If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
g I remember them, I got Lotus SmartSuite when I got my first machine in
1998 g Joan Mart wrote: BTW - Whatever happened to Lotus? - That was good stuff 'til MS knocked them off their perch. Mart |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:18:17 +0100, "Joan Archer"
g I remember them, I got Lotus SmartSuite when I got my first machine in 1998 g Mart wrote: BTW - Whatever happened to Lotus? - That was good stuff 'til MS knocked them off their perch. Old "Pink"-era joke: Q: What do you get if you cross Apple with IBM? A: IBM Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm on a ten-year lunch break ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
g Pity that, I know the Suite I got came with a good selection of tools
to cover a host of different events. Joan cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:18:17 +0100, "Joan Archer" g I remember them, I got Lotus SmartSuite when I got my first machine in 1998 g Mart wrote: BTW - Whatever happened to Lotus? - That was good stuff 'til MS knocked them off their perch. Old "Pink"-era joke: Q: What do you get if you cross Apple with IBM? A: IBM Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm on a ten-year lunch break ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
cquirke wrote :-
Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. Predators! Asset strippers?? Didn't Lotus buy-out Improv too, Chris? Still got my original (very expensive) retail Lotus Improv floppies (1993) and the 'real' User Manual - those were the days when the packaging was full. Improv always seemed (to me) more intuitive than 1-2-3 and/or Excel. But then Lotus killed Improv. Nothing new under the sun then? Mart "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:18:17 +0100, "Joan Archer" g I remember them, I got Lotus SmartSuite when I got my first machine in 1998 g Mart wrote: BTW - Whatever happened to Lotus? - That was good stuff 'til MS knocked them off their perch. Old "Pink"-era joke: Q: What do you get if you cross Apple with IBM? A: IBM Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm on a ten-year lunch break ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
Boy you are "ancient", Mart.
But I mean that in a good way. Harry. "Mart" wrote in message ... cquirke wrote :- Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. Predators! Asset strippers?? Didn't Lotus buy-out Improv too, Chris? Still got my original (very expensive) retail Lotus Improv floppies (1993) and the 'real' User Manual - those were the days when the packaging was full. Improv always seemed (to me) more intuitive than 1-2-3 and/or Excel. But then Lotus killed Improv. Nothing new under the sun then? Mart "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in message ... On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:18:17 +0100, "Joan Archer" g I remember them, I got Lotus SmartSuite when I got my first machine in 1998 g Mart wrote: BTW - Whatever happened to Lotus? - That was good stuff 'til MS knocked them off their perch. Old "Pink"-era joke: Q: What do you get if you cross Apple with IBM? A: IBM Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm on a ten-year lunch break ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:56:31 +0100, "Mart"
cquirke wrote :- Lotus were "eaten" by IBM in a hostile takeover; I think IBM wanted Lotus Notes and left the rest to crumble away. Predators! Asset strippers?? Yup. About the only hi-profile "merger" I remember that didn't try to hide behind brave spin paint. Didn't Lotus buy-out Improv too, Chris? I remember Lotus bringing out Improv as a hi-end alternative to 1-2-3, and it had killer features that no-one could understand (at an intuitive level) and use. A bit like pivot tables, that :-) I wasn't aware that Improv was a buy-out but it makes sense; a lot of work, a break in continuity (why not release it as a new varient of 1-2-3 as DOS-era 1-2-3 v3 was with v2.x) and a suspiciously short product life span... yep, it all fits. till got my original (very expensive) retail Lotus Improv floppies (1993) and 'real' User Manual - those were the days when packaging was full. Now, with the nadir of MS Office 2007 OEM, you just get an "air box" without even the disks. Hard to see the "Genuine Advantage" in that. Improv always seemed (to me) more intuitive than 1-2-3 and/or Excel. Well, you saw how I bounced off it :-) My fave was Quattro Pro, which did everything that 1-2-3 v2.x and v3 did, and did it all in 640k RAM (v3 needed 1M). It was only Excel's "outline" feature (the ability to nest detail) that lured me off Quattro Pro and into Windows (for spreadsheeting) and Excel. Which meant I took my "admin" home, as that was where the only Windows PC was (the "work" was various generic 286 DOS and PICK boxen, with the cheap "auction special" 286s acting as "dumb terminals" for the PICK box, using "Termulator X" I wrote in Assembler. But then Lotus killed Improv. Nothing new under the sun then? Indeed, what happened to Borland, could happen to MS; killed by complexity. It's to MS's credit that it is happening so many software iterations later, but could still happen. In th DOS era, MS was just another software vendor. Borland seemed top of the pile, with excellent compilers and apps; the MS compilers seemed a bit dull and runner-up in comparison. The driving force was resource efficiency, i.e. whichever compiler rendered smaller and faster code was generally seen as "better". So, a very different landscape, compared to today, when the drive is to create code that works and is not exploitable, and if it's big and slow, the hardware will catch up, so that's OK. I used to go to computer shows each year, and the running gag was the same for years; "hey, have you seen the Paradox for Windows beta?" Yup, Paradox for Windows was a bit like Vista, in that it was complex, and forever in beta,. never nearing release, and was also