Re: life after Windows....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ray Fischer, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer writes:
    >
    >> Which version of Windows?

    >
    >Any version.


    Wrong answer. You cannot run XP and Vista at the same time without
    virtualization.

    > Current versions of Windows can still run software written for
    >older versions of Windows.


    With some exceptions.

    > Even MS-DOS programs can still be run, if they are
    >properly written.


    Which means that many cannot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 29, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer writes:
    >
    >> Wrong answer. You cannot run XP and Vista at the same time without
    >> virtualization.

    >
    >Why would you want to run XP and Vista at the same time?


    Because, dim one, some applications don't run on Vista and some don't
    run on XP.

    >> Which means that many cannot.

    >
    >Quite a few MS-DOS applications didn't follow the rules,


    Which means that they won't run on Vista.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 30, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Wrong answer. You cannot run XP and Vista at the same time without
    > > virtualization.

    >
    > Why would you want to run XP and Vista at the same time?


    a software developer would, in order to test on both and not need to
    dual boot. or software might simply not work on one.

    > > With some exceptions.

    >
    > If they are well written, they will run.


    most software is not well written.

    > Which Mac applications from the 1980s will run on modern-day Macs as-is?


    nearly all of them will run on a powerpc mac. it's the exception that
    an old app will fail.

    in fact, apple used lode runner from 1985 as a test tool for testing
    classic. note that lode runner was written for a mac that had a small
    b/w screen (512x384), a totally different cpu (68000) and a totally
    different operating system and it works on a powerpc cpu running os x
    with multiple colour displays.

    however, most people, as you like to say, don't care about running 20
    year old software, so support for classic was dropped with intel macs,
    because apple would have had to write *another* emulator that would
    only be used by a tiny percentage of users. their time is better spent
    creating new features that take advantage of newer hardware rather than
    supporting ancient software.
     
    nospam, Mar 30, 2009
    #3
  4. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > nospam writes:
    >
    > > a software developer would, in order to test on both and not need to
    > > dual boot. or software might simply not work on one.

    >
    > Most users are not software developers.


    so what? it's still a scenario where one would need to run both, and
    *not* by setting a compatibility mode.

    > > most software is not well written.

    >
    > There is nothing that OS developers can do about that.


    sure there is. they can make the apis more robust. unfortunately,
    that takes more time and companies like to release stuff that mostly
    works.

    > If a program doesn't
    > follow the rules, its proper execution cannot be guaranteed.


    right.

    > > nearly all of them will run on a powerpc mac.

    >
    > But PowerPC Macs are obsolete. What about a new Mac?


    they are fully supported.

    > > however, most people, as you like to say, don't care about running 20
    > > year old software, so support for classic was dropped with intel macs,
    > > because apple would have had to write *another* emulator that would
    > > only be used by a tiny percentage of users.

    >
    > A bit like Macs themselves being used by only a tiny percentage of computer
    > users in the world.
    >
    > Windows, however, has been on the same hardware platform for decades, and so
    > executables from way back continue to run.


    actually, quite a bit has changed hardware wise over the years.

    > > their time is better spent
    > > creating new features that take advantage of newer hardware rather than
    > > supporting ancient software.

    >
    > That depends on your point of view. For users who still need to run old
    > software, it seems very shortsighted.


    for them, sure, but apple's time is better spent adding new features
    that will be used every day than it does by maintaining compatibility
    with 20 year old software that a user might run once in a while. in a
    poll i saw a year or two ago, something like 95% of mac users at the
    time used classic either rarely or never. why bother supporting a
    feature that so few people use?

    and since intel macs can run windows at full native speeds alongside os
    x, users can probably replace that old outdated classic mac software
    with windows apps. after all, everything can be done with windows
    software, according to you.
     
    nospam, Mar 30, 2009
    #4
  5. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer writes:
    >
    >> Because, dim one, some applications don't run on Vista and some don't
    >> run on XP.

    >
    >Which ones run on Vista, but not XP?


    At work I use a Metrowerks compiler to build code for imbedded
    processors and it doesn't work with Vista.

    >> Which means that they won't run on Vista.

