For most of the things I can think of Windows on an ARM being useful for, x86 is compatibility it not that big of a deal. Having looked at network attached storage units lately most of them seem to run Linux or BSD with Samba. An ARM version of Windows would be great for these things. It would instantly have NTFS and native Windows file sharing because it IS Windows, and no additional software is needed.
> So, I can't use it. Using OS X 10.4.11 or whatever it is. They support Windows 2000, but not OS X 10.4:/
The nice thing about open source is if one group doesn't want to support it, then someone else can. What you want now is TenFourFox located here: http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/
Restores the ability to run on OS X 10.4 PPC and 10.5 PPC, and has extra PPC model specific optimizations as well.
I need to use SeaMonkey 1.1.19 because the particular oddball OS I primarily use does not have a newer version of Firefox or SeaMonkey available for it.
Looking at Slashdot now, it looks like the entire page has been sent through a blender. Whatever happened to HTML degrading gracefully for older browsers? Slashdot being home to all kinds of people with oddball OSes and gadgets, one would think compatibility would be a higher priority. Is this what we have to look forward to every 5 years if we don't purchase the latest "standard" desktop hardware with the latest Microsoft Windows(TM)?
Heck I remember reading Slashdot in Netscape 3.0 ages ago, and it worked for a very long time too.
I've certainly noticed the quality of searches going down recently, at least for less common searches. I regularly search for oddball system files, software, drivers, etc, the first few pages of results are often very scammy looking sites devoid of actual content and what I am looking for is a dozen pages in. Often these results trump even official big company web sites. Heck while half asleep I used Google to search for OpenOffice, clicked the first link, clicked a big download button, and when trying to install it later I realized whatever I downloaded was certainly *NOT* OpenOffice. (Don't know what it was, I deleted it quickly)
In my opinion, there was an additional reason why Visi On failed (As if there weren't enough reasons already)
Visi On used copy protection. You either had to have your original floppy disk in the drive at boot or have a genuine Visi On mouse attached (the software would check the mouse for a serial number). Now, tell me you don't see the problem with disks or mice wearing out quickly!
From a historical preservation perspective, the worst part was since few people want to preserve old software besides games, it almost "protected" itself out of existence!
What I would like to know more about, in Georgia there was a proposed amendment that would somehow strengthen non-compete employment agreements (I regret I don't fully understand it, I could not find as much info as I would like about it in the time available to me). What bugs me about it was the wording on the ballot made it sound almost like the voters would be killing kittens if they didn't vote for it.
Unsurprisingly, it looks like it got voted in but I have not heard much in the media about it so far.
I would like to once again take this opportunity to say "I told you so" to all of the idiots who wanted IE "integrated" in to the OS. If IE was a normal application, like every other browser, then you would be able to run IE 6 on Windows 7 along side IE 8 in a fully supported manner without any fancy hacks or virtualization.
People would have been better off sticking with web stuff that only worked in Netscape 4. I'd need to double check, but I am pretty sure Netscape 4.8 will run fine under Windows 7.
But, of course, when Windows 9 comes out, people will still be stuck on Windows 7 and IE 8.
The real problem is people insisting on using bloated inefficient software, which of course requires more electricity to run and produces more heat.
If modern operating systems and software were better optimized most people could get along fine with low power, low heat netbooks.
As it is, people seem to be happy to pump more and more electricity through their desktops and powered laptops until they are just a few watts short of tripping their circuit breaker. Just to write a letter.
What I find most interesting about the drop in IE usage is that this is happening in spite of IE still pre-installed on every single Windows computer and not being truly uninstallable (Even if the icon and tiny iexplore.exe are removed, which is all the Win7 add/remove feature does, 99% of it is sill there and can be fully embedded by applications)
This means a huge number of people are going to the trouble of obtaining and installing a third party browser, and ignoring that a browser is already installed. It would be interesting to see some statistics on where and how people are getting them.
