First of all let's us try to finish with the OP's question. It was and
I remind:
"Was Javascript ever used when Windows 3.0 was the norm of OSes?".
I guess a good part of the excitement came from the formulation "when
Windows 3.0 was the norm of OSes" - that brought here people tending
do not believe that such period of time ever existed. So let's us
bring the question to a neutral form:
""Was Javascript ever used on Windows 3.0?"
This is the question I actually answered saying that:
1) Yes, it was used on Netscape 2.0 with JavaScript support on Windows
3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.1 for Workgroups. I am the one of such
users. Because Windows 3.x originally did not have TCP/IP support,
both Netscape 2.0 and Internet Explorer 2.0 were coming with Trumpets
add-on one had to install and make autorun on Windows 3.x before being
able to use any browser. Latest Windows 3.1 - I believe - were coming
with Trumpets already included into installation package.
2) JavaScript was rarely used on Netscape for Windows 3.x for two
reasons:
a) with first Netscape with JavaScript support appeared December 1995,
in the year 1996 Web users under Windows 3.x were out of interest and
relevance for web-developers.
b) JavaScript engine for Netscape for Windows 3.x was implemented as
COM and not as EXE file with memory limit of 65536 bytes where the
engine code itself was placed as well. Besides the permanent code the
engine also created run-time internal allocations for service
purposes, so the actual available space for the user script might get
way below of the promised 32K. One could count on 8K-16K, the rest was
on luck. Yet now deeply forgotten art to compensate narrow resources
by programmer's creativity was still alive at that time, so I even
remember arcade games for Netscape 2.o with <textareaas an "output
device".
This is what I said in my first response and this is all true and
correct whether one likes it or not.
I believe - but it's really pushing my memory - that Netscape 3.0 also
had a version for Windows 3.x and that on this version the memory
limit problem was partially addressed so one could use scripts over
32K in size by breaking them onto several <scriptelements each no
more than 32K. So I guess instead of .com structure they moved on
QBasic/QuickBasic like approach with the interpreter by itself and
sources loaded on overlay.
Any way, it seems that no one so far contested the possibility itself
of using JavaScript on Windows 3.x The points of excitement are the
reasons why it never was widely used on this platform. These are 2(a)
and 2(b) from above. Truthfully the argument "because I said so as I
saw it by my own yeys" should be enough as an argument, but OK.
If anyone has problems with 2(a) then the advanced search at
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search
is to your service. You may measure yourself the level of interest to
Windows 3.x support by studying relevant questions year by year
starting January 1996.
A real conspiracy theory adept :-) may say of course that this part of
DejaNews archives was patched by malicious people :-) or that Windows
3.x supporters were a secret group of people avoiding to show up on
public forums :-) That would be hard to argue with such statements :-)
If anyone has problems with 2(b) then the linked FAQ from 1996
contains Brendan Eich response. If it's still not enough then just get
yourselve an old computer with 16-bit processor, MS-DOS 6.21 (or a bit
lower), Windows 3.1, Trumpets add-on, Netscape 2.0 with JavaScript
support, install all that and check yourselve with different script
sizes.
Now OT topics:
1) Aggressive style of my response - that is primarily for Richard
Formby. I'm never getting agressive first, especially against novices.
But I can be rough in responding if provoced by. The post at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9bd31232da8fd4
was clearly an OT personality-targeted trolling, so the style of my
response was adequate IMHO.
2) Windows 3.0, 3.1 was not a widely used system, it did not end
Apple's plans etc (beegee, Richard Formby).
Whatever. Now everyone who has seen "Pirates of Silicon Valley" seems
thinking to know all ins and outs of the history :-\ In fact, guys,
you would have the same luck with studying the Roman history by
watching the "Gladiator" movie. That is a Holliwood movie: based on
true, painted here, ommited there... The casting was good though: I
really liked the actors in "Pirates...". For some reason they removed
McNealy completely out of the story.
Microsoft - Apple - Sun, Bill Gates - Steve Jobs - Scott McNealy was
the real "triangle of hate" and who of two rivals was more "antigated"
is really a hard question to answer :-) Java language itself is the
only language I know that is created not out of necessity but out of
hate - to get down Windows together with Billy and his stupid
Microsoft. Both Jobs and McNealy eventually had "to walk to Canossa" -
Jobs on that conference, McNealy in special statement about Java he
had to read in front of major stockholders.
Anyway, to make it more acceptable for some: while talking about
Windows 3.x and 95 usage and migration I'm referring to places I know
about with California in the center. On outskirts of the degital and
Web revolutions the history may be all different.
You have a pretty cloudy view of history VK. Windows 3.0 was just one
of quite a few windowing systems for Intel (DOS based computers) that
were out at the time. It was not taken seriously by any corporate IT
department, DOS was the OS of the day and Microsoft was DOS. 3.1
changed all that in corporate environments but it wasn't until Windows
95 that
Apple's "business plans" were "wiped out" as you put it.
That is already answered I believe above. I just want to repeat that
anyone is entitled to create an "alternative history" and believe in
it. Moreover such alternative history may be true in some place on the
Earth outside of the US.
True in a completely disengenous way. NT was a pure, written from the
ground up, OS, with linear addressing. Windows 98 and ME were
descendants of Windows 95 which were all built on top of DOS which
could only accomplish linear addressing by "thunking". MS reluctantly
put out 98 and ME but only because NT didn't meet home user,
multimedia needs.
Sign it off for my stupidness - which is a given fact to you anyway I
guess - but this paragraph has no sense whatsoever to me. It is such a
mixture of fantasies, errors and calls for trolling that commenting on
it would take a whole new big post which would be totally OT to clj.
You may post this fragment on some comp.os.* group if really
interested in the discussion on this particular segment.
Despite you contradicting yourself here I'll just say that Windows
users are notoriously slow adopters and there were plenty of 3.1 users
years after 95 was release. Vista and XP were fast adoptions but only
because Dell, HP, Gateway etc. shipped all new laptops and pcs with
these OS's installed.
Same as above.
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
Yup, you know your ancient computer architecture all right.
So what was the need to comment on it plus trying to represent it as
some rude error - by both of you? 16 bits allow to represent - if
unsigned - 2^16 values - 65,536 bytes of address space. On 16-bit
systems this is all what you can do. To overcome that one uses
coordinate-like system with one byte indicating memory segment and
other byte indicating the position inside this segment. That allows to
have for each process 65,536 memory segments with 65,536 bytes in each
thus 65536*65536 = 4,294,967,296 bytes = 4 Gb
Many CS are leaving the university with an idea that on 16-bit systems
there were some "regular words" with the capacity up to 65536 and some
other special words ("extended links" etc) with some mighty spell
posed on them so 16 bit could represent 4,294,967,296 values. Both of
you tried to explain to me this while I simply explained the
background mechanics of the "magic". All this relevant to 16-bit
platforms. On 32-bit platforms the word can address up to 4Gb without
any extra steps. If you want to know even more on the subject then
this part of the discussion could be moved onto comp.*.architecture
groups.