    >
    >They won't run on Windows 95, either. But there's never an obligation to
    >support software that doesn't follow the rules.


    It's not about "obligation", dimwit. It's about selling what people
    will buy.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 30, 2009
    #5
  6. Ray Fischer

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Mxsmanic
    <> writes
    >Ray Fischer writes:
    >
    >> Because, dim one, some applications don't run on Vista and some don't
    >> run on XP.

    >
    >Which ones run on Vista, but not XP?


    A large number of embedded systems development tools. Mind you they
    don't run on MAC's or Linux either :)

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Mar 30, 2009
    #6
  7. Ray Fischer

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Mxsmanic
    <> writes
    >Ray Fischer writes:
    >
    >> At work I use a Metrowerks compiler to build code for imbedded
    >> processors and it doesn't work with Vista.

    >
    >What does the vendor have to say about it?


    Not much and I doubt they will worry.
    To be fair most embedded compilers don't run on Vista. One of the worlds
    major compiler vendors said that they will convert the compilers to
    Vista when they do major new versions "if there is market demand" which
    by and large there hasn't

    >> It's not about "obligation", dimwit. It's about selling what people
    >> will buy.

    >
    >It's about competent software engineering.


    Not usually :-(

    > Ignoring the rules is very
    >tempting to programmers who aren't good enough to accomplish a task within the
    >constraints of those rules.


    I agree.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Mar 31, 2009
    #7
  8. Ray Fischer

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Mxsmanic
    <> writes
    >Chris H writes:
    >
    >> A large number of embedded systems development tools. Mind you they
    >> don't run on MAC's or Linux either :)

    >
    >What do the vendors of these tools say about the problem?


    What problem ?

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Mar 31, 2009
    #8
  9. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > Part of the API has to trust the calling program; there is no way to protect
    > this part of the API against programmers who refuse to follow the rules.


    it can check for bogus values and return some sort of error instead of
    crashing.

    > > they are fully supported.

    >
    > They are obsolete. What about a new Mac?


    powerpc macs are *not* obsolete. the current version of os x runs on
    both powerpc macs and intel macs. they are fully supported.

    > > actually, quite a bit has changed hardware wise over the years.

    >
    > Executables from 25 years ago still run on Windows hardware. The machine
    > instruction set is the same (with additions).


    that's what's amazing about a mac, the cpu totally changed yet 25 year
    old software still runs, and if you include third party utilities, they
    *still* run, with a second cpu change.

    > > for them, sure, but apple's time is better spent adding new features
    > > that will be used every day than it does by maintaining compatibility
    > > with 20 year old software that a user might run once in a while.

    >
    > There are many users who run 20-year-old applications all day long, not just
    > once in a while.


    no, there are not many at all. very few in fact. you snipped the part
    where i cited a poll that showed 95% of mac users rarely or never using
    classic to run old mac software. the never category alone was
    something like 80-85% if i recall. i'm sure the figures for people who
    still run dos apps aren't much different.

    resources are better spent implementing new features that will benefit
    100% of the userbase instead of just 5%.
     
    nospam, Mar 31, 2009
    #9
  10. On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:04:40 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > nospam writes:
    >
    >> it can check for bogus values and return some sort of error instead of
    >> crashing.

    >
    > The OS cannot know if an API call is being made for a legitimate or
    > illegitimate purpose.
    >
    >> that's what's amazing about a mac, the cpu totally changed yet 25 year
    >> old software still runs, and if you include third party utilities, they
    >> *still* run, with a second cpu change.

    >
    > But 25-year-old software runs under Windows, too.


    The problem with Windows is that five year old hardware won't run.

    Try getting Vista drivers for old printers and scanners and see how far
    it gets you.




    --
    William Black
     
    William Black, Mar 31, 2009
    #10
  11. "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > William Black writes:
    >
    >> The problem with Windows is that five year old hardware won't run.

    >
    > I have hardware older than that that runs just fine.
    >
    >> Try getting Vista drivers for old printers and scanners and see how far
    >> it gets you.

