Re: Leopard delayed

On Mar 27, 12:14 am, StormDrain <Libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1174879748.000171.243...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,



"Jesus" <rustybucket...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 25, 10:50 pm, StormDrain <Libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1174837202.992390.7...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

"Jesus" <rustybucket...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 25, 8:26 am, notinu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Hayes) wrote:
StormDrain <Libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <P8iNh.13417$_a1.4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dr. zara" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"StormDrain" <Libe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Liberty-D46C82.14535224032007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <pZfNh.13405$_a1.11...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dr. zara" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Chu-En Ginsberg" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:UuSdnfjqxrYF_pjbRVnyiwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dr. zara wrote:
"Lefty Bigfoot" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C22A81FE02001331F0203648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:12:32 -0500, Dr. zara wrote
(in article <4hYMh.13156$_a1.1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

I guess Gates really does own apple.
When it's five years late, then we'll talk.

Where is OSXI anyway? More than late with nothing in sight.

Please show where Apple have announced OSXI - you can't! It
only
exists
in your imagination.

The point is they haven't, and won't. All you're going to get
are
more
"dot" upgrades, at $129 a pop, for your nine year old OS.

Talk about stupidity - maccies have an abundance.

You get a new nickname for windows, Vista, and think it's
something
new?? How old is windows now, close to 20?

Naw, Windows intrduced 1993. VISTA 2007.

Windows 3.0 or 3.1 in 93.

3.1 came out in 1991. It was Windows 3.11 and/or Windows for Workgroups
in 1993.

Who cares about either of those? Those and the entire Windows 9x line
were just shitty DOS shells. 1993's significant because that's when
Windows NT came out.

Ah yes NT, DOS coupled with their hatchet job on VMS. Sad day in
computing when that monstrosity was released. They are still trying to
fix it. I thought 3.1 was the best of the whole bunch and should have
been the end of it.

--
SD

"Such warnings, however, have to contend with the Mac
OS X's impressive lack of major security incidents."
-That's the bottom line.

NT? DOS? What are you talking about? NT's kernel is in no way
related to DOS (which is why it is the current branch of Windows being
developed instead of 9x). NT's what was supposed to be OS/2 3.

Doesn't matter what NT was _supposed_ to be. What is was, and what ms
is still trying to fix, is a hacked together version of VMS with some
very strong DOS underpinnings (meaning any program that wanted to bypass
the OS and access hardware, the file system etc directly was able to).
All this helped along by ms "technologies" like Active X, raw open
sockets at the user level and a multitude of other os design blunders,
hence the security nightmare it became.

--
SD

"Such warnings, however, have to contend with the Mac
OS X's impressive lack of major security incidents."
-That's the bottom line.

Programs most certainly cannot bypass the OS and directly access
hardware in NT. That's the whole point of the HAL and the whole
reason Microsoft had such trouble phasing out the 9x line, as many 9x
programs expected direct access to the hardware and NT prohibited such
access. Also, while it may have been influenced by VMS, NT was
written as a standalone product based on the old OS/2 code. DOS
doesn't factor in there at all.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wozu noch DOS?
    ... Hardware, von denen einer unter DOS und der andere unter Linux läuft. ... Betriebssystem dazugehören? ... oder dessen Bios in kontackt treten. ... DOS, OS2, Linux oder Windows ...
    (de.comp.os.msdos)
  • Re: Hardware ansprechen
    ... Bei den ersten Rechnern war das Betriebssystem verdratet in der Hardware ... DOS system. ... Wenn du aus MSdos + Windows 3.1 ein einziges programm ...
    (microsoft.public.de.vc)
  • Re: which way is faster?
    ... So what you ask me here would be a tiny OS on top of DOS. ... alternatives to unless using hardware acceleration. ... PUSH ebx ... MOV edx,01000;scan line size ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Gekauftes Eagle - Cracken erlaubt?
    ... Kann man DOS noch dazu nutzen, ... Hardware vernünftig zu betreiben: Nein. ... Kostet weniger als 100 Euro. ... >Solange die Software gemäss der Beschaffungskriterien ...
    (de.sci.electronics)
  • Re: Wozu noch DOS?
    ... Die ganze Hardware auch nicht. ... Die Hardware initialisiert sich mit ihrem BIOS selbst. ... Wenn jetzt aber von DOS nicht jede Hardware über ihr BIOS angesprochen wird, ... Klar wenn ich mit meiner sich selber bootenden Software, ...
    (de.comp.os.msdos)