NVidia Cripples PhysX "Open" API
An anonymous reader writes "In a foot-meet-bullet type move, NVidia is going to disable PhysX engine if you are using a display adapter other than one that came from their company. This despite the fact that you may have an NVidia card on your system specifically to do this type of processing. 'For a variety of reasons some development expense, some quality assurance and some business reasons Nvidia will not support GPU accelerated PhysX with Nvidia GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non-Nvidia GPUs.' Time to say hello to Microsoft dx physics or Intel's Havok engine."
So by admission of the arthur of the article, it takes hacking to do in the first place, to even get the devices to play nicely ... so rather than listen to a bunch of people who want to try this never supported configuration (I seriously doubt ATI would give you tech support if you asked them with this configuration either), they are just going to prevent it completely.
As a developer, I understand entirely what they are doing. Rather than allow people to do something half assed and get complaints about it, they'll just remove the functionality completely and cut down on support costs, regardless of how trivial /. thinks they are.
This effects a statistically irrelevant number of people anyway, not everyone can have their way. I'd love to run FreeBSD on an 8 bit AVR microcontroller, but the FBSD project doesn't seem to think its worth the effort ... nor does anyone want to make Linux work on it (Lack of an MMU puts a dent in anything sane) ... I should go after Linus and JKH for anti-trust!%@!^#$^!@#^!@#^!@#6
my god shut up you freaking whiner douchebags
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
What about Windows 98 is outdated? It has faster boot times, a simpler UI, and is not encumbered by active DRM. It's sometimes slow but a faster processor will still result in a instantaneous response times. I think the primary disadvantage of Windows 98 is that adding new industry-standard features would be so costly as to be impractical. It has security holes, and it tends to get bogged down over time, but in terms of OS quality Windows 98 is still extremely good.
Windows 98 is "outdated" because Microsoft wants to sell Windows 7. Lean and fast is sexy. And XP sold like crazy back when its stability was dramatically inferior to Windows 98, and it took them two service packs to catch up.
*** ... Now, obviously I'm being overly dramatic, but I think you can see my point. Yes, CRTs are useful, but they're not industry-standard anymore. You yourself pointed out one of the biggest reasons LCDs won out - high-resolution widescreen CRTs are impractically large.
But even if I were to concede that CRTs are inherently superior to LCDs, there have been many instances in recent history of apparently inferior technology being adopted as standard, while superior versions are left in the dust (e.g. VHS vs Beta).
The point is, you can't get mad at anyone for not supporting Beta tapes, even though you still have a Beta tape player at home; you can't get mad at Microsoft for not supporting Windows 98, even though you have a computer with Windows 98 running on it; and you can't get mad at someone for not supporting CRTs, even though you have a CRT at home.
Sure, CRTs have some inherently better qualities. LCDs have some too. Companies don't have infinite money, and guess what? They won't make money supporting CRTs, so they're not going to do it.
Symbian is an open source OS
iPhone is pretty open after jail breaking it
So no, Windows Mobile is not the lesser evil.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Mickeysoft *does* that. Have done it for years. Bootloader only handles one system: theirs. No possible way around it. Utter impossible. No solution known to mankind, forever. They guarantee there is no solution. Thought you came up with a solution? WRONG! They will (in the next release of the software) defeat your solution. Bang! Broken again. See, we told you so, and don't try again!