    >
    > Vista isn't Windows, it's Vista. And it has a lot of problems that
    > Windows
    > does not share.
    >


    Vista IS the windows operating system intended to replace XP.
    It sucks, the company I work for installs XP on all new hardware
    as it runs so much better than Vista. I actually have to use a Vista
    machine as we have customers on that OS. Just compiling the
    software (using Microsoft compilers) is a pain.

    I am an old Unix hand (along with MVS XA, Primos and VMS)
    but was generally pro Windows until the abomination known as
    Vista landed on my desktop.

    Keith
     
    Keith Willshaw, Apr 1, 2009
    #11
  12. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > The problem with Windows is that five year old hardware won't run.

    >
    > I have hardware older than that that runs just fine.
    >
    > > Try getting Vista drivers for old printers and scanners and see how far
    > > it gets you.

    >
    > Vista isn't Windows, it's Vista. And it has a lot of problems that Windows
    > does not share.


    this just gets more amusing with every post.

    if it's not windows, you'd better tell microsoft to remove windows from
    its name:
    <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/default.aspx>

    and from the box:
    <http://media.teamxbox.com/cesar/windows_vista_ultimate_box.jpg>

    as for compatibility, not everything runs on windows vista:
    <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305>

    Most programs that are written for Windows XP also work in Windows
    Vista. However, some older programs might run poorly or might not run
    at all.
     
    nospam, Apr 1, 2009
    #12
  13. Ray Fischer

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > The OS cannot know if an API call is being made for a legitimate or
    > illegitimate purpose.


    it doesn't have to, but it can check for bogus parameters that can
    cause a crash.

    > > that's what's amazing about a mac, the cpu totally changed yet 25 year
    > > old software still runs, and if you include third party utilities, they
    > > *still* run, with a second cpu change.

    >
    > But 25-year-old software runs under Windows, too.


    not all of it:

    <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305>

    Most programs that are written for Windows XP also work in Windows
    Vista. However, some older programs might run poorly or might not run
    at all.

    > > resources are better spent implementing new features that will benefit
    > > 100% of the userbase instead of just 5%.

    >
    > If the software does what you require, new features are unnecessary, and they
    > only destabilize the product.


    nonsense. the features in whatever you are currently using were 'new'
    at some point and are presumably stable, especially since it lasted 25
    years.
     
    nospam, Apr 1, 2009
    #13
  14. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer writes:
    >
    >> At work I use a Metrowerks compiler to build code for imbedded
    >> processors and it doesn't work with Vista.

    >
    >What does the vendor have to say about it?


    Nothing. They don't care.

    >> It's not about "obligation", dimwit. It's about selling what people
    >> will buy.

    >
    >It's about competent software engineering.


    You know nothing at all about software engineering.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 1, 2009
    #14
  15. Ray Fischer

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >nospam writes:
    >
    >> so what?

    >
    >So describing software developers in a discussion about average users is
    >irrelevant.
    >
    >> sure there is. they can make the apis more robust. unfortunately,
    >> that takes more time and companies like to release stuff that mostly
    >> works.

    >
    >Part of the API has to trust the calling program;


    Nope.

    > there is no way to protect
    >this part of the API against programmers who refuse to follow the rules.


    Yes there are ways.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 1, 2009
    #15
  16. Ray Fischer

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Mxsmanic
    <> writes
    >Chris H writes:
    >
    >> A large number of embedded systems development tools. Mind you they
    >> don't run on MAC's or Linux either :)

    >
    >What do the vendors of these tools say about the problem?



    Just to reiterate. There is no problem with professional embedded
    development tools not running on MACs or Linux.

    MACS are mainly used in the media area where there are I am sure apps
    that run on MACs that are not on PC's

    In the embedded development world the PC is standard usually running on
    Win98se, NT or XP You will be hard pressed to find any professional
    engineering teams on Vista, Macs (unless in the media/Music area) or on
    Linux (that are not using GNU/ GCC)

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Apr 1, 2009
    #16
  17. On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:45:17 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Keith Willshaw writes:
    >
    >> I am an old Unix hand (along with MVS XA, Primos and VMS) but was
    >> generally pro Windows until the abomination known as Vista landed on
    >> my desktop.

