 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just threw away a box of 10-year old email printouts. (Did we *have*
email 10 years ago??) In amounst the crumbling paper, I found a heavy
cardboard envolope:
AOL Version 3.0! with 99 FREE HOURS!
SPECIAL OFFERS!
See inside for details
FREE Internet access!
100% local call access!
So easy to use, no wonder we're No.1!
IT'S HERE!
By Popular Demand:
* Your revolutionary FREE 99 hour trail!
* Easy to install, easy to use!
* Thousands of exclusive areas only on AOL!
[My typing really doesn't convey the over-the-top font sizes and insane
colour scheme. It almost looks like a 1960s detergent packet - yellow
starburst with a vivid orange border, blue and green block type, etc.]
Inside there is a CD that loudly proclaims
Discover AOL 3.0! for Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows 3.1 & Macintosh!
Complete with the little IE v2 logo.
I'm guessing this CD dated back to the time when the Internet was still
called "the Information Super-Highway". ;-)
The small print is fantastic:
Your free trail must be used within one calendar month of your initial
sign-on. Unless you cancel your account before the end of your free
trail by calling 0800 376 7444 during office hours, you will thereafter
3 hours online access each month. Additional access to AOL is charged by
may be removed without notice or may be subject to additional
usage-related surcharges. You are responsible for the cost of your
telephone connection to AOL, and for supplemental charges for access to
AOL outside the UK. A choice of billing options is available, see online
registration for further details. To use AOL with Windows 3.1, you
require a 486 DX PC or higher, 8MB of RAM and 20 MB of HD space. To use
AOL with Windows 95 or Windows 98, you require a pentium [sic] class PC
or higher, 16MB of RAM and 60 MB of HD space. In addition a system
running AOL will require an SVGA monitor (256 colour support required),
a mouse, a 1440 kpbs [sic] modem or faster, a dual speed CD-Rom drive or
faster, and a UK copy of one of the operating systems referred to above.
To use AOL for Macintosh you require a Macintosh 68030 or higher, System
7.5.5 or later, a mouse, a 9600 kbps modem or faster, 256 colour monitor
with 640x480 resolution or better, 8MB RAM, and 15MB of free hard drive
space. Must be 18 years or over to apply. Limit of one free trail per
household. Offer only available in the UK. Local calls charged at BT
local rates. Access to and usage of AOL is subject to terms and
conditions which are available online. Please note that an AOL account
is only opened if you register online with AOL. If you have only
received the CD an account has not been opened.
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO TRY AOL, YOU DO NOT NEED TO RETURN THE CD - YOU
WILL NOT BE CHARGED.
If you do not wish to receive information from AOL and other selected
companies on goods and services that may be of interest to you please
tick this box [ ] and return to: AOL Data Services, Redgrove House, 393
Lordship Lane, East Dulwich, London SE22 8JN.
Wow. Just wow. So... let me get this straight...
- The "99 FREE HOURS" doesn't include the cost of the telephone calls.
It just means "free" as in AOL WON'T CHARGE YOU.
- The 99 hours have to be used within 1 calendar month.
of whether you actually use AOL at all.
- You get *three* hours of Internet access. After that you get charged
- Access to AOL is subject to terms and conditions WHICH ARE AVAILABLE
ONLINE?!?
- A choice of billing opions is available ONLINE too...
- This thing works with Windows 3.1? o_O
- 486 DX or higher??
- OMG, back then you had to actually *specify* a PC capable of
displaying actual graphics?! :-D
- Look at that. 8 MB of RAM for an "operating system". Anybody wanna try
Vista with that? (Or XP. Or hell, even NT4?)
- Even back then, Windows 3.1 only requires 8MB RAM, but already Win95
requires *twice as much*! (And *triple* the HD space...)
- [Even back then, I already had a machine that happily displays 256
colours at resolutions more than a tad above 640x480, has a full
premptive multitasking OS with sophisticated GUI, and needs only 2MB of
RAM to do its job - HD optional.]
- I've checked thrice; it definitely says "1440 kpbs modem". (But notice
that the SECOND time it gets it right.)
- Why does a Mac require a faster modem than a PC? [Or is it just that
Apple never made slow modems?]
But The Real WTF(tm) is
- ...my company USED THIS PRODUCT for 5 years???
As in, my company used a RESIDENTIAL INTERNET ACCESS PACKAGE to present
their corporate presence to the Internet? o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Damn, I was gonna just throw this thing away - but now I'm thinking
maybe it should be in a muesium?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:55:10 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>Damn, I was gonna just throw this thing away - but now I'm thinking
>maybe it should be in a muesium?
I regret throwing away my copy of Windows version 1 :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> of whether you actually use AOL at all.
