Very special web site out of shape

Yes, I'm still using OS/2, its GUI is the best there is, period. In fact, I decided not to buy a Mac because it wasn't as versatile as OS/2

-- my brother has a G4, and I found using it is like swimming with boots on. I've not taken the Linux route because as yet Linux GUIs are no better than Windows - different, but not better. And I use Windows for typing all this stuff for your delectation and astonishment only because I made a stupid hardware buy - a NIC that OS/2 can't work with. That mistake will be rectified Real Soon Now. :-) I've even gotten the Windows ports of two of my favourite OS/2 programs - PMView and PMMail, both of which suffer from the lousy Windows version of drag'n'drop.

Good for you. The last time I looked at OS/2 was around the time of win 3.1. We didn't have a PCs big enough to run it I guess. Kept crashing after a 3 hr install from 13 or 14 floppies. So we bailed on it. Win 3.1 wasn't great either, reboot daily. But at least it worked on the machiens we had. OS/2 GUI was ok so was the Mac at the time, Windows was still pretty unpolished. I evaluated the two OS to determine which would be better. I was real excited and was expecting to move to OS/2. I was realy disappointed by the operating system. After talking to others in it was apparent that OS/2 worked well on IBM hardware and played poorly with other boxes. We didn't want to spend all the $$ on migrating to IBM hardware. Remember when they used to soak you on hardware prices? Of course a mac at that time was just as expensive as my car was. I had a car before I had a computer. :-)

MS started with DOS and displaced a lot of big contenders. Funny eh? I'm neither a fan nor a hater of MS. I work it because the market is there. IBM and Oracle could have come out with contenders for Windows and MSSQL, but they didn't. So now we have the current environment. They may have had higher quality products but they were out of reach of the market that Microsoft now dominates. And except for techies, unix / linux? forget it. Until you think of the computer as simply the tool to a means, not the goal itself, you won't get it.

delectated and ast>> J Barnstorf wrote:

I keep hearing about these folks complaining about a daily reboot. Don't you people ever turn your computers off?

I'm running Win98SE at home and XP Pro at work. While XP is far, far better in this regard, both of them seem to benifit quite a bit from a reboot after a few hours of use. Maybe it is me, as I tend to open and close programs as needed rather than leaving them running all the time because things run better with fewer aps running.

All of my computers get shut down for the night unless I'm running a defrag or something like that.

Regards,

DAve

I've heard there's a beta of XP-64, but I'm not about to run MS beta ware on a machine I depend on.

What I meant was the AMD64 processor with it's greater power flexibility and security and whatever the other pluses are.

Not much, I would imagine. here's a site with simple coding, simple layout, great image blow-ups to large pics, and I imagine almost anything will run it:

Those highly detailed Code 55 switches look great.

Anybody know the earliest usage period for cast manganese frogs?

I'm running IE 6.0.2800.1106 with all patches available from Microsoft's update site on Windows 98SE, and don't see any "Pop-up Blocker" settings.

What version of Windows are you running ?

--Jerry Leslie Note: snipped-for-privacy@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email

Similarly, my site can be viewed by any browser, as far as I know.

Heck, I don't even use frames.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" MRR Electronics Special Effects Lighting

I used it in the generic sense, like you did when you said you tried "programming" in Front Page.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin" MRR Electronics Special Effects Lighting

6.0.2900.2180,

or more correctly, the full name of the version given in the Help screen is

6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_so2_rtm.040803-2158.

I'm using Windows XP.

"Block Pop-up Windows with Internet Explorer"

You may want to look into the story behind OS/2. The result of a collaboration between M$ and IBM, M$ pulled out, leaving IBM holding the bag, so to speak. M$ massaged the kernel into the beginnings of NT.

Steve Caple wrote: [...]

I saw some in the 60s in Edmonton, so ta least that early. Probably used earlier than that, though.

I have (at this count) eight computers (Color Classic OS 7.5, G4 (Yikes) OS

9.2.2, PowerBook G4 (Ti) OS 10.3.7, G4 (Dual Mirror Door) OS 10.3.7, Dell PowerEdge 4300 server Win Server 2K, Dell GX260 Win XP Pro SP2, Dell Latitude CPx Win 2K, and Compaq Deskpro EN Win XP Pro SP2) all of which run 24/7 except for reboots.

I must say I rarely have to reboot anything, save for occasional installs and the odd freeze.

No, I knew you were talking about the AMD processor. Here's what I'm talking about:

OS X emulated on a PC!

Per that site, Windows XP/SP2 is the minimum operating system required for Internet Explorer's pop-up blocker.

For those not yet running Windows XP/SP2, other solutions are a third-party pop-up blocker; e.g.:

Panicware, Inc. - Pop-Up Stopper the ultimate free Pop-Up Killer

or another browser, such as Firefox.

--Jerry Leslie Note: snipped-for-privacy@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email

I have a copy of "The Elements Of Railroad Engineering", published in New York in 1909, that refers to them. Interestingly, it says they are more commonly used by electric street railways than steam railroads.

Yep, I knew that. IBM then still tried to market OS/2 to the general public. I remember that the promises sounded good, true multitasking, solid as a rock, never crash or reboot. Didn't seem to catch on / work. Somehow MS seemed to get theirs to work (but not true multitasking).

Jb

I was wondering if they would be reasonably expected on an early transition era branch line or bridge line in lighter rail (e.g., the Code 55).

The problem is NIH - Not Invented Here. Microsoft has to have its own way since they think they are better than the standards group. That is why they invented ASP (.asp) pages. In reality having a unique feature in the marketplace is thought to be the hook to bring in the customers. The unfortunate side effect is what we are discussing here. In my opinion we never will get it right for all situations as long as there is competition and copyright laws. Developer costs for WEB pages are high and so if a company chooses to go cheap for its pages, they can be easily talked into supporting a single browser approach. Unfortunately, they don't bother to find out what browser their potential customers are using, they only use the rule that the majority of computers are shipped with MS products and therefore the majority of customers must be using MS IE.

just my two cents

Steve Craple was trolling this thread from the start!

What we've got is a web site

that doesn't work with all browsers. Instead of properly assigning the responsibility for this situation on the people directly involved (the business owner, the site programmer and the people using a browser that can't view the site), a handful of people (including Steve, Greybeard, Cheery Littlebottom, Wolf Kirchmeir, Brian Ehni, Arnie Morscher) have decided to place the blame on:

1. browsers that can read the site (Internet Explorer, Netscape) - there must be something wrong with them if they can read the site!
2. Microsoft Corporation
3. Microsoft Windows
4. MS FrontPage
5. AOL users