|
... if it is a media player, really, who cares - plenty of them to pick from.
But I wouldn't jeopardize Starcraft, Quake or even Heretic (yes, the DOS one).
Nuclear launch detected
|
|
|
|
|
The OS should be upgraded ONLY when it outgrows the hardware. Like on the Macs between version 6 and 7 (or was it 7 & 8) when they changed Processors at the same time they changed the OS. There new OS had an emulator to simulate the old processor. The programs written for the old OS ran slower on the slowest of the new hardware then the fastest of the old hardware, but it did run with no problems. And by the time I got enough money to get an upgrade, almost all programs had been upgraded to be optimized to the new hardware.
So I say we stick with XP until there are CPUs fast enough to emulate the x86 processors. Then we can run XP in a window for those old programs. Until everything gets optimized to the new CPU. This "new OS just because we haven't had a new one in a while" nonsense is just that, nonsense. I'm gonna wait for Windows 7 (If they actually do everything they say they are gonna do with it, but that is a rant for another time).
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point. But you see the situation only from "software-execution-speed"-perspective.
You don't mention that the software (OS) does not only get slower but also more user friendly (hopefully  . That's the main reason to upgrade an OS imo. I would probably still switch if the new OS is 30% slower but I am 40% more productive with it. Even without new hardware.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point. But you see the situation only from "software-execution-speed"-perspective.
You don't mention that the software (OS) does not only get slower but also more user friendly (hopefully . That's the main reason to upgrade an OS imo. I would probably still switch if the new OS is 30% slower but I am 40% more productive with it. Even without new hardware.
Pretty much exactly why I do prefer Vista over XP. It's not that important that it's faster, or even fast at all. But it is important that it feels faster because it doesnt force me to wait through window repaints etc. it makes me feel like I am not waiting nearly as much, thus I am less annoyed. ergo: I am more productive.
So the speed at wich software executes is much less important than the speed at which software allows me to use it.
Kris
/^([b]{2}|[^b]{2})$/
|
|
|
|
|
How about CListCtrl's compatibility across the diversified platforms?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Please refer to the 'Under the hood is what counts' comment, below.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: 'Under the hood is what counts'
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
On 6/02/08 at 6:47 AM I posted to this thread:
"New OS should inherit from CListCtrl"
under the Heading "Under the hood is what counts', which perhaps addressed your original inquiry as the the appropriate handling of CListCtrl in any valid (new) O/S.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please move your CListCtrl somewhere else? It's really not funny anymore. 
Post like these drives me to Ctrl+F4.
If I want to see a thing 100 times, this is Pulp Fiction.
Not another CListCtrl post (how about NACLP?).
Nuclear launch detected
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it an eternal source of hilarity?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Vista pops up with a message
"CListCtrl is trying to display items in icon view, allow, cancel?" 
|
|
|
|
|
All OSes since 95.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
Programs get better, we get more works, and technologies improve if OS is not backward compatible..
-For a fraction of a second, I thought like a businessman..
- A random opportunity is like a tall chair, those who sit hang on, those who hang on fall
L.W.C. Nirosh.
Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
modified on Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mojtaba Vali wrote: applications will be grow by os
The rich theme of Windows XP and Office XP has been the inspiration for many good frameworks too. Check out the following for examples:
1) http://www.visualwebgui.com/[^]
2) http://www.dotnetmagic.com/[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Nirosh wrote: we get more works
A good business strategy.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but it also means that you have to solve the same problem over and over again. I figure that once I solve a problem satisfactorily, I can move on to the next thing and not have to worry about that one again unless something is broken. I have enough to keep me occupied without the OS developers helping me out.
|
|
|
|
|
The emperor may put on new clothes, but down in the land of nitty-gritty, we keep solving the same problem (or two) over-and-over, anyway.*
* Just keep abstracting what it is your doing.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I'm too much of a systems guy to view it that way. I look for the differences in the problem that make it interesting, and just updating to fix something that some OS guy broke because he thought it was funny isn't my idea of fun. I suppose that is why I pretty much only write analysis code for orbital mechanics and use them to solve interplanetary trajectory problems. Sure the same equations of motion are used everywhere, so once you have a tool written it is easy to solve the same problem over and over again with one set of software, but when you can't figure out how to do something with all the old stuff you go outside the box and try another type of solution. Since my software is only used by a handful of people, it makes everything easier.
Just as a note, I have a coworker who is still using a DOS Lahey Fortran 77 compiler, because he has a library that was released as a compiled version only. If there weren't a compatibility layer to be able to run that ancient 8-bit code, we would be forced to rewrite what is essentially a good and working piece of analysis software. As it is, I write new routines where I can that replace the functionality of that library and compile that into my less outdated Compaq Visual Fortran (F77/F90/F95) compiler. When I'm being generous, I'll even throw together a gooey and maybe even connect it to a DLL (as opposed to just writing out a file and running the console program).
A version of windows that broke compatibility with his ancient toolset would be an immediate deal-breaker.
I have to say that I do still miss the days of old when I wrote pretty programs that were user focused and utilized only state of the art languages / compilers.
|
|
|
|
|
I Absolutelly agree... on new OS you see a lot of partly compatible apps, and lots of them behave strangely, look awful and won't fit the system. So if you create apps just for the OS they'll fit perfectly and hopefully you won't see any blue death's and of course they'll use the newest technologies the OS gives to the developers. Look how the longhorn(unreleased) rised after the vista was released. It was very exciting project - framework based OS.
|
|
|
|
|
I demand a OS to be mostly compatible with the applications designed to run on the prior version.
I don't need to have a Win95 app running on my Vista desktop, although I expect that apps developed to XP to run on Vista.
The same applies to device drivers.
The gap between OS versions is enough for the users have the need to update their software or hardware.
In most cases, if you don't need to update|upgrade your software or hardware is because you also don't need to upgrade you OS 
We can't stop evolution just because of background compatibility.
The effort needed to deploy it is tremendous and should the pointed towards the direction of the development of new things, not trying the keep the old ones alive a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I find the poll results interesting in that they lean heavily towards the maintainence of compatability. After all, incompatibility is a financial boon (or at least, job security) for most of us.
Yet, most of us fall (ethically?) on the side of defying unnecessary obsolesence.
Within some vague boundry condition, software salses should not be driven by the O/S upgrade, but rather, by a voluntary value added evalutation by the user of the new version.
I wonder how the survey would have turned out if we lived in a totally open-source world?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Completely agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I find the poll results interesting in that they lean heavily towards the maintainence of compatability. After all, incompatibility is a financial boon (or at least, job security) for most of us.
But actually, knowing around in eons old legacy application you have once ported from Win3.11/C to Win 95/Win32 and further on to NT4, W2K, XP and Vista can make you a living too.
A living without stupid youngsters from straight from the university who keep asking for patterns!
Don't need no bloody pattern!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I wonder how the survey would have turned out if we lived in a totally open-source world?
It would be more highly geared to the "Critical" option. OS upgrades never rarely break hardware compatibility and rarely break software compatibly.
John
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
