No. 1 paid utility in Mac App Store steals browser history, sendsit to Chinese server

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:34:08 -0500, Ant wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Your Name wrote:
On 2018-09-12 01:46:44 +0000, Ant said:
In comp.sys.mac.system SilverSlimer wrote:

The original IBM PS/1 mouse comes to my mind as an absolute piece
of garbage.
http://liquidninja.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/
IBM_PS2_mouse.jpg

I got it with the machine when I was 12 but it didn't take long
before it felt sluggish and unresponsive. Of course, I didn't have
the habit of cleaning the inside of a mouse back then.

Haha, I remember it with IBM PS/2 models 30 and P70 PCs back then.
Yeah,
I didn't like them too. They were better than Apple's lame puck
mice though!

I remember the IBM computers back then seeming so damned cool. My
uncle had a PS/2 Model 30 with a grayscale monitor and I had a lot
of fun going over there to play with Deluxe Paint. All of what I
drew looked great in gray, but not so much in colour on the PS/1 my
dad eventually purchased. I remember how cool I felt in having a
colour monitor (while they had monochrome) and a whopping 30MB of
storage when they had 20MB.

Hehe. I remember how cool to have Stacker (software, not its
hardware)
on my 30 MB HDD back then! :O


To IBM's credit, the PS/2 were shockingly durable. The PS/1, not so
much.

But I hated its microchannel architecture (MCA) though. I was glad my
IBM PS/2 model 30 didn't use MCA like my dad's 386.

Wait ... IBM made the PlayStation 1 and 2?!? ;-)

LOL.

The forward slash is the only thing that we can use to distinguish a robut
computing platform (the PS/2) from a video game system (the PS2).



--
SilverSlimer
FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate
Absolute centrist, proud Catholic

....
Wait ... IBM made the PlayStation 1 and 2?!? ;-)

LOL.

The forward slash is the only thing that we can use to distinguish a robut
computing platform (the PS/2) from a video game system (the PS2).

It's like OS/2 instead of OS2.
--
Quote of the Week: "Number fourteen. The naughty bits of an ant." --Monty Python's Flying Circus
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:57:04 -0500, Ant wrote:

...
Wait ... IBM made the PlayStation 1 and 2?!? ;-)

LOL.

The forward slash is the only thing that we can use to distinguish a
robut computing platform (the PS/2) from a video game system (the PS2).

It's like OS/2 instead of OS2.

I don't think anything else of significance has ever been called OS2
though so both refer to the same operating system, methinks.

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

--
SilverSlimer
FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate
Absolute centrist, proud Catholic

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:39:09 GMT, SilverSlimer wrote:

I don't think anything else of significance has ever been called OS2
though so both refer to the same operating system, methinks.

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

I used to run a BBS system on OS/2 back when other sysops were using
relatively inferior operating systems. One guy in the area ran a board
on an Amiga. (and no, that one may not have been inferior)

OS/2 was cool. It ran 16-bit Windows apps better than Windows did. But
when Windows 95 came out and 32-bit Windows apps started appearing...
I think it was the inability of OS/2 to run the 32-bit apps that may
have been the end.

--
-=Elden=-

In message Elden wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:39:09 GMT, SilverSlimer wrote:

I don't think anything else of significance has ever been called OS2
though so both refer to the same operating system, methinks.

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

I used to run a BBS system on OS/2 back when other sysops were using
relatively inferior operating systems. One guy in the area ran a board
on an Amiga. (and no, that one may not have been inferior)

OS/2 was cool. It ran 16-bit Windows apps better than Windows did. But
when Windows 95 came out and 32-bit Windows apps started appearing...
I think it was the inability of OS/2 to run the 32-bit apps that may
have been the end.

OS/2 was brilliant at the time, and the history of its "failure" (not a
failure, more sabotage) is an interesting footnote in computer history.

The ideas behind its design are the same as how various flavors of
desktop Linux are still designed, and also basically how macOS (née OS
X) is designed, with a command-line under the GUI

After screwing over OS/2, Microsoft used a lot of those ideas for
securing Windows NT, which then evolved into Windows 2000, XP, 7, and
even Windows 10.

(Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 and XP was NT 5.1, Vista was NT 6.0 and,
confusingly, Windows 7 was NT 6.1. Windows 8 was NT 6.2 and then they
reset everything with Windows 10 (NT 10.0).

--
Why is it so damn hot in here, and why are we all in a handbasket?

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 20:13:15 -0700, Elden wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:39:09 GMT, SilverSlimer wrote:

I don't think anything else of significance has ever been called OS2
though so both refer to the same operating system, methinks.

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite
its marketplace failure.

I used to run a BBS system on OS/2 back when other sysops were using
relatively inferior operating systems.

If I remember correctly, most BBSs I connected to back in the day (I
started late in 1991 on a 2400 baud modem and Microsoft Works of all
things to connect... discovered Telix a little later) seemed to use
Desqview. I couldn't imagine anyone setting up a computer JUST to run a
BBS though considering how expensive hardware was back then.

One guy in the area ran a board
on an Amiga. (and no, that one may not have been inferior)

I recall connecting to an Amiga BBS at some point when I truly knew
nothing about platform differences. What I remember was that they
used .lzh (if I remember correctly) for compression of their downloadable
programs and that the text colours were all off.

OS/2 was cool. It ran 16-bit Windows apps better than Windows did. But
when Windows 95 came out and 32-bit Windows apps started appearing... I
think it was the inability of OS/2 to run the 32-bit apps that may have
been the end.

The fact that OS/2 also lacked any kind of useful software out of the box
didn't help. While Windows 3.1 and 95 offered you a rudimentary word
processor, calendar and Internet connectivity software, most OS/2
packages didn't even have the latter. Of course, my memory might be foggy
and I welcome Peter's input on this.

