Reasons Not To Wave.

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers.RemoveThis@bekkers.com.au> wrote

>> But there is a penalty for not following accepted guidelines and
>> pissing people off. People will go out of their way the be harsh to
>> you, some will even stop talking to you.

> But that would be fine Theo. (preferable in fact)
> The trouble is that all these people who reckon your message won't be
> read are also the FIRST to read and reply (off-topic) every time they
> think you've transgressed!!

I'm beginning to wish you'd stop going on about it.

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers RemoveThis @bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:47c52771$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers RemoveThis @bekkers.com.au> wrote
>
>>> But there is a penalty for not following accepted guidelines and
>>> pissing people off. People will go out of their way the be harsh to
>>> you, some will even stop talking to you.
>
>> But that would be fine Theo. (preferable in fact)
>> The trouble is that all these people who reckon your message won't be
>> read are also the FIRST to read and reply (off-topic) every time they
>> think you've transgressed!!
>
> I'm beginning to wish you'd stop going on about it.
>
And I'm wondering why you bizzarely waded in so far through the thread and
then wanted back out 2 posts later.
Have you been drinking heavily or something?
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

"JL" <jlittler.RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9d6382a6-7a4c-4e4f-bf5d-1ce6fab1e312@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 27, 5:36 pm, Yeebers <Y....RemoveThis@yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
> Not only that .. the way it goes on about poor overworked processors and
> cryptic commands made me think of a 386/25 running Dos 3 as being 'Teh
> ul71m4t3 m3g4 c0mpu73h!' ..

Aww now come on, if it's a 386 then you would have been at least on
4.0 (and more likely 5)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
DOS 3.1 was standard for 386s. (and 3.0 for 286s)
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> "JL" <jlitt... RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9d6382a6-7a4c-4e4f-bf5d-1ce6fab1e312@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 5:36 pm, Yeebers <Y... RemoveThis @yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
>
> > Not only that .. the way it goes on about poor overworked processors and
> > cryptic commands made me think of a 386/25 running Dos 3 as being 'Teh
> > ul71m4t3 m3g4 c0mpu73h!' ..
>
> Aww now come on, if it's a 386 then you would have been at least on
> 4.0 (and more likely 5)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~```
> DOS 3.1 was standard for 386s. (and 3.0 for 286s)

Maybe in Telecom who liked being behind the times, but I'm pretty
confident V4 was out around the time the 386 became readily available.

JL
(as an impoverished student v6 of dos was out before i got a 386)
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

On Feb 28, 8:08 am, John Lamp <John.L....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> JL wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>"JL" <jlitt....RemoveThis@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:9d6382a6-7a4c-4e4f-bf5d-1ce6fab1e312@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com....
> >>On Feb 27, 5:36 pm, Yeebers <Y....RemoveThis@yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
>
> >>>Not only that .. the way it goes on about poor overworked processors and
> >>>cryptic commands made me think of a 386/25 running Dos 3 as being 'Teh
> >>>ul71m4t3 m3g4 c0mpu73h!' ..
>
> >>Aww now come on, if it's a 386 then you would have been at least on
> >>4.0 (and more likely 5)
>
> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~­~~~~~~~~~~~```
> >>DOS 3.1 was standard for 386s. (and 3.0 for 286s)
>
> DOS 4 was a non event - DOS 3 with a few apps and a menuing system,
> which virually no one used! WOFTAM!!

Yeah that menu thing was pretty ordinary but I seem to recall it was
the version which introduced xcopy.. woohoo multiple file copies and
faster too !

JL
(the advances weren't very exciting back then !
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

On Feb 28, 1:00 pm, Yeebers <Y... DeleteThis @yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
> Argh ! Nortons ! The scourge of the PC world. It's more trouble than
> what it's supposed to protect you from..


He's talking about Nortons utilities, not whatever it is nowadays that
gets marketed by whoever Norton sold his name to.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

JL wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:08 am, John Lamp <John.L... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>> DOS 4 was a non event - DOS 3 with a few apps and a menuing system,
>> which virually no one used! WOFTAM!!
>
> Yeah that menu thing was pretty ordinary but I seem to recall it was
> the version which introduced xcopy.. woohoo multiple file copies and
> faster too !
>
> JL
> (the advances weren't very exciting back then !

