|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 269 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 100 of 269:
| 
Apr 22 20:17 UTC 2002 |
These same people sent me a BW png last time (after I asked them to send
something smaller than a color gif). The latest problem is just one of the
usual terrible faxes 'from a dictionary'.
|
blaise
|
|
response 101 of 269:
|
Apr 23 17:13 UTC 2002 |
Re #96: About the same range of variation existed with 5.25" drives from the
late 70's when they were introduced until the early 80's when IBM format
finally dominated (although even that had the side/density variability until
around '85-'86).
|
gull
|
|
response 102 of 269:
|
Apr 23 19:49 UTC 2002 |
3.5" drives, too. Apple created their own 800K format that used a
variable spindle speed. IBM used a fixed spindle speed to put 720K on a
disk. The Amiga had its own format as well.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 103 of 269:
|
Apr 25 23:28 UTC 2002 |
drew, I have an example of that working. HTML menu opens upon
CD-R being put into the drive. Remind me by mail to bring a copy with
me to Waldo next Monday.
|
jazz
|
|
response 104 of 269:
|
Apr 27 00:38 UTC 2002 |
Apple's 800k drives were about $200 well into the mid-90s, too. No
$20 offbrand clones, either.
|
keesan
|
|
response 105 of 269:
|
Apr 28 13:55 UTC 2002 |
I have two programs (given to me on 5 1/4" floppy) that say they are
copy-protected and you can make only one usable copy to hard drive (which I
presume was already done by the original owner) so I tried to run them off
the original floppy disk in b: and it insists that I put the disk in a:.
Short of opening up the computer to switch a: and b: drives is there some
temporary way to switch a: and b: to try out these old wordprocessors?
Why would someone design a program that comes with instructions to copy it
from your floppy drive (which they say is often a: but need not be) to your
hard drive, but which will not work except from a:?
I have discovered that my 360K drive will not read single-sided disks - do
you need an even older drive to read them? Cannot reformat them either.
SS/DD. As predicted I also cannot use the HD disks (read or format).
Is there some easy way to unload Borland Sidekick other than rebooting?
I was also given a remove program for TSR's - first you run MARK (to let the
computer know where the TSR is being installed) and then load the program and
then you can remove it. Sidekick takes up nearly 100K of lower RAM and I have
a better (4K not TSR) text editor and don't need the dialer. In fact I don't
need Sidekick at all as I have a non-TSR calculator (solar) but I am curious
how it was supposed to be use. Maybe only by people not running
memory-intensive programs.
I was also given Paradox and Quattro-Pro and Norton Utilities (2 3 and 5) and
Fortran and Lattice C and Multiplan (runs only from a:) and MS PASCAL, all
for DOS. What does PARADOX do? Also XTREE XTRIEVE Polymake. I have Lotus
123. What other once-famous programs were the leaders in DOS software?
Which of the above (other than Sidekick) has had its functions incorporated
in Windows? In 4DOS or later DOS versions?
|
gull
|
|
response 106 of 269:
|
Apr 28 21:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #104: That's always been Apple's gig. Sell you into a system that needs
proprietary peripherals, then sell them above market rates. It's one of the
reasons I've always bought PC clones in the past.
|
keesan
|
|
response 107 of 269:
|
May 1 14:32 UTC 2002 |
Laplink PRO for DOS works with MS-DOS and DR-DOS to copy from D: to D:.
MS-DOS Interlink only copies to C:, and DR-DOS filelink crashes often.
|
slynne
|
|
response 108 of 269:
|
May 1 15:47 UTC 2002 |
I need to delete several files on a pc that are located in various
different directories but all on the same drive partition. Is there a
DOS command that would allow me to do this? I know that I can delete
all the .doc files in a particular directory by using DEL *.doc but
this particular pc has many many different directories so I am looking
for a short cut (and also I dont want to miss anything). Does anyone
know how to do this?
|
tpryan
|
|
response 109 of 269:
|
May 1 16:09 UTC 2002 |
Would a Windows way be to do a Search on My Computer for *.doc
then highlight and delete from the resulting list?
|
slynne
|
|
response 110 of 269:
|
May 1 17:05 UTC 2002 |
It could be but that would be hard. I found the answer already though.
The DOS command for those of you who dont already know and might be
interested is: DEL *.doc /s
|
keesan
|
|
response 111 of 269:
|
May 1 18:32 UTC 2002 |
Thanks, that looks something like the dir/s *.doc command which would list
all the files for you. Maybe del/s *.doc would also work.
|
glenda
|
|
response 112 of 269:
|
May 1 19:06 UTC 2002 |
that would be del /s *.doc. You need the space.
|
keesan
|
|
response 113 of 269:
|
May 1 20:58 UTC 2002 |
Why don't you need the space after dir?
