|
I am working on User account control, I have been trying to release it for the last few months.
Otherwise all I have is a facebook page name Unidex Software with my first GUI that uses the backend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if you've been following my posts and this thread, just thought you may be interested to see ignorance at work...
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, there are so many errors in so few lines I suspect you intended to post this to "The Wierd and The Wonderful".
"The desktop has the 16-bit offset" - what the hell are you talking about? It does not even make sense.
"Back when the PC was invented everything was 8-bits, hence why a byte is 8 bits". I think these measures pre-existed PCs, by a decade or two.
"They took 3 - 8 bit register and used the 2nd ..." - you evidently never did any 8086 programming. Even the Z80 precursor did not have this nonsensical arrangement.
"It wasn't until Microsoft in 2003 did a paradigm shift to remove this problem". Er.. except Windows NT was always a 32-bit O/S. Released in 1993.
In short, utter detritus from start to end. Staggering.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
- the entire 8086 line has the offset problem from 16 bit to our current 64 bit
- the problem is from the original hardware.
- the problem is in the machine code not assembler
The .net framework is the paradigm shift look it up, it rewrote the machine code to remove this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
How exactly can .NET remove segmentation from the underlying architecture? These are designed into the hardware. Can you provide some references? I'd love to be proved wrong.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
AMD x64 was the first hardware to use flat memory model in 2003
Most all 64 bit addressing is flat memory model - its the software (OS) that need to catch up.
Since the 386 chip - the memory management controller controlled the segmented addressing and it was software even in the 386 days not at the hardware level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_memory_model[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: The desktop is a hard to understand technology
You'd be happier with a bash shell? If so, we can arrange that 
Colborne_Greg wrote: Its the techie that is crying WHY WINDOWS WHY.
..
So, what do you propose we do? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Don't Downgrade to Windows 8.x
Don't buy the new "Junk" on the market that relies on it.
|
|
|
|
|
My grandma uses 8.1
She says all others were to hard to understand to use.
|
|
|
|
|
She must be good with the smart phones too then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am actually a desktop lover or once was, was frustrated with the metro, now I understand why it is the way it is - and to f*** with it would be to remove the benefit we will see in the future.
All my 90 yr old grandma uses windows 8 - she says its the first computer that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: The desktop is a hard to understand technology and everyone that isn't a tech hates it.
That is why Windows 8 has a start page. 
|
|
|
|
|
Windows is going to be amazing when it is just metro.
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: Windows is going to be amazing when it is just metro.
For some applications.
I still use the desk top a lot because I am developing software, but for a data consumer metro will be just fine once the metro apps mature a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
I am a few step away from having a metro gui from creating apps with my libraries and visual studio
|
|
|
|
|
True, and MS won't stop it till PC's go away!
|
|
|
|
|
No you got it wrong.
Just every desktop needs touch, like me with forty inch touch screen in my living room with windows 8 and air gestures.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for something like, in the Ruby on Rails world, "cucumber / capybara". I'm looking at SpecFlow[^] but was wondering what you use/recommend?
For those wondering what integration testing is, it's actually driving the UI to verify results on the screen. Contrast to unit tests, which verifies function results.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: For those wondering what integration testing is, it's actually driving the UI to verify results on the screen. Contrast to unit tests, which verifies function results.
OK, got that.
Now, what's this word "testing" mean?
--- AnyQAQuestionSetter
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Now, what's this word "testing" mean?
Testing: An activity that adds 50% to your development costs and is eventually considered a complete write-off because tests, like cars being driven off the dealer's lot, quickly lose their value as requirements change.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
So, no point in doing it then. Thanks!
And I just wish I was joking... 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
We use TestStudio from Telerik. It's very good.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: We use TestStudio from Telerik. It's very good.
Cool, Thanks for the recommendation!
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
