After all these years of preaching that IE is evil, perhaps some people are finally beginning to see the truth (Now that it is biting them on the butt).
And since this is the almighty Homeland Security, this means that all government agencies should now panic and try to uninstall IE from all of their computers. (Oops, where is that elusive uninstall option? No, not that one, all it does is delete the icon.)
I guess that also means that anybody who has a site that only works in IE is a terrorist!:)
Since we are mostly the topic of Wine, on the WineHQ screen shots page http://www.winehq.com/site?ss=1 they have an old link to my site ("Nathan Lineback's Wine Screen Shots") If they want to keep linking to it, It needs to be updated to point to http://toastytech.com/guis/wine.html The current link points to my very old pla-netx address that stopped redirecting to my new site recently.
I had tried e-mailing some contacts listed on the site, but there has been no responce. Who should I contact? Thanks.
Well, I AM using Windows 95! And I enjoy it! Windows 95 OSR2 on an Athlon 950mhz to be specific. It does things that even Windows XP can't do. Like bringing up dialog boxes instantly rather than taking years. And no IE in my face (no trace of IE installed at all, just the latest mozilla!)
Of course there is a good chance whatever sound card they were testing if it was new wouldn't even have Windows 95 drivers but then again there are plenty of older pieces of hardware that don't work in XP.
I think anybody serious in developing a UI should study Windows 95 and ignore later version, as they appear to have been designed by management, not UI developers. (They should also study earlier MacOS as well).
And anybody who says that Windows 95 doesn't support USB needs to tell that to my USB scanner that works fine.
Yes, many these were taken from my site http://toastytech.com/guis/
Some of them look like they were taken from elsewhere. You can even see my name in the NT 3.51 user manager screen shot. I can't get to all of their site right now since it is mostly slashdotted. I normally don't mind if people use my images or graphics, but I generally ask that they provide reference or a link back to my site.
On occasions I have had to explain to people which versions of Windows really run on top of MS-DOS. It is somewhat confusing because MS changed all the names around. Here is a list that might be of interest here.
The following versions of Windows run on top of MS-DOS:
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 95 (Bundled MS-DOS 7.00 that is no longer sold as seperate product)
Windows 95 OSR2 (Bundled MS-DOS 7.10)
Windows 98 and 98SE (Bundled MS-DOS 7.10)
Windows ME (Bundled MS-DOS 8.00, but exiting to MS-DOS is now forbidden)
The following versions of Windows do not run on top of MS-DOS:
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5x
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Well, the judge already declared in the FoF that browsers are separate from operating systems, so I would imagine that if this breakup went through IE could no longer be an "integrated" part of Windows (yay!). I don't imagine that there would be any problem though if the OS division licensed IE from the app division for distribution with Windows as long as it is included as an optional, add / removable component like Hyper Terminal or WordPad - this is really how it should have been from day one in my opinion. This would be a great benefit to consumers as they would for once have a true choice as to which browser(s) are or are not installed on their computers.
Slashdot Mirror
After all these years of preaching that IE is evil, perhaps some people are finally beginning to see the truth (Now that it is biting them on the butt).
:)
And since this is the almighty Homeland Security, this means that all government agencies should now panic and try to uninstall IE from all of their computers. (Oops, where is that elusive uninstall option? No, not that one, all it does is delete the icon.)
I guess that also means that anybody who has a site that only works in IE is a terrorist!
Since we are mostly the topic of Wine, on the WineHQ screen shots page http://www.winehq.com/site?ss=1 they have an old link to my site ("Nathan Lineback's Wine Screen Shots") If they want to keep linking to it, It needs to be updated to point to http://toastytech.com/guis/wine.html The current link points to my very old pla-netx address that stopped redirecting to my new site recently.
I had tried e-mailing some contacts listed on the site, but there has been no responce. Who should I contact? Thanks.
I knew I should have kept my copy of Windows 95!
Well, I AM using Windows 95! And I enjoy it! Windows 95 OSR2 on an Athlon 950mhz to be specific. It does things that even Windows XP can't do. Like bringing up dialog boxes instantly rather than taking years. And no IE in my face (no trace of IE installed at all, just the latest mozilla!)
Of course there is a good chance whatever sound card they were testing if it was new wouldn't even have Windows 95 drivers but then again there are plenty of older pieces of hardware that don't work in XP.
I think anybody serious in developing a UI should study Windows 95 and ignore later version, as they appear to have been designed by management, not UI developers. (They should also study earlier MacOS as well).
And anybody who says that Windows 95 doesn't support USB needs to tell that to my USB scanner that works fine.
Yikes! And there are even older versions of that page on file check out the logo on this one: http://web.archive.org/web/19980502040303/http://g oogle.stanford.edu/
Yes, many these were taken from my site http://toastytech.com/guis/ Some of them look like they were taken from elsewhere. You can even see my name in the NT 3.51 user manager screen shot. I can't get to all of their site right now since it is mostly slashdotted. I normally don't mind if people use my images or graphics, but I generally ask that they provide reference or a link back to my site.
PC Hardware support was very limited, however, and was probably one of the many reasons they decided to drop it.
More inbformation and screen shots of Rhapsody running on an Intel PC here: http://toastytech.com/guis/rhap.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-206304.html?legacy=c net
Of course 98Lite user know removing IE is possible and makes Windows 98 much faster, and have been doing it for a long time.
On occasions I have had to explain to people which versions of Windows really run on top of MS-DOS. It is somewhat confusing because MS changed all the names around. Here is a list that might be of interest here.
The following versions of Windows run on top of MS-DOS:
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 95 (Bundled MS-DOS 7.00 that is no longer sold as seperate product)
Windows 95 OSR2 (Bundled MS-DOS 7.10)
Windows 98 and 98SE (Bundled MS-DOS 7.10)
Windows ME (Bundled MS-DOS 8.00, but exiting to MS-DOS is now forbidden)
The following versions of Windows do not run on top of MS-DOS:
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5x
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
For anyone who hasn't seen programs running under Wine, I have some screenshots here: http://pla-netx.com/linebackn/guis/wine.html
Well, the judge already declared in the FoF that browsers are separate from operating systems, so I would imagine that if this breakup went through IE could no longer be an "integrated" part of Windows (yay!). I don't imagine that there would be any problem though if the OS division licensed IE from the app division for distribution with Windows as long as it is included as an optional, add / removable component like Hyper Terminal or WordPad - this is really how it should have been from day one in my opinion. This would be a great benefit to consumers as they would for once have a true choice as to which browser(s) are or are not installed on their computers.