I also have a feeling that for at least the short term, IE 9's inability to run on Windows XP might bite into IEs usage share. Firefox 4 will still run under 2000 and XP (and unofficially apparently even Windows 98 using a special piece of kernel extending software)
I've had pretty good luck with CD-R media over the years. I still have some CD-Rs from the mid 90s that are still perfectly readable. Although I did come across a batch that couldn't be read in any newer (made in the last 3 or 4 years) DVD drive I have. The disks were still perfectly fine, and could read flawlessly in older CD/DVD drives but newer drives would go totally berserk reading them. My best guess is the Windows 3.1 CD burning software I used back then did something slightly non standard that newer drives don't handle any more. Copied them to fresh CD-Rs and solved that problem.
So it is important to go back and verify your CDs, not only that they are readable, but readable in the drives you may need to use, both newer and older. And test on various machines - I recall running in to instances where CDs were accidentally burned with file systems that certain common OSes could not read, even though it looked fine on the computer that made it.
And then there is the problem I always seem to have problems with: Making sure what is on the CD is what is actually what I inteneded to put on there in the first place!
It will be interesting to see how the actual life spans of recordable DVD and DVD DL compare to recordable CDs.
The last time I checked, there still was no way to kick around the really old original 68k versions of NeXTSTEP other than buying a NeXT machine and its optical media off of eBay. I wish somebody would write NeXT emulator that emulated the original 68k machines. The x86 version is interesting and all, but the 68k version is where it all started.
I guess people only bother emulating platforms that have lots of games.
1% can be either large or small depending on what is being measured. For example, a Pointy Haired Boss may think the following:
* 1% of your web site user base using a different web browser is insignificant and can easily be ignored. * 1% of your annual profits is HUGE and losing or failing to obtain those means heads must roll.
(of course, a true PHB will never see any potential relationship between the two)
You know, with all of this filtering and monitoring and restricting going on that those in charge seem to want, I've got a better idea: Just outlaw and unplug the entire freaking Internet. That's the way things seem to be going anyway.
And neither is unlicensed duplication. But that is what masses at large have been taught to call it by the MPAA/RIAA/etc. If the masses at large could easily comprehend a pedantic discussion I wouldn't need to be so blunt.
Actually if you view information as a living entity, it might be more accurate to call it murder.:P
That's right, copyright is STEALING! It is stealing history and culture from future generations. It is stealing from the global knowledge of humanity. Not just infringed upon; information is locked up until it rots in to nothingness.
I have no specific desire to take control of mickey-frikkin-mouse away from the Walt Disney Corporation, or similar works from their holders. But I believe the original idea of copyright was to benefit humanity by encouraging people to create more works by granting an author the PRIVILEGE to control how their work was distributed for a limited time.
However, if a holder does not ultimately contribute something back to humanity in exchange for this privilege, then they are literally stealing from humanity.
The current system effectively prevents these works from continuing to benefit and enrich humanity after they are out of print by failing to permit works from entering the public domain in a timely manner if ever. This needs to be fixed.
For a person or entity to retain control over a work indefinitely, such as current laws essentially permit, is STEALING from humanity.
I have a bit of a mantra when I talk about IE6. Whenever anyone asks me why anyone would run IE6, I give this response: Assume IE 6 earns them 1 million dollars a day. If they stop using IE6. They start losing 1 million dollars a day. Thats the reality of the situation.
That's about the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. If this is your mantra, then you should not be employed anywhere, for any job.
That is only nonsensical if it is being supportive of the reality. The reality is unfortunate and stupid: If you stop using IE 6 for IE7/8, Firefox, Chrome, whatever but IE 6 was the only tool with which you could get your job done... then you are going to start losing money as productivity stops.
Of course it is idiotic to paint yourself in to a corner where you can only do your job with one specific tool if you don't have to. You put your business in serious risk if you do that.
Like the car analogy above, would you set up your business so you could ONLY ever use a Mercedes Vito van? That would be stupid. Your business would suddenly be unable to make money if it broke beyond repair and you couldn't get the exact same vehicle. Spend a little extra time and money so you can use any vehicle and reduce the risk to your business. Makes sense, but all people see is that they save a few bucks up front.
I wasn't aware that you could only have one browser installed on a computer at a time. What's wrong with installing Firefox for 99% of tasks, and also having IE6 available for the obsolete and soon to be extinct tasks that require it?
