case. To think it "just worked" for Dad
>> whereas he had nothing but trouble with 32bit .. and I've had the
>> opposite .. for a "yes/no" device they're pretty temperamental
>>
>>
>>
>> Toosmoky wrote:
>>> Yeebok wrote:
>>>> Overall much to my personal chagrin I'm quite liking Vista itself -
>>>> the PC I have is grunty enough to absorb any bloatiness for the things
>>>> I use it for which includes some pretty serious gaming and modding.
>>> I'm the local guru at work and I find that the more I use/fix Vista the
>>> more I'm determined to hang onto XP. I do have a version of Vista
>>> running in a virtual machine for testing but it bluescreens on startup
>>> about 25% of the time...- Hide quoted text -
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

JL wrote:

> Probably vista's poxy security hiding it

Vista doesn't use boot.ini. To edit your bootloader you'll need EasyBCD.

http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1

--
Toosmoky
Work to ride, Ride to Work...
http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

"JL" <jl RemoveThis @not-here.com.au> wrote in message
news:46d8d643$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Bob Milutinovic wrote:
>
>> [1] Windows/NT and OS/2[2] were different beasts altogether - NT was
>> written by DEC programmers, OS/2 was written by IBM.
>
> Half truths and inaccuracies.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
>
> OS/2 2.0 was the basis for BOTH NT and OS2 3.x (and 4.x etc)
>
> It was co-developed by Microsloth and the big blue elephant.

Indeed, my mistake; it was actually 3.0 where the split took place.

I've actually got laying around here somewhere a still-sealed copy of OS/2
1.0; I wonder if I'd get anything for it on eBay?

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom - "Australia's Web Presence Specialists"
http://www.cognicom.net.au/
telephone (0417) 45-77-66
facsimile (02) 9824-2240
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:56:31 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
<cognicom.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>"JL" <jl.RemoveThis@not-here.com.au> wrote in message
>news:46d8d643$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Bob Milutinovic wrote:
>>
>>> [1] Windows/NT and OS/2[2] were different beasts altogether - NT was
>>> written by DEC programmers, OS/2 was written by IBM.
>>
>> Half truths and inaccuracies.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
>>
>> OS/2 2.0 was the basis for BOTH NT and OS2 3.x (and 4.x etc)
>>
>> It was co-developed by Microsloth and the big blue elephant.
>
>Indeed, my mistake; it was actually 3.0 where the split took place.
>
>I've actually got laying around here somewhere a still-sealed copy of OS/2
>1.0; I wonder if I'd get anything for it on eBay?

Threefiddyanakickinthanutz ?

Bill_h
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

Toosmoky wrote:

> JL wrote:
>
>> Probably vista's poxy security hiding it
>
> Vista doesn't use boot.ini. To edit your bootloader you'll need EasyBCD.
>
> http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1

EasyBCD 1.7 just released...

--
Toosmoky
Work to ride, Ride to Work...
http://users.tpg.com.au/smokey61
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question 

On Sep 7, 8:56 am, Toosmoky <toosm... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Toosmoky wrote:
> > JL wrote:
>
> >> Probably vista's poxy security hiding it
>
> > Vista doesn't use boot.ini. To edit your bootloader you'll need EasyBCD.
>
> >http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=1
>
> EasyBCD 1.7 just released...

Well there ya go - can't say I'd looked - sorry about that. And yeah,
EasyBCD is the one that Tweak Vi downloads

JL
 >> Stay informed about: Insurance / Shannon's / Firefox / Question