Subject: Re: Ripe Apples
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id k207mr3513512qke.12.1510205438681;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:30:38 -0800 (PST)
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Ripe Apples
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:29:33 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Received-Bytes: 2635
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2579690279
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 6:54 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2017-11-06 19:44, Davoud wrote:
>> Tony Cooper:
>>> The newspaper in a small town near here has these two Macs on
>>> display in the lobby.  The desktop unit looks like it could be used
>>> by the "Jetsons". 
>> Yeah, Mac users love their vintage machines. I have an SE/30 from
>> 1989. It was doing pro-level WYSIWYG DTP while DOS users were staring
>> at the C:/ prompt and trying to configure autoexec.bat.
> Funny - in 1989 I was using PC's for real time recording of flight data 
> from several sensors, displaying the current data and computing various 
> derivative products.  Also used PC's to host signal processors to 
> synthesize complex waveforms to test various systems.  The PC had to 
> coordinate all this at 25 frames per second across several processors. 
> (The PC would compute the "terms" of the next frame and interrupt the 
> SP's at the right time and pass the data to them to do the heavy lifting).
> I was a very early Windows user at 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.  It started to be 
> "right" when 3.1 came out.  Far from perfect, but hosted a decent (and 
> an atrocious) WYSIWYG word processor.  (Sometimes "What You So Intensely 
> Wished You'd Gotten in the 2nd case).  Spreadsheets like 1-2-3 under Win 
> 3.1 were fine.

Yes they were. And then they came out with Symphony, that was intended 
to combine spreadsheets, word processing and a database. They worked 
fine for simple applications, but once you got into complex uses it did 
none of them well.

> Nothing wrong with DOS, IMO.  (Win 1 thru 3 were "DOS" products IMO).