Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Windows

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Windows

 
 
Nicolaas Hawkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-11-2009
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <news:4a583a53$(E-Mail Removed)>:

> Cant resist this I suspect it is not exactly original
>
> Windows: A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit
> patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
> microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand
> one bit of competition.


Definitely not original. I first heard it about the time Windows 3.1 came
on the market.

--
- Nicolaas
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2009
On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote in <news:4a583a53$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>> Cant resist this I suspect it is not exactly original
>>
>> Windows: A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit
>> patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
>> microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand
>> one bit of competition.

>
> Definitely not original. I first heard it about the time Windows 3.1 came
> on the market.
>

And yet Ms Windows 3.1 was only 16 bit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2009
Gordon wrote:
> On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Definitely not original. I first heard it about the time Windows 3.1
>> came on the market.

> And yet Ms Windows 3.1 was only 16 bit.


Yes, it is cited as a definition of Windows 95 ...
http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/win2bit.html



 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicolaas Hawkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2009
On 12 Jul 2009 04:51:44 GMT, Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<news:(E-Mail Removed)>:

> On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote in <news:4a583a53$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>> Cant resist this I suspect it is not exactly original
>>>
>>> Windows: A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit
>>> patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
>>> microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand
>>> one bit of competition.

>>
>> Definitely not original. I first heard it about the time Windows 3.1 came
>> on the market.
>>

> And yet Ms Windows 3.1 was only 16 bit.


Well, I DID say "about" the time. A year or few is neither here nor there
in this context.

--
- Nicolaas
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ralph Fox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-12-2009
On 12 Jul 2009 04:51:44 GMT, in message <(E-Mail Removed)>
Gordon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, CollectorNZ <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote in <news:4a583a53$(E-Mail Removed)>:
> >
> >> Cant resist this I suspect it is not exactly original
> >>
> >> Windows: A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit
> >> patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
> >> microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand
> >> one bit of competition.

> >
> > Definitely not original. I first heard it about the time Windows 3.1 came
> > on the market.
> >

> And yet Ms Windows 3.1 was only 16 bit.



Windows 3.1 had an option to use 32-bit disk access -- selected in its
"386 Enhanced" Control Panel.

Windows for Workgroups 3.11 also included 32-bit file access and full 32-bit
network redirectors.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
!Windows Live Mail replace Outlook Express on Windows XP and Windows Mail on Vista... Max Burke NZ Computing 8 05-18-2007 12:10 AM
Windows XP Home Connected to Windows XP Pro via TCP/IP Armstrong Wong Wireless Networking 1 11-25-2004 01:12 PM
wireless ad-hoc with Windows XP and Windows 2000 =?Utf-8?B?ZHVtbWthdWY=?= Wireless Networking 1 09-23-2004 11:34 AM
Windows XP laptop and Windows 2000 desktop won't communicate =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?= Wireless Networking 0 08-19-2004 03:35 AM



Advertisments