Redmond lobs a Dirty Nuke at Windows Developers. Read Ars Technica's article Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8.
End of Days for M$?
Printable View
Redmond lobs a Dirty Nuke at Windows Developers. Read Ars Technica's article Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8.
End of Days for M$?
The stats program I use primarily recently (a couple years ago, really) decided to stop maintaining separate versions for each platform, and reprogrammed the entire thing in Java so they could only maintain one version. And it sucks. All the cool flashy stuff works well; it was the data management and cleaning that got screwed up. Copy and paste too much data in the new version? You will crash your OS. Copy and paste 10x as much data in the old version? Done. To this day, I still prefer the old version to any new version. The last good one was 15.0, and they are on at least 19.0 now...
And based on the history of every other MS OS is good (3.1 = awesome. 95 = terrible. 98 = rock solid. 2000/ME = vomit. XP = beautiful. Vista = Coyote Ugly. Win7 = pretty good, actually), who wants to bet that Windows 8 will suck more than Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office (a timely reference)?
I was happy with 3.1, it worked well.
95...the worst OS I've ever used due to crashing constantly.
98...Not too bad really. They just never got the, "sleep/screen saver/power button" to work right.
XP...the best so far IMHO.
Vista...didn't like the transition, but overall acceptable. It has its quirks however.
W7...they started going into the, "Protect the user from doing harm to themselves". NOT a good thing if you're a hardware/software guy.
W8...I can only imagine how handcuffed the average user will really be, and them not knowing the difference.
If Linux ran windows apps. DAMN, MS would be gone already.....from my boxes anyway.
Do you mean this? Or do you have greater needs?Quote:
Originally Posted by YoDude9999
I have seen this before a few years ago. I'll have to give it a good looking into. I may have greater needs as I do software development also, so there could be issues involved with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell
I may do some experimentation with a dual boot system that supports Linux. Of course that means I'll have to learn all about Linux from scratch, but what the hell, right?
I might suggest going the VM route if you want/need to work in two environments. Supposedly, VBox makes it really easy...Quote:
Originally Posted by YoDude9999
=))Really easy =))Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell
:DYes really easy =))
:pOh man after wine for windows and beer for linux I am already drunk. =))
Hmm, looks very interesting. I'll check into it, thx again :)
I have used VirtualBox on several machines. The learning curve is very low and short. Works great and and does so without gobbling up system resources. The only quirk I had was figuring out how to install Vbox Guest Additions. Sun's early instructions were confusing considering all they had to say was "Install Guest Additions onto operational Guest Machine via that machine's virtual CD-ROM."Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell
Hmm....This could lead to some interesting possibilities.
Linux > Wine > Windows Apps
From the VBox documentation, it looks as though one could create a cost free running environment for most any computer.
DOS > VBox > Any current OS
The thing is, I don't know Linux at all, in fact I don't believe I've ever even see it running.
I have a few hours experience with Ubuntu which was very easy to get the swing of, but because it wouldn't run WinApps directly,
I wasn't able to use it for the applications I needed it to run. This has mainly to do with work related application that have to run code written in VB6 and VB2010.
I will keep all of this in mind, but because I don't want to bring down any of my boxes to do experimentation on, I suppose it'll have to wait for another build so I can start from scratch and see how things go. I'd be a little concerned about performance, or the loss of, but if this proved to be minimal, then I'd consider switching all my boxes over to avoid Windows completely as I really don't care for their, "activation", cost and more importantly, the direction they are going with every new release.
OK, just to be clear, VirtualBox runs on top of Windows/Linux/MacOS/Solaris "Host" machines. It is not a MS DOS app if that is the DOS you were referring to. One caveat I forgot to mention. If you wish to create a 64bit "Guest" then the Host OS must be 64bit. But you can run 32bit Guests on a 64bit Host. And in another thread JPM or JerWA mentioned a utility for resetting Windows Vista/7 trial period indefinitely. Also, Wine is not a perfect emulator. Some WinApps refuse to run under Wine. I am not sure about VB6 or VB2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by YoDude9999
All in all, VirtualBox is a great idea and from my limited experience with VMware, is much much easier to setup and run. And Free never hurts :D
Oh BTW, since you have used Ubuntu, you have used Linux. Ubuntu is just another variant or distro of Linux. Other distros include CentOS, Gentoo, Red Hat, Mint, SuSe, etc...
Ah yes, it seems I misunderstood their meaning when they mentioned DOS, my bad.
I did find the part where they mention VBox could present 32 virtual CPU cores to the guest OS. Visions of Aqua formulated in my mind, but I can't really see how this would be a benefit other than to increase the size of the cache for Aqua WUs. I know it works well with Hyper-Threading as Godzilla (i7 920) outputs twice the Aqua WUs over Rodan (Q9650) in roughly the same amount of time. It would be interesting just to see what would happen with that. It tends to make me think that say, if you were running single core CPU apps like RNA, yes, you could run 32 of them at the same time, but that they would take 32 times longer to finish, so there'd really be no difference. If on the other hand, they still took the same amount of time to complete, then running 32 virtual cores would be 8 times more productive than any quad core CPU, which might be something to write home about, but I just don't see that happening at all.
VBox does have my interest sparked however and the possibilities of what can had with such virtualization seem almost endless. It surely would be a great way to get into the Linux OS without having to alter my existing system, seemingly, in any way. Definitely something to look much more closely into.
