Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: GIMP is on the NZ PC world magazine

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: GIMP is on the NZ PC world magazine

 
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2003
"techie" wrote
> Heh. Sounds like MS needs to add a Windows 98 compatability layer to
> Windows XP.


there is one.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
techie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2003
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:03:35 -0700, Eagle Eye wrote:

> The only problem is that it's only for Win 95/98, as it's an old
> program from 1999.


Heh. Sounds like MS needs to add a Windows 98 compatability layer to
Windows XP.

--
____ ___ _______ ____ ___
/ __/______ ___ / _ )/ __/ _ \ / __/ < / http://www.FreeBSD.org
/ _// __/ -_) -_) _ |\ \/ // / /__ \_ / / <-- kewl figlet sig!
/_/ /_/ \__/\__/____/___/____/ /____(_)_/ http://www.figlet.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003
"techie" wrote
> >> Heh. Sounds like MS needs to add a Windows 98 compatability layer to
> >> Windows XP.


> > there is one.


> No, I meant a *real* compatability layer, one that works invisibly to
> the user. With Windows XP the user has to go through a few steps, which
> means they have to somehow know that those steps exist and how to do
> them


Or, maybe users could stop using old software that isnt designed for the new
OS?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003
T.N.O. wrote:

> "techie" wrote
>> >> Heh. Sounds like MS needs to add a Windows 98 compatability layer to
>> >> Windows XP.

>
>> > there is one.

>
>> No, I meant a *real* compatability layer, one that works invisibly to
>> the user. With Windows XP the user has to go through a few steps, which
>> means they have to somehow know that those steps exist and how to do
>> them

>
> Or, maybe users could stop using old software that isnt designed for the new
> OS?


But why should they? If their software does the job, why should they have
to change it just because some greedy wankers in Redmond decide that
they're going to ditch support for their own b0rken code and force
everyone to do the new-os-new-hardware-new-everything dance all over
again? And don't tell me they can continue to run the older OS; try
getting new security patches for a net-connected, but otherwise perfectly
functional, Windows 98 machine. Latest isn't always greatest, and
businesses can't always afford to convert/upgrade at Billy-boy's whim.

Richard
 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003
"Richard" wrote
> But why should they? If their software does the job, why should they have
> to change it just because some greedy wankers in Redmond decide that
> they're going to ditch support for their own b0rken code and force
> everyone to do the new-os-new-hardware-new-everything dance all over
> again?


Who said that the OS code is broken, could it be that the software simply
wasnt designed to work on XP, wouldn't that make it the software vendors
fault?

> And don't tell me they can continue to run the older OS


wasn't going to.

> try
> getting new security patches for a net-connected, but otherwise perfectly
> functional, Windows 98 machine.


There were a few last week...

> Latest isn't always greatest, and
> businesses can't always afford to convert/upgrade at Billy-boy's whim.


never said they did, but if they have a new OS(example above), presumably
they got it with a new machine, in my experience, very few companies upgrade
their OS, they get new machines with the new os on it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
techie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:03:47 -0700, T.N.O. wrote:

> "techie" wrote
>> Heh. Sounds like MS needs to add a Windows 98 compatability layer to
>> Windows XP.

>
> there is one.


No, I meant a *real* compatability layer, one that works invisibly to
the user. With Windows XP the user has to go through a few steps, which
means they have to somehow know that those steps exist and how to do
them:

<http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-355.html>

Now strangely, FreeBSD which is designed for by hardcore geeks, is even
easier than the designed-for-consumers Windows in this department. I
can't tell a Linux-native binary program from a FreeBSD-native binary
just by running it. Install it the same way, use it the same way, the
correct compatability layer kicks in automatically.

The only reason I can imagine that Microsoft can't make it just as easy,
is that maybe Windows executables don't contain enough embedded info to
know the target platform of an application. But I used to program for
DOS a lot and Windows a little, and I'm sure there's a byte in the
Windows EXE header for the target platform.

Dang if I know. <scratching head>

--
____ ___ _______ ____ ___
/ __/______ ___ / _ )/ __/ _ \ / __/ < / http://www.FreeBSD.org
/ _// __/ -_) -_) _ |\ \/ // / /__ \_ / / <-- kewl figlet sig!
/_/ /_/ \__/\__/____/___/____/ /____(_)_/ http://www.figlet.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eagle Eye
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003

"techie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsan.2003.10.10.04.42.49.961293.4531@nospam321 .invalid...
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:23:38 -0700, T.N.O. wrote:
>
> > "Richard" wrote
> >> But why should they? If their software does the job, why should they
> >> have to change it just because some greedy wankers in Redmond decide
> >> that they're going to ditch support for their own b0rken code and force
> >> everyone to do the new-os-new-hardware-new-everything dance all over
> >> again?

> >
> > Who said that the OS code is broken, could it be that the software
> > simply wasnt designed to work on XP, wouldn't that make it the software
> > vendors fault?

>
> No, it would be Microsoft's fault for failing to maintain compatability
> with their older API's.
>
> Here I am running a *free* OS that can run binaries compiled for
> entirely different operating systems - and in many cases even
> closed-source Windows - and yet Microsoft can't even maintain code
> compatability from one version of their own expensive OS to the next on
> the very same hardware.
>


Don't tell me it's Linux - I would never have guessed.


 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003

"Patrick FitzGerald" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> I have installed Paint shop Pro 5 from PC User Disk under XP no
> problems so far


Good to know, thanks Patrick.
--
~misfit~


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003


 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003

"T.N.O." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bm4m3a$irf9g$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> "techie" wrote
> > Heh. Sounds like MS needs to add a Windows 98 compatability layer to
> > Windows XP.

>
> there is one.


LOL. It doesn't always work though. I have a few games that ran fine under
98SE that won't go with XP, even using 'compatability mode'. Random crashes.
--
~misfit~


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003


 
Reply With Quote
 
harry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2003
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:16:45 +1300, Eagle Eye wrote:


> "techie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsan.2003.10.10.04.42.49.961293.4531@nospam321 .invalid...
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:23:38 -0700, T.N.O. wrote:
>>
>> > "Richard" wrote
>> >> But why should they? If their software does the job, why should
>> >> they have to change it just because some greedy wankers in Redmond
>> >> decide that they're going to ditch support for their own b0rken code
>> >> and force everyone to do the new-os-new-hardware-new-everything
>> >> dance all over again?
>> >
>> > Who said that the OS code is broken, could it be that the software
>> > simply wasnt designed to work on XP, wouldn't that make it the
>> > software vendors fault?

>>
>> No, it would be Microsoft's fault for failing to maintain compatability
>> with their older API's.
>>
>> Here I am running a *free* OS that can run binaries compiled for
>> entirely different operating systems - and in many cases even
>> closed-source Windows - and yet Microsoft can't even maintain code
>> compatability from one version of their own expensive OS to the next on
>> the very same hardware.
>>
>>

> Don't tell me it's Linux - I would never have guessed.


Don't tell me, you are a moron that can't read a signature that says
FreeBSD in both ASCII art and a URL.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: GIMP magazine - Issue 3 - Out now! Danny D. Digital Photography 10 03-09-2013 05:25 AM
Warning on Subscribing Magazines at Magazine World gjoeychan@gmail.com Digital Photography 2 03-13-2006 02:08 AM
March PC World Magazine Rider NZ Computing 25 03-04-2004 07:36 PM



Advertisments