21–30 of 39 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slack on Windows 3.11 https://github.com/yeokm1/w31slack C# on Windows 3.11 https://www.hanselman.com/blog/net-everywhere-apparently-als...
With Win 3.1, some IRC client and Bitlbee you can chat everywhere :). Also, a gopher client makes the Win 3.1 desk not-so-obsolete. Ok, let's back to languages. I think some versions of Lazarus/Free Pascal still target Win 3.11 or Windows 9x at least.
Mac OS 9 was really aging even at that point in time, was crashing all the time from what I heard, and so on, but. It looks amazing. Monterey wishes it looked half as good as OS 9 looks like
The entire MacOS classic line of OS’s were horrible for stability. Any small bug in any program could knock out the entire OS, and they did multiple times a day. Don’t get me wrong, the love put into the OS was palpable. That’s why you used it. It just crashed all day every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an app can crash your system, that means the system is not stable in my books
Oh it wasn't robust by todays standards (or any standards really), but it would be wrong to infer from that that the quality of OS9 was inferior to OS8, OS7, rotting, etc.
Mac OS 9 was really aging even at that point in time, was crashing all the time from what I heard, and so on, but. It looks amazing. Monterey wishes it looked half as good as OS 9 looks like
Contrary to the other commenters rose colored glasses, as someone who ran OS9 at the time, it was indeed very unstable. The entire MacOS classic line of OS’s were horrible for stability. Any small bug in any program could knock out the entire OS, and they did multiple times a day. Don’t get me wrong, the love put into the OS was palpable. That’s why you used it. It just crashed all day every day.
Go until 1.3 supported all the way back to Windows 2000. I was pretty sad when they yanked support, the idea of becoming a hermit running Win2k writing Go is an oddly satisfying fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh it wasn't robust by todays standards (or any standards really), but it would be wrong to infer from that that the quality of OS9 was inferior to OS8, OS7, rotting, etc.
I say as a Mac user, while not inferior to other MacOS’s, it was however inferior to the stability of the counterpart versions of Windows, more-or-less since inception. The stability gap got wider and wider as the years went on and Windows 2k made OS9 look like a joke. OS X closed that gap and then quickly surpassed it.
Go until 1.3 supported all the way back to Windows 2000. I was pretty sad when they yanked support, the idea of becoming a hermit running Win2k writing Go is an oddly satisfying fantasy.
go is one of the rare language i can imagine using on a 20+ yo hardware / software stack. The whole go tooling is so much focused on simple and performant design that i think it wouldn't be too bad of an experience.
You could nearly get D code working for a 16 bit computer due to the history of the dmd backend, even.
Go until 1.3 supported all the way back to Windows 2000. I was pretty sad when they yanked support, the idea of becoming a hermit running Win2k writing Go is an oddly satisfying fantasy.
go is one of the rare language i can imagine using on a 20+ yo hardware / software stack. The whole go tooling is so much focused on simple and performant design that i think it wouldn't be too bad of an experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contrary to the other commenters rose colored glasses, as someone who ran OS9 at the time, it was indeed very unstable. The entire MacOS classic line of OS’s were horrible for stability. Any small bug in any program could knock out the entire OS, and they did multiple times a day. Don’t get me wrong, the love put into the OS was palpable. That’s why you used it. It just crashed all day every day.
I didn’t have this experience, but perhaps because I mainly played games at the time. Maybe the type of games I played just crashed the system less than -say- productivity software.