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 269:
|
May 2 13:40 UTC 2002 |
I was going to suggest the old PC Magazine utility 'SWEEP', which makes any
command recurse through directories, but it looks like Microsoft has
embraced and extended it. ;)
|
keesan
|
|
response 115 of 269:
|
May 8 14:38 UTC 2002 |
We took digital photos of our friend Bob and his housemate's daughter Katie
and their house, but Bob is unwilling to receive email because he is afraid
of viruses, so eventually I posted the photos at Geocities and told him to
go look. Turns out he does not know how to use the expensive AOL account that
he is paying for, and Katie's mother (who uses his computer pretty
exclusively) does but would not help. So we biked over to show him our photos
and were told nobody else was allowed to even turn on the computer as they
could cause problems. (Jim spent three hours once giving him a lesson in how
to turn it on and off, but he now has it hooked into two power strips that
he also turns on and o. Eventually he managed to find time to turn on the
computer and dial AOL.
AOL is for real idiots. It costs about three times as much as my generic ISP
and took five tries to get through, at 2-3 minutes per try, then after a while
dumped him. It also insisted on loading three screens full of glossy colored
ads before giving him the search engine, and when we typed in my URL, in teh
middle of a VERY slow download from my site, started loading another screenful
of commercial material. I went through and clicked on five X's to stop the
animated gifs from animating at us.
Then I saved the URL to Favorites - a big purple block at the top. Bob had
never seen this feature before so we were alone in there.
Katie came and sat on my lap and quickly learned to click on the links to all
the photos. Bob just sat and watched. Katie wants her own website and email.
Her mother owns a 386 computer that nobody is allowed to use, and Bob says
there is no space for another computer. We said she would have to use the
existing one (this has been going on for a few years). Bob finally realized
that you cannot get viruses from grex email and we may try one more time at
setting him up with grex email (via an external 14.4K modem as his is WIndows
only, and Kermit since Procomm won't work on superfast computers due to a
bug). And Katy can have her own email too. Maybe her mother will let Bob
use the old 386 for this.
Why do people pay AOL for the privilege of waiting 10 minutes to get to a
search engine, while looking at commercials? AOL is the same idiots who do
not allow the user to turn off HTML when sending email. What do people think
they are getting for paying twice as much as the cheaper ISP? THe privilege
of not getting on during busy periods and being kicked off after half an hour?
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 269:
|
May 8 15:35 UTC 2002 |
AOL has so many subscribers because of marketing, plain and simple.
(That's also why it costs more -- all those TV commercials don't come
cheap.) There *are* a few people I know who have AOL accounts for a
legitimate reason -- they travel a lot, and AOL has local dialins in
almost every city nationwide.
|
slynne
|
|
response 117 of 269:
|
May 8 15:58 UTC 2002 |
Uh. Everyone I know who has an AOL account has one for a ligitimate
reason. I mean, even if their only reason is that they are used to it
or like being marketed to, it is a legitimate reason.
|
keesan
|
|
response 118 of 269:
|
May 8 16:13 UTC 2002 |
But so do ATT and Earthlink, with less commercials and the same high price.
The friend with AOL also pays for expensive health insurance ($250/month for
a young kid, local hospital plan). He worries that he might have made the
wrong choice otherwise. I just found a nice insurance plan with a big
deductible for $70/month (even if I got sick and had to pay the deductible
one year I would be ahead in three years, and it is much cheaper for kids.)
Some people seem to like paying more for the same or worse service.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 119 of 269:
|
May 8 17:03 UTC 2002 |
If AOL advertises on those AOL-Time-Warner stations, they are
just taking money out of one pocket and sticking it in another. Easy
enough to outpower the message of competitors who do not own networks.
|
slynne
|
|
response 120 of 269:
|
May 8 17:07 UTC 2002 |
Sindi, for some people the cost of searching for the best deal is more
than the extra cost of the just getting what is easiest. I dont mean
financial costs so much as costs to time, stress level, etc.
|
scott
|
|
response 121 of 269:
|
May 8 18:58 UTC 2002 |
AOL has been around for a long time, and certainly has plenty of long-time
subscribers (hell, I know a guy who still uses Compuserve!). AOL actually
connected its subscribers to the Internet earlier than any similar big
service.
Also, the nationwide network of phone numbers is handy if you move around a
lot.
|
jp2
|
|
response 122 of 269:
|
May 8 19:47 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 123 of 269:
|
May 8 19:55 UTC 2002 |
Not many really have nationwide coverage, though. My Ameritech
account, for example, is good on any Ameritech dialin, but those only
cover around half a dozen states.
|
jazz
|
|
response 124 of 269:
|
May 8 21:16 UTC 2002 |
AOL also has one hell of a user-friendly interface for people who
aren't computer-literate.
It's not that great if you're literate; it can be confusing, as AOL
tries to re-name and re-imagine just about everything on the internet and make
it appear as if it's a part of AOL. But I know dozens of people who couldn't
use even the Internet Connection Wizard in 2000 or XP, who use AOL on a daily
basis.
|