Thanks. Yes, he was a stock ingredient for macho, action movies in 70/80s - of course, the fact he was a bit of a bruiser in real life only helped the enjoyment
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
- Status
I thought this thread could have used some levity, and some levity it did deliver.
A jury of peers is good for keeping folks from taking themselves too seriously.
Thanks. Yes, he was a stock ingredient for macho, action movies in 70/80s - of course, the fact he was a bit of a bruiser in real life only helped the enjoyment
I have distant childhood memory of a scene from one of his cable-run Death Wish films, of someone kick-bursting open an apartment door and startling an older woman inside (someone possibly sitting at a kitchen dining table), who made a comically startled reaction. I remember my cousin and uncle recording it to VHS, and replaying that scene over and over, belly-laughing at the reaction, but I can’t remember whether that was Bronson’s character, trying to get a better angle at taking down a fugitive, or whether that was the fugitive doing the kick-dooring as he was trying to escape Bronson.
Sounds like it could've been Deathwish III - which to all intents and purposes was a black comedy/parody.
Bronson's film output swiftly took a nose dive into the 80s where most of his roles were silly guns and violence exploitation affairs made even more silly by the fact he was pushing 70!
How bout " rebuilding the old farts net" then ....?
Don't want to be disrespecful to anyone, but that would suits me fine.
@z970, we are joking, this thread is a nice place
Don't want to be disrespecful to anyone, but that would suits me fine.
@z970, we are joking, this thread is a nice place
How bout " rebuilding the old farts net" then ....?
Don't want to be disrespecful to anyone, but that would suits me fine.
@z970, we are joking, this thread is a nice place
CodgerNet2000.
A name for a 56k modem with USB-c connection !
It’s gotta have a built-in LED digital clock or else no deal!
And a built in FM radio, torch and easy carrying strap....
Still catering for oldies, The Control Voice brings you...
It's fun remembering how many products carried the magic "[year] 2000" in their name as early as the 1980s — and especially in the late 1990s, and how ungracefully some (most?) of these names have aged. Windows 2000's boot-up screen makes me think "Wow, it was a looong time ago that I couldn't get my hands on that soon enough"...
At least Mac OS 9 or X Public Beta weren't called Mac OS 2000 to match.
I apologise for having gone off-topic
Last edited:
Do you think it was gimmicky marketing? In MS case, they had already established the year of release with Windows 1995, 1998, 1998se etc. so 2000 was just following suit & then someone finally got a clue and you begin to see a shift to user experience with XP and onward.
and to keep this on topic, I built what would now be my first basic HTML web1.1 website on a windows 98se machine. At that point in time, I avoided Apple products like the plague lol. Funny how things change over 20 years or so.
and to keep this on topic, I built what would now be my first basic HTML web1.1 website on a windows 98se machine. At that point in time, I avoided Apple products like the plague lol. Funny how things change over 20 years or so.
Last edited:
I like that cultural time stamping on products - like in the 50s/60s where everything was a somethingomatic or a somethingatron
Same hereI like that cultural time stamping on products - like in the 50s/60s where everything was a somethingomatic or a somethingatron
98SE should have been "Windows 99" then.
The thing with renaming NT 4.0's successor to "Windows 2000" was that some people thought it was the successor to 98/98SE instead which it wasn't, not for the "average" home user. ME was the successor to 98/98SE and, making matters worse, I know people who thought 2000 and ME were the same thing following its release and I had a hard time explaining why that wasn't the case.
So, following a "year of release" pattern for the consumer versions, 98SE would have been "Windows 99" and ME would have been "Windows 2000". Windows 2000 would have been "Windows NT 5.0" as it was originally called.
For someone coming from 2000, XP was not much of an upgrade.
I wasn't really interested in Apple/Macs/Mac OS before I saw OS X 10.0 for the first time. Its GUI just blew me away.
Last edited:
Win2k was my favorite iteration of windows - still is. I guess I dont understand how their release year 2000 labeling speaks to gimmicky marketing. I agree absolutely that it is inconsistent as you have shown between the historical lineage of the builds but to my initial point, MS had established that trend 5 years prior, so makes practical sense.
