On 2008-06-20, Joel <j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the latest news on WinFS?  Assuming it will only be available for
> Vista, that would the major enhancement that would make Vista a worthwhile
> upgrade.

Possibly, but it's been done before with limited success.  The
classic example is Pick but NewtonOS is a much more recent example.
Not overly familiar with the former but the concept was one of the
key causes of the Newton's 'data island' tendencies.  Highly ironic
given that the communications capabilities were one of things Apple
made a marketing effort about.

With Microsoft behind it it is probably inevitable that the idea
will finally gain some traction.   It has many good points both
from a user and programmer perspective but you can bet that MS will
tie the whole thing very firmly to Windows and interoperability
with other platforms will suffer greatly as a result.  Flat files
are flat files everywhere but a database view of a 'file' is
inevitably going to differ across platforms.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
a...@sdf.lonestar.org

On 2008-06-20, The Real Andy <t...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> If you think this is restricted to MS then you are all fools. If I try
> and run mac software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif. If I
> try and run linux software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif.

Actually, a couple of months ago I happened to 'file' a compiled
C program I wrote many years ago and I was shocked to notice that
it was a SCO OpenServer executable.  Since using OpenServer I've
switched to Unixware and then completely left the SCO family with
NetBSD.  My executable had carried on running flawlessly on each
new system and I was completely unaware that it had not been
recompiled to a native form for each new OS.

More generally, a lot of this thread seems to implicitly centre
around the fact that Linux is not Windows.  Does it surprise you
that Windows applications don't run on Linux?  This is hardly a
valid criticism of Linux.  I have some apps that run on Solaris/Sparc.
I don't hold it against either Windows or Linux that these programs
don't run on them.  I take it as read.  If there is some support
for applications from other platforms then that is to the host OS's
credit rather than something than must be demanded from an OS.  I
keep a Windows 2000 machine on the network and when I need to run
a Windows app I open up a terminal services session with rdesktop.

Similarly, people seem to think that Linux apps should be a drop-in
replacement for Windows from a user perspective.  This appears to
be the entire premise of Gnome and KDE among others.  Personally
I don't want this kind of desktop eye candy - they're slow, memory
hogs, and generally make Unix a Windows-like environment from a
perfomance perspective.  Give me Motif and an xterm any day of the
week.  I'll use my Unix systems just like they were used before
people started to attempt to Windowise it.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
a...@sdf.lonestar.org

The Real Andy wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:40:23 -0700, Joerg
> <n...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jim Granville wrote:
>>> Stef wrote:
>>>> In comp.arch.embedded,
>>>> The Real Andy <t...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
>>>>> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. 
>>>>
>>>> Ok, that's a no go for almost everyone in this group then. ;-)
>>> Yes - With the 'want to run outdated software', changed to 'need to run 
>>> outdated software' - version control often removes
>>> option/luxury of 'want' ;)
>>>
>> Exactly. But it's not just engineers. Many businesses run legacy MRP 
>> systems and a change can be extremely expensive. MS used to have an ok 
>> attitude towards backward compatibility. That seems to have noticeably 
>> changed with Vista, to the point where they might discover that they 
>> just shot themselves in the foot.
>>
>> Yesterday during the dog walk we met a friend who owns a business and 
>> just bought a round of new PCs. His comments about this new stuff 
>> consisted mostly of words like "stinks, pain in the neck, sluggish, 
>> resource hog" and so on.
> 
> If you think this is restricted to MS then you are all fools. If I try
> and run mac software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif. If I
> try and run linux software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif.
> Why is MS so different? I deal with all this shit everyday, not just
> MS. Why cant the software designed to run on redhat 6 that I currently
> have not run on the current version of redhat? IT will if its
> upgraded, just like the NT4 software I have.


That's why I love DOS. Pretty much all of the DOS routines from the late 
80's I still need run flawlessly on NT4, Win2k and XP. I've heard they 
won't on Vista but that wouldn't matter because that's off limits in 
this office anyhow. Ok, there is the occasional Borland compiler bug 
(runtime error) but that is quite easily fixed.