pretty buggy. Suddenly, "fast" wasn't enough; also, it seemed as if adapting to Windows (which Borland embraced, compared to the Word Pervert approach of ignoring and working around it) was a challenge that may have ultimately defeated Borland. The next thing, Borland had shrunk to a desktop organizer product, carried away as hand luggage by the top brass as the ship went down. Around that time, attention turned to "software engineering" and "ego-less programming" (or "coding by committee", if you like. No more room for maverick lone coders; the complexity was too much to hold in one head, and the interfacing between heads became the issue on which projects would sink or swim. It was also the time of "object orientated programming", that merged code and data into objects. That was a bad idea, and we're still suffering from the fall-out today, even as we benefit from a much-needd formalization of the dev process. Once you let "data" tell you what to do, it's not your system anymore. -------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Tip Of The Day: To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature... -------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
Mart asked :-
Didn't Lotus buy-out Improv too, Chris? cqirke replied :- I wasn't aware that Improv was a buy-out ... Seemingly correct - according to the "Stories (spreadsheet)" reference on the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Improv "Stories (spreadsheet)" :- http://web.archive.org/web/200410222...NW.Improv.html Thanks too Chris, for your potted history - very interesting reminiscences, all long erased from these memory banks along with several billion other 'little grey cells' I guess. Mart snipped |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:34:38 -0400, "Eric"
"KB" wrote in message Be sure that your system's compatible with XP. Valuable information can be found here = http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316639 You'll especially find the Upgrade Advisor useful = http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/h...g/advisor.mspx Note that despite their recommendation of 128MB RAM, I'd run, IMHO, 512MB minimum. They recommend 128MB? It does run OK on 128MB. I believe it does run on 64MB though. I can confirm that; saw an XP Pro SP2 box running pretty smoothly on 64M, as well as several running with 32M of 128M "shared with" (stolen by) SiS onboard graphics. That was helped via CMOS settings to shrink display RAM use from 32M to 4M. With 96M, Bart may have trouble starting up, depending what it starts up with. I've booted Bart in as little as 64M, and there are reports of "skinny" Bart projects booting in as little as 32M. Once booted, you can assign a pagefile to Bart, offload it's %Temp% from RAM drive, and shrink RAM drive to 4M or less. (Bart PE is a CDR-booting stripped down form of XP that uses a RAM drive and no page file, so is more sensitive to low RAM) Of course 512MB is nicer, but so is 2GB. The more RAM you give it, the smoother it will run. If you do anything that uses much RAM, it will just use the swap file if it runs out. Just make sure you keep enough free HD space. Also, set a suitable page file size, as the default will be way too small. XP scales pagefile according to RAM, which makes sense for swallowing crash dumps and fast user switching (a RAM hog) but gets absurd below 256M RAM. I use 512M for 256M or less RAM. Same goes for any OS. Win98 can run on 16MB, Vista can run on 1GB maybe even less. The more you get, the smoother they run. Win95 is happy in 8M, Win98 in 16M, WinME in 32M, XP in 128M, Vista in 512M. They are happier with more, with double that baseline as sweet; beyond double that again, you may or may not see a difference, depending on what you are running. Big apps on small OSs need more RAM, e.g. a large WinME-era app that needs 96M in WinME isn't going to magically work in 24M just because the OS is the original Win95. ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - I'm on a ten-year lunch break ------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
gotta say.. so long ME
I do admit that I adamantly stuck with WinME over the years because I
learned successfully to tame it (with the help from this ng and with the help of folks visiting annoyances.org). Later, it gave me a freaky satisfaction to hang on to WinME just because it still seemed to work well (er, well enough) and boast about it. But the fact that WinME is limited to 512meg ram and problematic with AGP video, dates the OS quickly for my needs. I'm just tired of unexpected explorer.exe failures (and a few other quirky things that happen) when I am in the middle of something important. I don't believe that I'm the only one who doesn't mind retiring WinME over a Linux replacement. The main reason I am impressed with Linux (Ubuntu specifically) is how readily it detected the other shared drives on my network, and the fact that it utilized my PCs nVidia AGP card to the max without problems, and.. that it happily works with the total 768meg ram on my PC. "Mart" wrote.. I've only tried running Ubuntu from the CD (not yet committed [installed] it to HDD) on four different machines and it is certainly 'different'. The jury is still out here, but was pleasantly surprised (and impressed) to see that it recognised quite a bit of my hardware... However, I'm not yet ready to abandon WinMe. Suspect much more testing needs to be done first - esp. locating drivers for 'older' hardware. Roll-on the long winter nights - OTOH, I might just get myself a life g |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Invalid long filename | General | 10 | October 19th 05 07:11 AM | |
Long boot | Dale | General | 11 | July 28th 04 03:22 AM |
A very long message | ppoatt | General | 18 | July 3rd 04 07:43 PM |
Share name to long for ME | Herb | Networking | 2 | June 10th 04 04:41 PM |
Long shut down | Jim Y | Improving Performance | 0 | May 6th 04 10:00 PM |