On a funny side note, I remember when Millennium was released, all the compusa (I think it was CUSA) in my area held these "release parties" that were advertised on the radio - that is where I heard about them anyhow. I went to check it out and it was the most depressing thing - just cusa employees in red polos, completely unengaged with the product, uncomfortably standing around a fold out table at the front door with some old looking grocery store veggie platters. In my mind, I think back to that as how absolutely NOT to market an OS release - and those radio spots were prime time, so not cheap at all.
Must've been macos users.
On a funny side note, I remember when Millennium was released, all the compusa (I think it was CUSA) in my area held these "release parties" that were advertised on the radio - that is where I heard about them anyhow. I went to check it out and it was the most depressing thing - just cusa employees in red polos, completely unengaged with the product, uncomfortably standing around a fold out table at the front door with some old looking grocery store veggie platters. In my mind, I think back to that as how absolutely NOT to market an OS release - and those radio spots were prime time, so not cheap at all.
Must've been macos users.
I didn’t say and don’t think it was gimmicky marketing.
For me, year labelling firmly places products in an “era” and as time passes, makes me immediately realise just how much they’ve aged, which can be a bad thing sometimes. I mean, I still like and use Windows 2000 — but it’s gotten old. That being said, my Toshiba Portégé 2000 was released in… 2002.
I didn’t say and don’t think it was gimmicky marketing.
That being said, my Toshiba Portégé 2000 was released in… 2002.
While this effervescing discussion continues, I’ma dig out my back-issues of Mondo 2000 and pull up YT clips of Beyond 2000.
Later, gators.
Heck naw, < hot_take >Gateway 2000 computers are junk!< /hot_take >
I’m using my iBook [Sept.] 2000! ?
I sure will be using my Gateway 2000 running Best Linux 2000 and handling calls using my Mobira Cityman 2000.
Last edited:
Sorry, it looked like you were in agreement with Dronecatcher over the enjoyment of overarching marketing language trends that strongly identify with particular eras (which I agree is very cool).I didn’t say and don’t think it was gimmicky marketing.
That being said, my Toshiba Portégé 2000 was released in… 2002.
I mean if something-o-matic and something-a-tron ... and for that matter something-"2000" are not gimmicky marketing language when thrown at a product randomly ie: hamburger flipper2000, then I must not be a native English speaker and clearly missed the intent of what you both were speaking to.Same hereI like that cultural time stamping on products - like in the 50s/60s where everything was a somethingomatic or a somethingatron
As I've spoken to multiple times above, in the realm of MS windows, the use of release date years was established & maintained well before win2k was released and as such, has relevance with the product & makes sense that they would have used it as a continuation of that naming language.
and @z970 I am also very sorry for falling into the sand trap that are unrelated, off-topic forum differing POV discussions on the interwebs
I appreciate you all - this is all in good fun.=========
Actually, I do have a question @z970 - I went to a retro computer gathering this morning in my town and sorbet came up. The guys I wwas talking to were all very keen on a Tiger version of Sorbet. IIRC I have seen you speak to this in the past as something that was possibly in the works. Any truth to this? I know so many dyed-in-the-wool Tiger aficianados who would be super stoked. Oddly enough I got a comment about Sorbet for Tiger on one of my YT vids the other day as well - just seems to be a bunch of interest for it. Anyhow, y'all have a great rest of your weekend.
Last edited:
No, the blame is entirely on me for missing your point. Oops!I mean if something-o-matic and something-a-tron ... and for that matter something-"2000" are not gimmicky marketing language when thrown at a product randomly ie: hamburger flipper2000, then I must not be a native English speaker and clearly missed the intent of what you both were speaking to.
These were only used for the consumer versions prior to W2K’s release. Applying them to NT was (presumably) done to suggest W2K was “NT for everyone” but didn’t quite work out as most PCs continued shipping with 98SE (and later, ME)…
Anyway, let’s get back on topic
Last edited:
Hi, I didn't live the web 1.0 world cause I didn't visited the Internet before 2013, and today's JS, polifill and such Internet bloatware is disturbing me.
