Eisboch wrote in message ...
Gene Kearns wrote:


1200 baud, indeed. I was one of the poor kids on the block using the
300 baud acoustical modem.

Honey, don't pick up the phone, ok??? Oh, sh*t.... not again....


I had 1200 baud capability because I sprung for the latest and greatest
CPU - a brand new shiny I-286 running Geoworks. (The original "windows"
based software, before Microsoft came along)

Eisboch

I ran Autocad on a 286 with Geoworks! I remember saying to myself that
this graphical interface stuff can't possibly make it, it uses to much
ram to run that stuff, compared to DOS. I think I was wrong!

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:54:42 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:10:54 -0500, JohnH
wrote:
Gosh, I never realized the feeling was so deep. Harry, a good enema
would clear your mind. Try to get jps, b'asskisser, and bb out of the
line of fire!

John Herring

========================

Clean up your own act before you throw stones.

Oh, you found an old one. You're right, a lot of cleaning up needed
around here!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:42:13 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:34:07 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:


1200 baud, indeed. I was one of the poor kids on the block using the
300 baud acoustical modem.

Honey, don't pick up the phone, ok??? Oh, sh*t.... not again....


I had 1200 baud capability because I sprung for the latest and greatest
CPU - a brand new shiny I-286 running Geoworks. (The original "windows"
based software, before Microsoft came along)

My very first computer was an Altair 8800 which the old S-100 bus.
Later on I got a paper tape reader for it - KEWL!!!! Technically, I
suppose the VERY VERY first computer I actually had was a logical
switching circuit I built using transistors and diodes. :)

My first "real" computer was a VIC-20. Now that was really cool -
had a tape recorder for data/program storage and everything!!! Then
it was a secession of Apples, the first really basic BBS I ran using
my first XT with a 20 Mb drive and a 300 baud modem, up to a Spitfire
BBS in the CT PC BBS system which connected through Yale University
(through a three node hop) to ARPA net at a blazing 2400 baud,
eventually becoming the Internet at a blazing 9600 baud, then three of
us local types invested in direct line to UCONN's Internet server
eventually selling that company and...

Oh my god, my life is flashing before my eyes!!!!! :)

I have never "owned" a Mac. As in the political stuff around here, I
was at odds with the rest of the family, I was a die hard PC man from
the git-go. My wife and kids all had Macs though. Still do.

Damn school system.

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

Ten years ago, my school had mostly Macs. They got them for almost
nothing.(the G7 I think). The teachers got them and the computer labs
got them. The teachers put up a fuss, and the school bought some
program to make a Mac run Windows and associated software, but not
easily.

Now there are no more Macs in the school. Most of the new stuff is
made by Dell.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On 8 Nov 2004 05:50:38 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Eisboch wrote in message ...
Gene Kearns wrote:


1200 baud, indeed. I was one of the poor kids on the block using the
300 baud acoustical modem.

Honey, don't pick up the phone, ok??? Oh, sh*t.... not again....


I had 1200 baud capability because I sprung for the latest and greatest
CPU - a brand new shiny I-286 running Geoworks. (The original "windows"
based software, before Microsoft came along)

Eisboch

I ran Autocad on a 286 with Geoworks! I remember saying to myself that
this graphical interface stuff can't possibly make it, it uses to much
ram to run that stuff, compared to DOS. I think I was wrong!

You won't believe a word of what I'm about to say, but it wasn't up
until 2000/01 that I started using a mouse.

I still use control, alt and tab to move around Windows quite a bit.

TTFN,

Tom

"Bodies are for hookers and fat people."
Bender - "Futurama"

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message news:igrjd.5042$V41.3641@attbi_s52...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...
Gene Kearns wrote:
The only real reason for these handles is so the assholes who use them
can "get away" with saying things they'd not have the balls to say if
they were using their real names.

Real men do not hide their identities on USENET. Mostly right-wing
pussies do, though.

Perhaps I need to out a few more.

jps, basskisser, bb, johns, thunder and others might object to you "outing"
them.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. That in itself makes your
opinion worthless. Add to that your obvious bias, and you fall lower
than that.

Quartus quartus_a_brother@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message ...
Harry Krause wrote:

Real men do not hide their identities on USENET. Mostly right-wing
pussies do, though.