Actually, in the documentation, VBox indicates you can run 64 bit Guests even on 32 bit O/S hosts. As long as the hardware supports it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm
Quote:
Originally Posted by User Manual
OK. I stand corrected. But they do mention added overhead. So that would equate to reduced performance on the 64bit Guest, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumps
Yes, but it's not as much of a hit as you might fear. I've not run it that way personally though, so I'll have to defer to Google for an answer to that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm
As to running things like EVO on multiple VM's, absolutely. Give each one a single core and run EVO as much as you want. You can run as many VirtualBox VM's on a host as you can allocate RAM for. (Wiki calls it "unlimited.")
It can also help to "prioritize" projects for you. Have a VM running Neurona, and of course WUProp, and Neurona will always be running as long as it has work. Even if the "Host" machine is running other projects. No waiting for a "slot" to free up when that next 2 minute Neurona WU is done downloading. And when there is no Neurona work, the VM will idle with much less CPU overhead wasted.
And running a VM with more cores than the physical box has is possible, but again I've never done that. The only benefit I see on that one is when Aqua was limiting work to machines with 2 or more cores, you could get a single core machine running the project. Slowly...
It seems to me that with every new Windows, it getīs more complicated being a computer geek. Itīs like they wanna protect us from.....Well ourselves...! And I canīt for the love of god figure out why they can make a living that way. I mean...Iīt looke like they are trying to trip the very same users that they sell their product.
I am also researching Linux. Iīve started with Linux Mint. (I got that tip from a old time member back in the days Steve aka Krazy Kat) So far it looks good, and I need only 1 program to run through Wine to make a switch. Unfortunately thatīs not going to well. The program is a though one to break...
But it looks like Linux is still a bit "sluggish" when it comes to desktop response. I can feel a significant difference. Apps like the browser is snappy enough once open....But it just take a second or two more to open.
I am open to suggestions on other distros. But please be advised that I am a noob. I like a graphical interface. I like point and click, since I found that Terminal langugage I will never learn.
As I stated in an earlier post on this thread, I don't like where MS is going with Win and I can only see that they are "herding" users into a place I just don't like. From a SW developer standpoint, I was totally dismayed with Win7, in the fact that when one of my applications installs, one of the files is placed in an area called, "Compatibility Files" which is located under a tab from the explorer window. While this does not alter the operation of the program itself, it made for a real headache in that the OS doesn't place it in an expected location, which would be the root folder of the program once it's installed, but rather a somewhat hidden location. In addition, that location has a tendency to place the file in a, "protected" state which makes manually editing the file a real pain in the arse even if you have admin privileges. I was not happy with that fact at all as this one particular file must be made available to any user to manually edit, should the need arise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerdrinker
As you state, they are trying to protect us from "ourselves" and I don't like it one bit. They must be thinking that the typical user is totally clueless and perhaps this is true, but for the technical professional, this is a nightmare in progress and I only see it getting worse in the future.
Ha Ha. Finally, Microsoft has figured out their crappy architecture is crappy. COM and friends are the worst middleware solution ever imagined (sockets make more sense). And as for MFC all I have ever been able to say about it's architecture is WTF!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm
Dan
DOS > 98 SE > 95 > all othersQuote:
Originally Posted by YoDude9999
Every release just becomes more and more bloated and inefficient, and the things you actually need to do become harder and harder to find. Like YoDude said, it's becoming more for little kids than for real users, like AOL did years ago.
Indeed! For instance, I guess, starting with Vista, they decided to do away with HyperTerminal. For me that really sucks because I actually have a need to use that particular program on a repetitively regular basis. Though you can get alternatives off the web that will work, I was quite accustomed to HT even as clunky as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
For me, this was the start of, "What the hell are they thinking?" Remove something that's actually useful, (maybe not for the majority of people, but still if you needed it, it was there and) then not even replace it with something that would still serve the same purpose. I need to have serial connectivity for a lot of things I do at work and even at home from time to time. Now it's gone and they're just making my life that much harder. We'll get rid of HT and then put in UAC to help make things a REAL pain in the arse.
I can't wait until they make it so you can't even turn off UAC and then I'm done with any new versions of Windows!
yeah UAC was the first thing i disabled. Then i disabled the crap that warnsyou UAC was disabled. Geez where does it end...
I bet in Win8, it's much more difficult to even find how to disable UAC, if it's even possible.
I am a software developer.
I have learned the following development languages since 1996:
VBA (Visual Basic for Access)
T-SQL
CA Realizer Basic
C# .Net
ASP .Net
LINK for .Net
Visual C++
Borland C++
AXAPTA (Dynamics AX code)
Visual Fox Pro
For all of these languages, I have created large database systems or commercial products that are all still in use right now.
Microsoft is making it hard for me to make a living in the programming field by changing their OS development languages every 2 years. No other profession (doctors, lawyers or drafters) have to contend with this onslaught.
The biggest problem comes from education:
1) Microsoft trains software developers in India & China for free at large schools where you are expected to work a few years afterwards.
2) USA software developers must pay for their training at costly universities and there is no clear career path as a result. You just cannot hire someone with development experience in America anymore. Everyone must now be trained on the job and this sets us years behind the curve.
I did not know all this... I'm a sad Maxwell now. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by rgathright
Assembly is the only true language anyway. It's the language the other languages are written in. Learn that and you only have to learn something new when a new chip comes out. And the best part is, all the old stuff still works. With Assembly, you're above the OS. Easy to write things that work in any OS.
And any language that begins with word "Visual" is cheating and automatically slow and bloated, no matter how well you 'optimize' it.
Yeah..... They taught 8086 Assembler when I was attending DeVry last century. The only commands I remember are mov and push :PQuote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
haha those are the 2 most important ones! that's like 60% of any program right there :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm
I did a little machine code and assembly language on the 68HC11 micro controller in college. Ironic I got my first tastes of Motorola and Unix in college and now I have a ppc64 running Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire$torm
I, also, remember absolutely nothing from my class, but I still have the books.