The first post mentioned that Node.js is discouraged, but, there is server-side Node.js and Client-side Node.js. I understand that Angular, JQuery, Vue and similar stuff are discouraged, but, what about server-side node.js? There are interesting frameworks, and you probably can make a website without client-side Javascript while using server-side Javascript. As an example, you could create the API with Express Framework and the client-side part with Metheor, but all the js code is running in the server all the time as far as I know. Is that discouraged? If yes, why? I have another two questions.
1. What about the aria-roles. Aria-roles are good if you want to improve the accessibility of a web page, and maybe would be useful if you ant to reduce the usage of JS for a web page! Such aria-roles depends on the screen readers. As a fact, blind people who require such stuff would browse with modern screen readers and old browsers. As an example, a Windows XP blind user could be browsing websites with IE8 and NVDA 0.6 (2009) through 2017.3. NVDA 0.6 would be able to understand some aria-roles (main, navigation, button, menu, menubar, menuitem, complementary and maybe some other aria-stuff). The role="image" don't work very well specially on old browsers, so the usage of the html img tag should be used instead. Some people have bad practices like using the div tag to create a button, you should use the button tag instead or if that's not possible you can use the attribute role="button". Html 5 new tags just are divs with aria roles, for example the nav tag for creating menus is something like div role="navigation", so, if you create an html5 to html4 translator I would suggest you to keep the aria-roles, so instead of replacing the nav tag with just div tag, you replace the nav tag with div role="navigation". So, can I use such aria-roles?
3. Is there an old CSS 2 Bootstrap or a similar CSS 2 framework? Are the pages responsive?
Last question: what (in your opinion) should be my priority for creating accessible web pages in the new 1.1? Very old screen readers and very old browsers (1990-2005 browsers/screen readers) or newer Screen Readers? I think I should target more modern screen readers introducing some WAI Aria content.
The first post mentioned that Node.js is discouraged, but, there is server-side Node.js and Client-side Node.js. I understand that Angular, JQuery, Vue and similar stuff are discouraged, but, what about server-side node.js? There are interesting frameworks, and you probably can make a website without client-side Javascript while using server-side Javascript. As an example, you could create the API with Express Framework and the client-side part with Metheor, but all the js code is running in the server all the time as far as I know. Is that discouraged? If yes, why? I have another two questions.
1. What about the aria-roles. Aria-roles are good if you want to improve the accessibility of a web page, and maybe would be useful if you ant to reduce the usage of JS for a web page! Such aria-roles depends on the screen readers. As a fact, blind people who require such stuff would browse with modern screen readers and old browsers. As an example, a Windows XP blind user could be browsing websites with IE8 and NVDA 0.6 (2009) through 2017.3. NVDA 0.6 would be able to understand some aria-roles (main, navigation, button, menu, menubar, menuitem, complementary and maybe some other aria-stuff). The role="image" don't work very well specially on old browsers, so the usage of the html img tag should be used instead. Some people have bad practices like using the div tag to create a button, you should use the button tag instead or if that's not possible you can use the attribute role="button". Html 5 new tags just are divs with aria roles, for example the nav tag for creating menus is something like div role="navigation", so, if you create an html5 to html4 translator I would suggest you to keep the aria-roles, so instead of replacing the nav tag with just div tag, you replace the nav tag with div role="navigation". So, can I use such aria-roles?
3. Is there an old CSS 2 Bootstrap or a similar CSS 2 framework? Are the pages responsive?
Last question: what (in your opinion) should be my priority for creating accessible web pages in the new 1.1? Very old screen readers and very old browsers (1990-2005 browsers/screen readers) or newer Screen Readers? I think I should target more modern screen readers introducing some WAI Aria content.
With regard to your question about bootstrap, it's pretty much HTML tables. and no chance on responsive design. typically back in the day you'd design around the most common screen resolution at the time and that was that
Is very dificult to create accessible web pages with tables, cause screen readers don't read correctly some stuff when there are a lot of tables (specially tables inside other tables). With bootstrap's Grid system that don't happend cause you usually use the div container instead of a table.