Some of this software does not exist in any flavor other than DOS so 
it's got to run. I am not a SW guy so I wouldn't be able to write myself 
a Windows version. Now 20 years ain't bad for software, I think.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:39:53 -0700, Joerg
<n...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

><snip>
>That's why I love DOS. Pretty much all of the DOS routines from the late 
>80's I still need run flawlessly on NT4, Win2k and XP. I've heard they 
>won't on Vista but that wouldn't matter because that's off limits in 
>this office anyhow. Ok, there is the occasional Borland compiler bug 
>(runtime error) but that is quite easily fixed.
>
>Some of this software does not exist in any flavor other than DOS so 
>it's got to run. I am not a SW guy so I wouldn't be able to write myself 
>a Windows version. Now 20 years ain't bad for software, I think.

Some of the products I maintain were written using compilers developed
for straight DOS environments and in a few cases, they will simply not
run in WinXP DOS boxes, for example.  The latest version for which I'm
fairly sure they will run is Win98SE (though I haven't ever tried
WinME, so cannot comment on it.)  Microsoft, on July 11, 2006, has
placed them on a non-supported status.  But the installation of
Win98SE can be performed without any involvement of Microsoft and I've
kept around some older machines as well.  I also keep a rather
complete set of compilers from various sources (Lattice C, Borland c
versions, early Microsoft c versions up through 8.00c, and BASIC and
Pascal and so on, etc.) so I remain able to handle older products.  I
also purchased a bunch of retail distributions (sealed, with manuals
and so on) of DOS 5.0 from Microsoft for $4/each a while back to make
certain I'd have versions I could distribute to others, when needed.
Some of the equipment I support isn't DOS-compatible (lacking a lot of
the normal hardware in it, such as an 8254 timer for example) but uses
an 80x86 processor in a custom configuration.  But even then these
compilers work perfectly well -- I use an older Intel linker/locator
or else Paradigm's or one from two other suppliers at the time to
place things as needed.  The worst I've had to do is write short bits
of code to modify an OBJ before linking.

My business model has me using a separate hard disk for each client
and just racking it in when I work.  This absolutely guarantees that a
system crash or hard disk failure will not impact any other client's
work.  Microsoft's operating systems, up through perhaps Win2000,
supported this -- I don't need to call Microsoft to get a new ID every
time I set up a new hard disk for a new client -- but the rest do not,
so I use them... sparingly.  But I do have a few purchased machines
where I do keep WinXP loaded, where I'm forced to use tools that will
no longer run on the older OS.  (Though I also keep a large number of
older tools from Microchip and so on, as well.)

But Microsoft Vista policies now will probably finally force me into
much greater use of Linux and FreeBSD.  As much as I'm able, I will
not use Vista, and I will spend all necessary learning time to move
further away from anything to do with Microsoft operating system
environments.  It's one thing to move forward... but it is another
entirely to force an entire population to purchase hardware and
software that operates together to fully protect the DRM rights of a
few large corporate interests and, in the process, move even further
away from my business needs than they already had.

At some point the final straw is added.

Jon

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
>
>MC  wrote:
>
>> Warning against unsigned drivers is a good thing.  It's amazing how much flak Microsoft takes for doing things
right. 
>>
>> "Thou shalt bash Vista" seems to be one of the commandments for geek wannabees, along with "Thou
shalt rant against top-posting."
>
>But what about "Thou shall rant against posts that are not wrapped
>to under 78 columns"?  In a standards compliant newsreader your
>post above is two long lines.

Worse, some Usenet news servers truncate overly-long lines.

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:39:53 -0700, Joerg
> <n...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
> 
>> <snip>
>> That's why I love DOS. Pretty much all of the DOS routines from the late 
>> 80's I still need run flawlessly on NT4, Win2k and XP. I've heard they 
>> won't on Vista but that wouldn't matter because that's off limits in 
>> this office anyhow. Ok, there is the occasional Borland compiler bug 
>> (runtime error) but that is quite easily fixed.
>>
>> Some of this software does not exist in any flavor other than DOS so 
>> it's got to run. I am not a SW guy so I wouldn't be able to write myself 
>> a Windows version. Now 20 years ain't bad for software, I think.
> 
> Some of the products I maintain were written using compilers developed
> for straight DOS environments and in a few cases, they will simply not
> run in WinXP DOS boxes, for example. ...


