Re: Windows

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 11, 2009.

  1. On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <>
    wrote in <news:4a583a53$>:

    > 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
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <>
    > wrote in <news:4a583a53$>:
    >
    >> 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.
     
    Gordon, Jul 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Peter Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <> 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
     
    Peter, Jul 12, 2009
    #3
  4. On 12 Jul 2009 04:51:44 GMT, Gordon <> wrote in
    <news:>:

    > On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <>
    >> wrote in <news:4a583a53$>:
    >>
    >>> 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
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jul 12, 2009
    #4
  5. Nicolaas Hawkins

    Ralph Fox Guest

    On 12 Jul 2009 04:51:44 GMT, in message <>
    Gordon <> wrote:

    > On 2009-07-11, Nicolaas Hawkins <> wrote:
    > > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +1200, Collector€NZ <>
    > > wrote in <news:4a583a53$>:
    > >
    > >> 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.
     
    Ralph Fox, Jul 12, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?=

    Windows XP laptop and Windows 2000 desktop won't communicate

    =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?=, Aug 19, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    891
    =?Utf-8?B?UmlmbGVtYW4=?=
    Aug 19, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?ZHVtbWthdWY=?=

    wireless ad-hoc with Windows XP and Windows 2000

    =?Utf-8?B?ZHVtbWthdWY=?=, Sep 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    938
    Joe Dow
    Sep 23, 2004
  3. Armstrong Wong

    Windows XP Home Connected to Windows XP Pro via TCP/IP

    Armstrong Wong, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    784
    Steve Winograd [MVP]
    Nov 25, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?R3JlZw==?=

    Network Windows ME and Windows 2000

    =?Utf-8?B?R3JlZw==?=, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    735
  5. Max Burke
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,999
    E. Scrooge
    May 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page