Why is that strange? That's how modern ADSL and other similar fixed-fee
internet connections work. It doesn't matter if you download and upload at
full rate 24/7, or you don't use the connection at all, you still have to
pay the monthly fee.
(Ok, some ISPs may limit your monthly bandwidth, but others don't.)
> - This thing works with Windows 3.1? o_O
> - 486 DX or higher??
Why is that strange?
> - Even back then, Windows 3.1 only requires 8MB RAM, but already Win95
> requires *twice as much*! (And *triple* the HD space...)
Actually Windows 3.1 could run in much less, and Win95 could run with
4 MB (I have direct experience of this).
> - [Even back then, I already had a machine that happily displays 256
> colours at resolutions more than a tad above 640x480, has a full
> premptive multitasking OS with sophisticated GUI, and needs only 2MB of
> RAM to do its job - HD optional.]
Most unix machines did that in the 70's.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I regret throwing away my copy of Windows version 1 :(
Damn, I've never even *heard* of Windows 1! I mean, obviously there must
have been one... but I've never heard anybody speak of it... hmm. I
guess that must have been back in the days before home PCs or something.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Damn, I've never even *heard* of Windows 1! I mean, obviously there must
> have been one... but I've never heard anybody speak of it... hmm. I
> guess that must have been back in the days before home PCs or something.
From the devil's mouth itself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
If I'm not mistaken, that ad is real.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:10:40 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> I regret throwing away my copy of Windows version 1 :(
>
>Damn, I've never even *heard* of Windows 1! I mean, obviously there must
>have been one... but I've never heard anybody speak of it... hmm. I
>guess that must have been back in the days before home PCs or something.
I can't remember when I got it but it ran on a PC under MS DOS. IFAICR
it looked like an early version of windows explorer. It was good for
Alt + Tab-ing when my boss came in :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> of whether you actually use AOL at all.
>
> Why is that strange? That's how modern ADSL and other similar fixed-fee
> internet connections work. It doesn't matter if you download and upload at
> full rate 24/7, or you don't use the connection at all, you still have to
> pay the monthly fee.
>
> (Ok, some ISPs may limit your monthly bandwidth, but others don't.)
Most systems that I have seen either charge you X per minute you're
online, X per unit of data downloaded/uploaded, or X per month. AOL are
charging you X per month + Y per minute + BT are charging you Z per
minute as well.
No number they're No.1? :-/
>> - This thing works with Windows 3.1? o_O
>> - 486 DX or higher??
>
> Why is that strange?
It isn't, rationally - it's just amusing! :-D
I wonder - at what point will obsolete computer hardware become valuable
antiques?
>> - Even back then, Windows 3.1 only requires 8MB RAM, but already Win95
>> requires *twice as much*! (And *triple* the HD space...)
>
> Actually Windows 3.1 could run in much less, and Win95 could run with
> 4 MB (I have direct experience of this).
Right. So it's the AOL client that's requiring all this then? [I just
remembered: IT'S AOL!!] Nothing new there then! ;-)
>> - [Even back then, I already had a machine that happily displays 256
>> colours at resolutions more than a tad above 640x480, has a full
>> premptive multitasking OS with sophisticated GUI, and needs only 2MB of
>> RAM to do its job - HD optional.]
>
> Most unix machines did that in the 70's.
Most Unix machines [as I understand it] cost more than my house in the
70's. ;-) Not that this really negates the point you were making...
10 years ago, so much was possible with so little hardware. Kinda makes
you feel sad...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> From the devil's mouth itself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
It... it scares me... mummy, please make the scary thing stop waving its
arms around and yelling hysterically at me. (._.)
[Jesus, and I don't even have a sound card...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I can't remember when I got it but it ran on a PC under MS DOS. IFAICR
> it looked like an early version of windows explorer. It was good for
> Alt + Tab-ing when my boss came in :)
Well, I can say with authority that Windows 3.11 was simply an
application program that runs under MS-DOS. If you write Windows, you go
back to DOS. When you start the PC, it boots DOS first, and then runs
Windows. And Windows 3.11 was litle more than a GUI with window movement
capabilities and icon management. [Why would you want several windows in
an OS that doesn't support multitasking?]
IIRC, Win95 and Win98 (and WinME?) are slightly thicker layers over the
top of MS-DOS, and it was WinNT that finally replaced DOS with a *real*
OS with actual *features* such as security, multitasking, hardware
abstraction, etc.
Ooo, ooo, remember TSRs? Remember spending hours editing C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT
and C:\CONFIG.SYS to try all permutations of driver loading order
looking for one that actually functioned?
Somewhere on the Internet, there's an MP3 of "Microsoft Jinglebells"
where a guy laments that "I've sat here installing Word since breakfast
yesterday". Certainly it used to really *be* like that!
I guess a few things _have_ improved slightly...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