So far I have never had a DOS app that would refuse to run on the XP 
machine. Some won't do a DOS windows and the whole PC switches to 
low-res DOS fulls screen. You can hear the relay clicks in the monitor.

[...]

> 
> But Microsoft Vista policies now will probably finally force me into
> much greater use of Linux and FreeBSD.  As much as I'm able, I will
> not use Vista, and I will spend all necessary learning time to move
> further away from anything to do with Microsoft operating system
> environments.  It's one thing to move forward... but it is another
> entirely to force an entire population to purchase hardware and
> software that operates together to fully protect the DRM rights of a
> few large corporate interests and, in the process, move even further
> away from my business needs than they already had.
> 
> At some point the final straw is added.
> 

I feel the same way and I'd love to ditch MS. However, there is so much 
stuff that won't run on anything but Windows. Hardware as well as 
software. Even if only few clients would need it I'd be stuck.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:26:49 -0700, Joerg
<n...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

>Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

>> At some point the final straw is added.
>
>I feel the same way and I'd love to ditch MS. However, there is so much 
>stuff that won't run on anything but Windows. Hardware as well as 
>software. Even if only few clients would need it I'd be stuck.

Well, as I said, I'd do "as much as possible."  I agree with you about
some of the difficulties.  But so far as I'm aware, I can use Win2000
right now for everything.  Or, if forced, WinXP.  Gradually, that may
very well change with Microsoft pushing this hard.  However, that time
is a ways out -- particularly with Microsoft's willingness to sell a
WinXP downgrade for some Vista purchasers.  Even a few doing that, if
enough are out there, will mean support continues elsewhere.  So I
think I'm probably going to be fine for another decade -- which is
enough to see where the market has moved by then.  A lot can happen in
that time.

Jon

Everett M. Greene wrote:

>It wasn't that many years ago that the hardware
>capability and capacity to run Vista was considered a supercomputer.
>Yesterday's supercomputer wouldn't even be able to start Vista,
>much less do anything useful with it.
>
>I ran a machine for many years with a 50 Mbyte hard drive and
>got along nicely.  I increased the size when I could no longer
>get replacements that small but only went to about 100 Mbytes.
>Today, you need two orders of magnitude more disk space just
>to hold the OS!

Consider the following products:

1940s - ENIAC "Electronic Brain":
Memory = 0.02K.  Clock = 0.06 MHz.  Cost = $5,000,000.00+
Weight = 60,000 Lbs.  Power = 140,000 Watts

1960s - IBM System 360 Mainframe Computer:
Memory = 64K.  Clock = 1.3 MHz.  Cost = $1,000,000.00
Weight = 2.000 Lbs.  Power = 2,000 Watts.

1980s - Commodore 128 Personal Computer:
Memory = 128K.  Clock = 2 MHz.  Cost = $300.00
Weight = 10 Lbs.  Power = 70 Watts.

2000s - Mattel high-end toy CPU:
Memory = 512K.  Clock = 3.3 MHz.  Cost = Less than $1.00
Weight = Less than 1 oz.  Power = Less than 0.1 Watt.

What will we be running in the 2020s?

The Real Andy wrote:

>If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything 
>and run outdated software, then Vista is a no go.

VMWare Workstation running under Vista or Linux running
the appropriate old OS runs every kind of old software 
I have been able to throw at it.

Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:

>If you need more expensive and power-hungry hardware to be able to perform  
>mostly the same tasks, then I cannot possibly consider it an "upgrade".   
>And if you really need eye-candy to prevent you from becoming depressed,  
>then there are IMHO better ways to spend your money.

So you are saying it's *not* a good plan to replace a two dollar 
deck of playing cards with a multi-thousand dollar PC running 
Solitaire?  What a concept! :)