    >
    > Vista was a huge mistake. Now that Bill is gone, you can expect
    > Microsoft to make more and more huge mistakes.


    That shows a huge misunderstanding about what Microsoft exists for.

    Microsoft does not exist to support existing products.

    It exists to sell products.

    As the computer market aproaches saturation it is pretty obvious that
    they need a product they can sell into a mass market.

    Very few home users buy M$ Office

    The only way they can kill a stable and effective product like Windows XP
    is by withdrawing support for it so forcing people to buy a new product
    when purchasing a new computer.

    It's known to the industry as 'The Windows tax'.

    I won't pay. I buy my hardware either with a free operating system or
    without an OS and install my own.

    But most domestic users can't or won't do this.

    --
    William Black
     
    William Black, Apr 1, 2009
    #17
  18. Ray Fischer

    Chris H Guest

    In message <gqvmhl$g98$>, William Black
    <> writes
    >On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:45:17 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    >> Keith Willshaw writes:
    >>
    >>> I am an old Unix hand (along with MVS XA, Primos and VMS) but was
    >>> generally pro Windows until the abomination known as Vista landed on
    >>> my desktop.

    >>
    >> Vista was a huge mistake. Now that Bill is gone, you can expect
    >> Microsoft to make more and more huge mistakes.

    >
    >That shows a huge misunderstanding about what Microsoft exists for.
    >
    >Microsoft does not exist to support existing products.
    >
    >It exists to sell products.
    >
    >As the computer market aproaches saturation it is pretty obvious that
    >they need a product they can sell into a mass market.
    >
    >Very few home users buy M$ Office


    That is not true.

    >The only way they can kill a stable and effective product like Windows XP
    >is by withdrawing support for it so forcing people to buy a new product
    >when purchasing a new computer.


    Interesting so far they have extended SUPPLY (let alone support) for XP
    at least twice and continued it for several years after they first said
    they would drop it.


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Apr 1, 2009
    #18
  19. On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:54:11 +0100, Chris H wrote:

    > In message <gqvmhl$g98$>, William Black
    > <> writes


    >>Very few home users buy M$ Office

    >
    > That is not true.


    Please notice I said 'buy', and not 'use'.

    >>The only way they can kill a stable and effective product like Windows
    >>XP is by withdrawing support for it so forcing people to buy a new
    >>product when purchasing a new computer.

    >
    > Interesting so far they have extended SUPPLY (let alone support) for XP
    > at least twice and continued it for several years after they first said
    > they would drop it.



    That's because they have little alternative.

    the supply of Windows XP is restricted in some odd ways as well.

    They won't supply it to an OEM to be put on a modern desk top unless they
    buy some form of Vista as well.



    --
    William Black
     
    William Black, Apr 1, 2009
    #19
  20. Chris H wrote:
    > In message <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> writes
    >> Chris H writes:
    >>
    >>> A large number of embedded systems development tools. Mind you they
    >>> don't run on MAC's or Linux either :)

    >>
    >> What do the vendors of these tools say about the problem?

    >
    >
    > Just to reiterate. There is no problem with professional embedded
    > development tools not running on MACs or Linux.
    >
    > MACS are mainly used in the media area where there are I am sure apps
    > that run on MACs that are not on PC's
    >
    >

    [removed:]
    rec.travel.air
    rec.travel.europe
    rec.travel.europe

    Are you, Chris, going to be the Floyd of "lense" fame, consistently
    mispelling "Mac"?
    MAC is something quite different from the diminutive of "Macintosh".

    --
    lsmft

    ps Are you down in The City throwing rocks today?
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 1, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. psion
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    639
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    May 18, 2004
  2. jriegle

    Flash memory udeful life and data storage life

    jriegle, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    685
    jriegle
    Oct 17, 2003
  3. Koos Nolst Trenite
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    764
    Dale Houstman
    Aug 28, 2005
  4. 88059355

    Life Balance Coaching: Balance Work And Life Like A Pro

    88059355, Jan 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    645
  5. fit0
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,210
Loading...

Share This Page