I think you'll find xcopy came in with DOS 3.3x. Something exactly the
same was available in a utility pack for DOS 2.11 onwards but I don't
recall whose (Peter Norton?).
--
Cheers

Andrew
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

Argh ! Nortons ! The scourge of the PC world. It's more trouble than
what it's supposed to protect you from..

Andrew McKenna wrote:
> JL wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 8:08 am, John Lamp <John.L... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> DOS 4 was a non event - DOS 3 with a few apps and a menuing system,
>>> which virually no one used! WOFTAM!!
>>
>> Yeah that menu thing was pretty ordinary but I seem to recall it was
>> the version which introduced xcopy.. woohoo multiple file copies and
>> faster too !
>>
>> JL
>> (the advances weren't very exciting back then !
>
> I think you'll find xcopy came in with DOS 3.3x. Something exactly the
> same was available in a utility pack for DOS 2.11 onwards but I don't
> recall whose (Peter Norton?).
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "JL" <jlittler RemoveThis @my-deja.com> wrote

> Aww now come on, if it's a 386 then you would have been at least on
> 4.0 (and more likely 5)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
> DOS 3.1 was standard for 386s. (and 3.0 for 286s)

I got gypped with my 2.11 then?

Bastards!

Theo
It was actually pre 286. 8080 running at 10 meg, woohoo!
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> I'm beginning to wish you'd stop going on about it.

> And I'm wondering why you bizzarely waded in so far through the
> thread and then wanted back out 2 posts later.

Feel free to wonder where-ever you want.

> Have you been drinking heavily or something?

I can't type when I drink, or are you suggesting drinking prevented me from
'wading in'?

Theo
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "JL" <jlittler DeleteThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9d6382a6-7a4c-4e4f-bf5d-1ce6fab1e312@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 5:36 pm, Yeebers <Y... DeleteThis @yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
>> Not only that .. the way it goes on about poor overworked processors and
>> cryptic commands made me think of a 386/25 running Dos 3 as being 'Teh
>> ul71m4t3 m3g4 c0mpu73h!' ..
>
> Aww now come on, if it's a 386 then you would have been at least on
> 4.0 (and more likely 5)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```
> DOS 3.1 was standard for 386s. (and 3.0 for 286s)

Every 386 we had at work had Dos 4.x, and we had 3.1 on the earlier 286's.

The 486's had 5 (later with windows on top).


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

JL wrote:

> On Feb 27, 9:36 pm, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"JL" <jlitt... DeleteThis @my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:9d6382a6-7a4c-4e4f-bf5d-1ce6fab1e312@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>On Feb 27, 5:36 pm, Yeebers <Y... DeleteThis @yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not only that .. the way it goes on about poor overworked processors and
>>>cryptic commands made me think of a 386/25 running Dos 3 as being 'Teh
>>>ul71m4t3 m3g4 c0mpu73h!' ..
>>
>>Aww now come on, if it's a 386 then you would have been at least on
>>4.0 (and more likely 5)
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~```
>>DOS 3.1 was standard for 386s. (and 3.0 for 286s)

DOS 4 was a non event - DOS 3 with a few apps and a menuing system,
which virually no one used! WOFTAM!!

Cheers
Goaty
--
_--_|\ John Lamp - in beautiful downtown Highton
/ \ IRC:Goaty@aus.moto DoD#:1906 Ulysses#:10185 Vulcan Nomad
\_.--._/ http://www.gorider.cjb.net/ Phone: 0409 512 254
v mailto:John.Lamp@gmail.com Fax: 03 5227 2151

Hear no Evo, See no Evo, Fear no Evo
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave. 

Ah, you mean back when it was good .. sorry my bad,

Nev.. wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:00 pm, Yeebers <Y....RemoveThis@yeeb.yeeb> wrote:
>> Argh ! Nortons ! The scourge of the PC world. It's more trouble than
>> what it's supposed to protect you from..
>
>
> He's talking about Nortons utilities, not whatever it is nowadays that
> gets marketed by whoever Norton sold his name to.
>
> Nev..
> '07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: Reasons Not To Wave.