--
SilverSlimer
FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate
Absolute centrist, proud Catholic

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 11:54:31 +0000, Lewis wrote:

In message Elden
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 22:39:09 GMT, SilverSlimer wrote:

I don't think anything else of significance has ever been called OS2
though so both refer to the same operating system, methinks.

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite
its marketplace failure.

I used to run a BBS system on OS/2 back when other sysops were using
relatively inferior operating systems. One guy in the area ran a board
on an Amiga. (and no, that one may not have been inferior)

OS/2 was cool. It ran 16-bit Windows apps better than Windows did. But
when Windows 95 came out and 32-bit Windows apps started appearing... I
think it was the inability of OS/2 to run the 32-bit apps that may have
been the end.

OS/2 was brilliant at the time, and the history of its "failure" (not a
failure, more sabotage) is an interesting footnote in computer history.

The ideas behind its design are the same as how various flavors of
desktop Linux are still designed, and also basically how macOS (née OS
X) is designed, with a command-line under the GUI

After screwing over OS/2, Microsoft used a lot of those ideas for
securing Windows NT, which then evolved into Windows 2000, XP, 7, and
even Windows 10.

(Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 and XP was NT 5.1, Vista was NT 6.0 and,
confusingly, Windows 7 was NT 6.1. Windows 8 was NT 6.2 and then they
reset everything with Windows 10 (NT 10.0).

I kind of feel bad for IBM trusting Microsoft the way that they did. They
should have known that the guys at the helm (particularly Gates) could
not be trusted and that they had their own agenda. Had OS/2 become as
important as IBM expected it to, they could have remained a gigantic
player in the desktop computing field regardless of the fact that they
lost their hold on the hardware. Instead, they lost both hardware
(despite their efforts to lock it down) and software and was already
irrelevant by around 1996.

Does anyone else ever imagine what today's computing would have been like
had their BIOS never been reverse-engineered and the third-parties never
taken IBM's authority away from the PC platform?

--
SilverSlimer
FSF Contributor / EFF Member / Free speech advocate
Absolute centrist, proud Catholic

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 16:04:01 GMT, SilverSlimer wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 11:54:31 +0000, Lewis wrote:


Does anyone else ever imagine what today's computing would have been like
had their BIOS never been reverse-engineered and the third-parties never
taken IBM's authority away from the PC platform?

Computers would have been twice as powerful, ten thousand times
larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will
own them. On the flip side - when it came to computer dating -
computer matches would be so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of
romantic conquest.

In article ,
SilverSlimer wrote:

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

OS/2 — half an operating system?

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:24:58 UTC, Walter Bushell
wrote:

In article ,
SilverSlimer wrote:

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter K├Âhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

OS/2 ÔÇö half an operating system?

I abandoned DOS for OS/2 in the 1980s. I had to have TCP/IP to
access the department computer and Netware to access the corporate
computers. DOS forced me to swap out config.sy

--
John Varela

In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

OS/2 ⤲ half an operating system?

Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would
work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate
the computer space.

Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a
space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more
for a lot less money.

no they couldn't. those were toys.

what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often
illegally.

In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:

what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often
illegally.

Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off.

yes it was.

The reverse
engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot
more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an
answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the PS/2 if
not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you
can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more
than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting product.
For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to
sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why
would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows
3.1?

in other words, windows was a factor.

On 2018-11-06 9:24 a.m., Walter Bushell wrote:
In article ,
SilverSlimer wrote:

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

OS/2 � half an operating system?

Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would
work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate
the computer space.

Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a
space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more
for a lot less money.

--
SilverSlimer
Proud recipient of special entitlements
Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction

On 2018-11-06 11:34 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:

My exposure to OS/2 was fairly limited as I only used it on shoddy
hardware and didn't do much with it but Peter Köhlmann around here in
comp.os.linux.advocacy seems to have very fond memories of it despite its
marketplace failure.

OS/2 ⤲ half an operating system?

Its name derives from the PS/2 and was meant to suggest that it would
work best on PS/2 devices which, I assume, IBM expected to have dominate
the computer space.

Looking back, the PS/2, as sturdy as it was, could not have dominated a
space in which computers like the Amiga and the Atari ST could do more
for a lot less money.

no they couldn't. those were toys.

1) Could you write essays and do spreadsheets on the Amiga or the Atari ST?
2) Could you edit graphics and make banners?
3) Could you play games in addition to doing useful work?

They might have served as a console to many people, but both computers
could still be as useful as a PS/2 was.

what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often
illegally.

Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off. The reverse
engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot
more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an
answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the PS/2 if
not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you
can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more
than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting product.
For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to
sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why
would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows
3.1?

--
SilverSlimer
Proud recipient of special entitlements
Fierce adversary of equal rights, improved productivity and error-reduction

On 2018-11-06 11:55 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , SilverSlimer
wrote:

what killed it was that microsoft forced windows everywhere, often
illegally.

Windows was a non-factor when the PS/2 line was killed off.

yes it was.

The reverse
engineering of the BIOS and the creation of the compatible PC did a lot
more than Windows could ever hope to do. The introduction of EISA as an
answer to MCA was pretty much the last nail in the coffin of the PS/2 if
not OS/2. What you're suggesting is only somewhat true of OS/2 but you
can't deny that Windows, while technically worse than OS/2, was more
than enough for regular users and often a much more interesting product.
For crying out loud, OS/2 banked on its Windows 3.1 compatibility to
sell copies and had little to no software written directly for it. Why
would you need OS/2 to run Windows 3.1 when you can just install Windows
3.1?

in other words, windows was a factor.

Only on OS/2's demise, not on the PS/2's.


--
SilverSlimer
Proud recipient of special entitlements and fierce adversary of equal rights
Minds: @silverslimer