What's wrong is that it costs time and money for the variety of things that go in to supporting and maintaining an additional application. The bean counters would throw a fit at the idea of spending money on two applications that do effectively the same thing.
And thanks to Microsoft's brilliant "integration", it is not possible to remove the costs of supporting IE, even after any intranet sites that required it are extinct. IE is always installed with Windows. You can remove the icon, but it must still be configured, patched, and otherwise maintained for all of the idiotic Microsoft applications that potentially may embed its rendering engine.
Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped
Arrag, and all these years I was trying to erase that from my memory. The real purpose of the channel bar and channel screen saver was to promote Microsoft Internet Explorer 4. With the "enhanced" desktop IE 4 logos were also plastered all over other places in the user interface and used the IE document viewer shell in place of the previous Windows Explorer file manager.
They didn't prevent you from using the OS if you didn't view the channel bar ads (they DID try to prevent you from using the OS if IE was not installed) but the average person probably never turned off the channel bar or active desktop. So those graphics for MSN, MSNBC, Disney, etc probably burned themselves in to many CRTs.
Even today browser vendors take money for prominently placing default browser bookmarks, but at least those aren't usually as intrusive.
Worse, as the recent case against Terry Childs has shown, judges and juries are often not technically savvy enough to understand what IT pros do
As I recall, when the details finally came to light about what he did and how he went about it, the judge and jurry WERE technically savvy enough to understand what he did. It was all the people jumping to uninformed conclusions here on Slashdot that didn't understand.
I have no doubt there are plenty of cases where judges and juries fail to understand the facts at hand, but I don't think this was one of them.
Firefox 4 Beta 1 Shits On HTML5. Oh, wait, that would be Internet Explorer.
At any rate, lets all change the standards again, so all those old computers that can't run anything later than Firefox 2 have to be shipped off to some foreign dump where they leak poisonous chemicals in to the drinking water.
Slashdot Mirror
For most of the things I can think of Windows on an ARM being useful for, x86 is compatibility it not that big of a deal. Having looked at network attached storage units lately most of them seem to run Linux or BSD with Samba. An ARM version of Windows would be great for these things. It would instantly have NTFS and native Windows file sharing because it IS Windows, and no additional software is needed.
> So, I can't use it. Using OS X 10.4.11 or whatever it is. They support Windows 2000, but not OS X 10.4 :/
The nice thing about open source is if one group doesn't want to support it, then someone else can. What you want now is TenFourFox located here: http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/
Restores the ability to run on OS X 10.4 PPC and 10.5 PPC, and has extra PPC model specific optimizations as well.
I need to use SeaMonkey 1.1.19 because the particular oddball OS I primarily use does not have a newer version of Firefox or SeaMonkey available for it.
Looking at Slashdot now, it looks like the entire page has been sent through a blender. Whatever happened to HTML degrading gracefully for older browsers? Slashdot being home to all kinds of people with oddball OSes and gadgets, one would think compatibility would be a higher priority. Is this what we have to look forward to every 5 years if we don't purchase the latest "standard" desktop hardware with the latest Microsoft Windows(TM)?
Heck I remember reading Slashdot in Netscape 3.0 ages ago, and it worked for a very long time too.
I've certainly noticed the quality of searches going down recently, at least for less common searches. I regularly search for oddball system files, software, drivers, etc, the first few pages of results are often very scammy looking sites devoid of actual content and what I am looking for is a dozen pages in. Often these results trump even official big company web sites. Heck while half asleep I used Google to search for OpenOffice, clicked the first link, clicked a big download button, and when trying to install it later I realized whatever I downloaded was certainly *NOT* OpenOffice. (Don't know what it was, I deleted it quickly)
In my opinion, there was an additional reason why Visi On failed (As if there weren't enough reasons already)
Visi On used copy protection. You either had to have your original floppy disk in the drive at boot or have a genuine Visi On mouse attached (the software would check the mouse for a serial number). Now, tell me you don't see the problem with disks or mice wearing out quickly!
From a historical preservation perspective, the worst part was since few people want to preserve old software besides games, it almost "protected" itself out of existence!
So many people comparing Windows 1.x to GEM, GEOS, Mac, and not one mention of VisiCorp Visi On, the first GUI for the IBM PC, released in 1983.