If hanging your true identity out in cyberspace provides you with the
belief that you are a "real man", your psychosis is much worse than
originally believed.

-- Charlie

Please show what qualifications you have to be able to diagnose mental
illness in ANYONE, let alone from what you read in usenet.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:16:23 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 07:32:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Next came the IBM compatible model prior to the
release of the 286. I have forgotten what it's nomenclature was - 8106
or 8196 or something like that. It could actually run the first flight
simulator program - the airplane was a little cross flying over a basic
map of the US.
==========================

My recollection is that the first IBM PC used an 8088 chip. The basic
model came with 2 floppy drives and was known as the IBM/PC. The
upscale version had the same chip but included a 5 meg hard disk,
later upgraded to 10 meg if my memory is correct. It was known as the
XT. Several years later the 16 bit 8286 chip came along and was
called the AT. All of the early PCs were dog slow by today's
standards but they were pretty cool at the time and totally changed
the landscape in most offices.

You know, those older AT style computers were not that slow when
running the applications of the time. It's funny just how much faster
our CPU processing speed has become, while paradoxically the overhead
of the typical inflated application has proportionately slowed us
right back down again.....

Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:06:19 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 8 Nov 2004 05:50:38 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Eisboch wrote in message ...
Gene Kearns wrote:


1200 baud, indeed. I was one of the poor kids on the block using the
300 baud acoustical modem.

Honey, don't pick up the phone, ok??? Oh, sh*t.... not again....


I had 1200 baud capability because I sprung for the latest and greatest
CPU - a brand new shiny I-286 running Geoworks. (The original "windows"
based software, before Microsoft came along)

Eisboch

I ran Autocad on a 286 with Geoworks! I remember saying to myself that
this graphical interface stuff can't possibly make it, it uses to much
ram to run that stuff, compared to DOS. I think I was wrong!

You won't believe a word of what I'm about to say, but it wasn't up
until 2000/01 that I started using a mouse.

I still use control, alt and tab to move around Windows quite a bit.


I'm with you. I cut my teeth using a text based interface, and old
habits die hard. Not until I could no longer do what I wanted in a dos
window, that I reluctantly embraced a GUI. Now I'm quite used to it.

Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:56:54 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 07:32:53 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Next came the IBM compatible model prior to the
release of the 286. I have forgotten what it's nomenclature was - 8106
or 8196 or something like that. It could actually run the first flight
simulator program - the airplane was a little cross flying over a basic
map of the US.
==========================

My recollection is that the first IBM PC used an 8088 chip. The basic
model came with 2 floppy drives and was known as the IBM/PC. The
upscale version had the same chip but included a 5 meg hard disk,
later upgraded to 10 meg if my memory is correct. It was known as the
XT. Several years later the 16 bit 8286 chip came along and was
called the AT. All of the early PCs were dog slow by today's
standards but they were pretty cool at the time and totally changed
the landscape in most offices.



Almost right. I bought one of the first PCs in the DC area, from a store
in McLean, Virginia. The 8088 was right, but the standard issue machine
came with a tape recorder drive, not a floppy. But you could get a
floppy, a 160 I believe, shortly after. I got one with the floppy. An
additional floppy was some $400. Looked at a Mac at that time, but I
thought it was overpriced then...just as I think Macs are overpriced
now. And a numeric keyboard was an option on those first Macs.

The original IBM PC predated the Mac by a few years. You might be
thinking of the Lisa, the predecessor of the Mac.

Dave

You know, those older AT style computers were not that slow when
running the applications of the time. It's funny just how much faster
our CPU processing speed has become, while paradoxically the overhead
of the typical inflated application has proportionately slowed us
right back down again.....

Dave

My wife ran a fairly large retail operation with online ordering, inventory,
payroll and accounting, all on a 8086 4.77mz XT. It was lightning fast. We were
only "computing" with our computer tho. No cartoon interface.
The grove/gates philosophy is to create bloated software as fast as the
hardware people can create a machine to run it.
The funny thing is my old DOS apps run as fast on an XT as they do on a P4.
Pretty much at the speed I can type and the screen can display. The ONLY thing
that runs a tiny bit faster is a complicated dBase relational DB rollup and
that has more to do with disk caching than anything else.