Weird. I was reading one thread, went to post, realised I wasn't logged in, logged in, and somehow my comment got attached to a completely different article.

Please ignore.

...but is it Heuristically Programmed?

...but is it Heuristically Programmed?

A bit late I know, but I'm having a bit of a tidy-up and I just found a boxed copy of OS/2 Warp (3.00). It comes with:

1 installation floppy
13 floppies containing the base OS
4 floppies with display drivers
3 floppies of printer drivers
14 floppies of additional software

so you're looking at a total of 35 3.5" floppies to install the whole thing.

I remember a frequent help-desk issue from certain users. Once you'd started Windows 3 (on a 386-grade computer IIRC) you could invoke an MS-DOS command prompt from within it, either within a window or full screen. Having started a full screen prompt, the user would then want to return to the windowing environment and so would type "win". This started a second copy of Windows 3 within the first one. I think you could get to about 3 before it stopped working and the plaintive cry for help came. Funnily enough, it was always the same people it kept happening to.

I recall a lot of modifying of the definition of "Operating System" to try to get MS-DOS recognised as being one.

How short memories are.

When OS/2 was launched it was a joint Microsoft/IBM product, and it was touted (by both) as being the replacement for Windows. That's why and how it had good Windows API support from the start. Then Microsoft saw Windows 3+ starting to become a commercial success and decided it wanted to stay with the Windows branding. It was already working on the next version of OS/2, but split from IBM's path and re-branded the new product as Windows NT. IBM then started their own separate development path and produced OS/2 2.0. Existing agreements with Microsoft enabled them to carry on shipping Windows API binaries.

I still have a t-shirt and bag labelled "Microsoft OS/2" which I picked up at a launch event in Geneva.

Well, not quite open. They have consistently portrayed the situation as being one of support ending last April. The truth is, support for XP did not end last April, and was never planned to. What actually happened is that support went from being free (or at least included in the price of the product) to being a very expensive add-on.

Which is why the first ones are known as Nexus 7 (2012)

If you think the Easter egg is dead, go and play with Google Maps today.

My 2012 Nexus 7 (with cell connectivity) was upgraded straight to 5.0.2 just a couple of days ago. So far it seems fine.

s/break/brake/

Even BT at their most optimistic don't pretend to offer that. BT Infinity 2 offers up to 76 Mb/s downstream and up to 20 Mb/s upstream. I think you're confusing your upload speed with the download speed of BT Infinity 1.

You're using an argument technique known as "putting up a straw man". We're discussing the tendency of BT to upgrade exchanges long before they do the corresponding cabinets (which they do), so you raise an imagined case of one person behaving unreasonably because, although his local cabinets have been upgraded, he can't get service.

No wonder you posted as an AC.

Imagine the work which would have been involved if what you are saying was true. They'd have had to dig underground ducting in to everybody's garden. How did they do it without us noticing?

You are right in saying that the bulk wiring - the connections which feed the telegraph poles - are now pretty much all underground. There aren't the masses of overhead wires which there were when I was a boy. The final connection to the houses though for the most part remain unchanged. Yes, new builds are all done using underground connections, but most houses are not new builds.

It would be phenomenally expensive to go around replacing all the final connections with underground ones. They haven't done it, and they aren't going to unless there's a separate reason to do it. Indeed, the poles in our road were all replaced recently, in quite an impressive operation. They carry both power and telephone connections to the houses. To replace a pole they had to disconnect everything at the top, temporarily support all the connections with a crane/platform thing, remove the old pole, fit a new pole, and then re-attach everything to the new pole. Now why would they do that if the connections were no longer in use, or even if they had any plans ever to put them underground?

ROFL. Can you imagine the trouble they'd get into if they did that? The ambulance chasers would have a field day.

Complete nonsense!

Try this - go to Google Maps, pick a residential location at random and then drop in to Streetview. Unless you've picked a very recent housing estate, you will find you can see lots and lots of telegraph poles.

It might be true to say that new developments don't now have telegraph poles, but the vast majority of the UK still does.