What I would like to know more about, in Georgia there was a proposed amendment that would somehow strengthen non-compete employment agreements (I regret I don't fully understand it, I could not find as much info as I would like about it in the time available to me). What bugs me about it was the wording on the ballot made it sound almost like the voters would be killing kittens if they didn't vote for it.
Unsurprisingly, it looks like it got voted in but I have not heard much in the media about it so far.
I guess space aliens are more interesting.
I would like to once again take this opportunity to say "I told you so" to all of the idiots who wanted IE "integrated" in to the OS. If IE was a normal application, like every other browser, then you would be able to run IE 6 on Windows 7 along side IE 8 in a fully supported manner without any fancy hacks or virtualization.
People would have been better off sticking with web stuff that only worked in Netscape 4. I'd need to double check, but I am pretty sure Netscape 4.8 will run fine under Windows 7.
But, of course, when Windows 9 comes out, people will still be stuck on Windows 7 and IE 8.
The real problem is people insisting on using bloated inefficient software, which of course requires more electricity to run and produces more heat.
If modern operating systems and software were better optimized most people could get along fine with low power, low heat netbooks.
As it is, people seem to be happy to pump more and more electricity through their desktops and powered laptops until they are just a few watts short of tripping their circuit breaker. Just to write a letter.
What I find most interesting about the drop in IE usage is that this is happening in spite of IE still pre-installed on every single Windows computer and not being truly uninstallable (Even if the icon and tiny iexplore.exe are removed, which is all the Win7 add/remove feature does, 99% of it is sill there and can be fully embedded by applications)
This means a huge number of people are going to the trouble of obtaining and installing a third party browser, and ignoring that a browser is already installed. It would be interesting to see some statistics on where and how people are getting them.
I also have a feeling that for at least the short term, IE 9's inability to run on Windows XP might bite into IEs usage share. Firefox 4 will still run under 2000 and XP (and unofficially apparently even Windows 98 using a special piece of kernel extending software)
I've had pretty good luck with CD-R media over the years. I still have some CD-Rs from the mid 90s that are still perfectly readable. Although I did come across a batch that couldn't be read in any newer (made in the last 3 or 4 years) DVD drive I have. The disks were still perfectly fine, and could read flawlessly in older CD/DVD drives but newer drives would go totally berserk reading them. My best guess is the Windows 3.1 CD burning software I used back then did something slightly non standard that newer drives don't handle any more. Copied them to fresh CD-Rs and solved that problem.
So it is important to go back and verify your CDs, not only that they are readable, but readable in the drives you may need to use, both newer and older. And test on various machines - I recall running in to instances where CDs were accidentally burned with file systems that certain common OSes could not read, even though it looked fine on the computer that made it.
And then there is the problem I always seem to have problems with: Making sure what is on the CD is what is actually what I inteneded to put on there in the first place!
It will be interesting to see how the actual life spans of recordable DVD and DVD DL compare to recordable CDs.
The last time I checked, there still was no way to kick around the really old original 68k versions of NeXTSTEP other than buying a NeXT machine and its optical media off of eBay. I wish somebody would write NeXT emulator that emulated the original 68k machines. The x86 version is interesting and all, but the 68k version is where it all started.
I guess people only bother emulating platforms that have lots of games.
So if you type in "IDDT", will it show you the entire map including secret areas?
1% can be either large or small depending on what is being measured. For example, a Pointy Haired Boss may think the following:
* 1% of your web site user base using a different web browser is insignificant and can easily be ignored.
* 1% of your annual profits is HUGE and losing or failing to obtain those means heads must roll.
(of course, a true PHB will never see any potential relationship between the two)
Heres a gesture for you:
[Flips middle finger]
Interface *THAT* you stupid computer!
You know, with all of this filtering and monitoring and restricting going on that those in charge seem to want, I've got a better idea: Just outlaw and unplug the entire freaking Internet. That's the way things seem to be going anyway.
[Ploinks cable from the wall]
NO CARRIER
Calm down. IT's not stealing.
And neither is unlicensed duplication. But that is what masses at large have been taught to call it by the MPAA/RIAA/etc. If the masses at large could easily comprehend a pedantic discussion I wouldn't need to be so blunt.
