On Mar 8, 4:51 pm, "Richard Formby" <newsgro...@bar efile.com.au>
wrote:
VK misinformed:
I really like children: despite they can be very silly or irritating -
like in this post - despite that there is some charm in their burning
desire to declare some new truth and to smash down the old one. The
shining lack of knowledge and experience they are routinely trying to
compensated by extra energy.
The OP specified windows 3.0, not 3.x. 3.0 was a non-event.
In the parallel history maybe, but in the reality of this time
stream :-) Windows 3.0 was that started the Microsoft as what it is
right now. Windows 3.0 is also what wiped out all Apple's business
plans there were clear, glorious and prepared for 10 years in
advance.
Windows 3.1 and 3.1 for Workgroups were merely the fixation of the
overwhelming success of 3.0
If you insist on an alternative history you've made from stories of
your older friends I will not argue with it though - I had my fun,
some other may enjoy either.
For JavaScript related side of the question there is no difference of
use for Windows 3.0, 3.1 or 3.1 for Workgroups. This is why as long as
we are talking about JavaScript programming, this line of Windows is
totally appropriate to be referred as Windows 3.x
was already on
decline with Windows 95 migration almost completed.
Wrong. 3.1 lasted way past 1995.
The first Netscape with JavaScript support was released December
1995. That is the time when comp.lang.java. * groups became filled
with JavaScript questions, and this is the time when "JavaScript is
not Java!" slogan went into use and this is when comp.lang.javas cript
creation process started with voting passed at January 1996. Somewhere
by the springtime of 1996 the questions of JavaScript development for
Windows 3.x platforms did not have any noticeable importance. Windows
95 was the same E.L.E. as Windows 3.0 was before and the migration
(=sells) were going in a storm tempo.
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ from April 1996 retained some memories of
Windows 3.x issues but mainly because the formation of the document
started by Andy Augustin even before c.l.j. creation, in the group
itself starting from the first posts at January 1996 no one was
interested in Windows 3.x support.
So Windows 3.x was
approx. in the same position as Windows 98 SE or Windows ME are right
now against Windows XP.
Wrong (subtly). XP is nothing more than windows NT version 5.1 and NT was
around way before windows 98 was even announced.
I thought the context was pretty clear, but if not: I mean the
_proportion_ of users with this or that type of OS. Right now there is
some amount of Windows 98 users and - who knows - maybe still some
Windows 3.x users. Same at 1995/1996/1997 - some amount of Windows 3.x
users definitely remained but they went out of any public interest
soon after Windows 95 release.
2) On 16-bit platforms JavaScript engine was made as COM and not as
EXE module (some may remember .com vs .exe distinction on MS-DOS)
Please cite your reference for this rubbish. Nobody (except for perhaps
driver authors) wrote to .com in this era. In 1985 perhaps, but not in the
90's.
You are such a funny little troll you are. What is COMMAND.COM ?
That meant 65536 bytes for all fun including the engine itself taking
good half of it.
Bullshit. A 16 bit program had access to all memory, yes, all 640K of it.
You need to look into what large pointers are.
With 16-bits you cannot address more than 65536 memory sells: same way
as one cannot write "half-wit" by using only 2 letters. There are many
ways to overcome this limitation like using two addresses: memory
segment and the position within this memory segment. Or do not bother
and to write a program fitted into 65536 bytes. The benefits are the
simplicity of the memory management, the payback is the used memory
limitation. Both ways were in use with executables extension by
convention either .com (65536) or .exe
JavaScript for Windows 3.x was .com with the memory limitation imposed
by this fact. In the linked FAQ of 1996 there is Brendan Eich response
about different engine limitations at that time. If you read it than
you maybe would save my time from extra explanations.
