On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

....


Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

David, ex-W8EZE

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

bob
k5qwg

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:27:24 -0600, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

...


Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

I have WordStar 6.0 running on linux (under dosemu.) The last time I
ran WordStar in a micro$oft environment was probably around 1991.
That's when I cut over to OS/2. Starting around 2002, I started making
the transition to linux. All linux now. I keep the OS2 box for
nostalgia.

73
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm

On Feb 22, 7:27 am, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

...



Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

David, ex-W8EZE

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

bob
k5qwg


I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail... I like the lesser
amount of
clutter vs the bloated new versions of readers. Also, fairly immune to
the
security problems that can plaque MS exploder.
But I'm pretty much a windows user...XP at the moment.. No plans to
get Vista anytime soon.. The main reason I'm stuck to windows is the
flight simulator requires it.
But.. I also like it because all my sound card programs, etc run off
the
same sound config. No swapping around junk like the old DOS days.
My puter is also my TV/Video recorder, etc too these days.. All
windows
based.. I've never once run Linux yet.. They never had any app's that
were interesting to me.. Or at least nothing that wouldn't run on
windows.
Neither it, or Mac runs a decent flight sim.. And like I say, my puter
is
79% airplane... In fact, the flight sim is why I first bought a
computer in
the first place. I never really had much use for one before that.
I'm running a P4 at 3.15 ghz, and to me, it's a dated system... :/
I'm nearing upgrade time again. Course now, it's a duo core, etc,
vs the usual ramp up in clock speed you used to do.. I'm waiting
as long as I can.. Maybe end up with a quad core or whatever..
The longer I wait, the more I get for my $$$..
I also need a lot of drive space since I started recording loads of
video. I have 240 gig's, and it's always full.. I need about 500 gigs
more just to get a little breathing room. My problem is, I'm lazy,
and
I record more movies than I edit and burn to disk.. So they stack up
on me.. Editing and burning gets to be a time consuming chore I don't
really like too much.. Or at least, I can think of better things to
do.
MK

wrote:
I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail...

I switched from Netscape when they dropped the
newsreader function. I now use Thunderbird and
I like it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail...

I switched from Netscape when they dropped the
newsreader function. I now use Thunderbird and
I like it.

T-bird is the bomb! The mail/news/rss reader--NOT the drink!

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
T-bird is the bomb!

Is a bomb good or bad? :-)
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
T-bird is the bomb!

Is a bomb good or bad? :-)


Is bad good or bad? ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
T-bird is the bomb!

Is a bomb good or bad? :-)

"The Bomb!" = "BAD" (as in, that '57 chevy is BAD!)

--and, in turn--

BAD = GOOD!

Regards,
JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com