Peter Prymmer wrote:
>
> classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu
> Subj: RE: Re[4]: Development, round II
>
> Bob Withers wrote in response to Kip Crosby who wrote in response
> to someone else:
>
> >IIRC they started officially calling it Warp with V2.0, the
> >first release following the Microsoft/IBM breakup.
>
> That sounds about right to me. I had read somewhere that there was a general
> Star Trek theme to code names for OS/2 and the first was "Borg" - but I may
> be wrong about that. I have floppy and CD-ROM boxes from IBM on the shelf
> above me that have the name "OS/2 Warp Version 3" on them*. OS/2 Version 4
> was called "Warp Connect" to emphasize the ease of internet connectivity.
> The next version was to have a different Star Trek name altogether but I do
> not recall what it was supposed to have been.
Warp Connect was _not_ OS/2 4.0, it was still 3.x as was Merlin (I
haven't bought it yet, the local stores no longer bother with IBM at
all and I don't mail order software). OS/2 2.x was _just_ OS/2, the
name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
Trek concept by several years.
> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were listed as
> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely regarded
> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally configured
> system).
Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume
the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never
used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a
4MB system, says my package.
--
Ward Griffiths
Dylan: How many years must some people exist,
before they're allowed to be free?
WDG3rd: If they "must" exist until they're "allowed",
they'll never be free.
Received on Sat Jan 31 1998 - 04:03:44 GMT