Actually if you view information as a living entity, it might be more accurate to call it murder. :P
That's right, copyright is STEALING! It is stealing history and culture from future generations. It is stealing from the global knowledge of humanity. Not just infringed upon; information is locked up until it rots in to nothingness.
I have no specific desire to take control of mickey-frikkin-mouse away from the Walt Disney Corporation, or similar works from their holders. But I believe the original idea of copyright was to benefit humanity by encouraging people to create more works by granting an author the PRIVILEGE to control how their work was distributed for a limited time.
However, if a holder does not ultimately contribute something back to humanity in exchange for this privilege, then they are literally stealing from humanity.
The current system effectively prevents these works from continuing to benefit and enrich humanity after they are out of print by failing to permit works from entering the public domain in a timely manner if ever. This needs to be fixed.
For a person or entity to retain control over a work indefinitely, such as current laws essentially permit, is STEALING from humanity.
That is only nonsensical if it is being supportive of the reality. The reality is unfortunate and stupid: If you stop using IE 6 for IE7/8, Firefox, Chrome, whatever but IE 6 was the only tool with which you could get your job done... then you are going to start losing money as productivity stops.
Of course it is idiotic to paint yourself in to a corner where you can only do your job with one specific tool if you don't have to. You put your business in serious risk if you do that.
Like the car analogy above, would you set up your business so you could ONLY ever use a Mercedes Vito van? That would be stupid. Your business would suddenly be unable to make money if it broke beyond repair and you couldn't get the exact same vehicle. Spend a little extra time and money so you can use any vehicle and reduce the risk to your business. Makes sense, but all people see is that they save a few bucks up front.
I wasn't aware that you could only have one browser installed on a computer at a time. What's wrong with installing Firefox for 99% of tasks, and also having IE6 available for the obsolete and soon to be extinct tasks that require it?
What's wrong is that it costs time and money for the variety of things that go in to supporting and maintaining an additional application. The bean counters would throw a fit at the idea of spending money on two applications that do effectively the same thing.
And thanks to Microsoft's brilliant "integration", it is not possible to remove the costs of supporting IE, even after any intranet sites that required it are extinct. IE is always installed with Windows. You can remove the icon, but it must still be configured, patched, and otherwise maintained for all of the idiotic Microsoft applications that potentially may embed its rendering engine.
This synth is great, but it isn't a REAL synthesizer unless it can adequately play the theme music to Leisure Suite Larry. :)
Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped
Arrag, and all these years I was trying to erase that from my memory. The real purpose of the channel bar and channel screen saver was to promote Microsoft Internet Explorer 4. With the "enhanced" desktop IE 4 logos were also plastered all over other places in the user interface and used the IE document viewer shell in place of the previous Windows Explorer file manager.
They didn't prevent you from using the OS if you didn't view the channel bar ads (they DID try to prevent you from using the OS if IE was not installed) but the average person probably never turned off the channel bar or active desktop. So those graphics for MSN, MSNBC, Disney, etc probably burned themselves in to many CRTs.
Even today browser vendors take money for prominently placing default browser bookmarks, but at least those aren't usually as intrusive.
To read this funny and insightful comment you must be signed in or view a series of advertisements:
- Click here to sign up for a premium account now (9.95 a month)!
- Click here for some other confusing options!
- Click here to view a long series of advertisements first in a useless attempt to see the comment.
- Click here to go back to Google and find some other site that has the same damn thing for free
Worse, as the recent case against Terry Childs has shown, judges and juries are often not technically savvy enough to understand what IT pros do
As I recall, when the details finally came to light about what he did and how he went about it, the judge and jurry WERE technically savvy enough to understand what he did. It was all the people jumping to uninformed conclusions here on Slashdot that didn't understand.
I have no doubt there are plenty of cases where judges and juries fail to understand the facts at hand, but I don't think this was one of them.
Firefox 4 Beta 1 Shits On HTML5. Oh, wait, that would be Internet Explorer.
At any rate, lets all change the standards again, so all those old computers that can't run anything later than Firefox 2 have to be shipped off to some foreign dump where they leak poisonous chemicals in to the drinking water.