Why is it that OS X could run old Mac OS applications with no trouble, even PPC ones on an Intel machine, and W7 croaks on some XP apps?
No u can't, even on a PPC with 10.5 you don't get the Classic environment.
I can, if it's the same OS that caused these particular problems in the first place.
and they provided multiple ways to circumvent it, yet some deva don't want to move ahead with it. They could enforce it but that would break backwards compatibility. What would u propose?
That and the fact that it is a lot more difficult to break things.
How so?
But I'm tired of the cheap apologies. It is never windos, is it?
Who's apologizing? And who's saying it's never windows? Seems like ur reading into things that aren't there.
should actually include synchronisation and management, insofar as once you've spawned the new process it takes care of itself, you don't need to worry about cleaning it up (though you can kill it) and you don't need to worry about thread-management.
For performance reasons, tabs don't and shouldn't run in separate processes.
What performance reasons?
On most platforms, processes are more expensive than threads.
That's not a valid reason to suggest threads are more ideal than processes. In fact given the nature of a multi-tab web browser - where the bulk of the processing functionality is duplicated - processes are more suitable, at that level of abstraction you pretty much have one browser per-page anyway, just all sitting in one window. Sure things like inter-thread communication are faster than inter-process communication but in this scenario you don't need that communication so there is no benefit there.
I would suggest in this case you are better off with a process-per-page model than a multi-threaded renderer since - as was said earlier - the scheduling is handled by the OS. One single-threaded (or at least single-page, you'll get benefit out of spawning workers for some tasks) renderer per-page is going to be more efficient than one renderer handling scheduling and spawning worker threads to render multiple pages as it has to manage all that synchronisation as well.
Oh, so this was just an opinion, no real facts or anything to back it up - Understood. Your comment did not seem to present it self as an opinion to me, sorry for the miss-interpretation.
I'd think it's quite reasonable to assume - beyond the need for citation - that if you execute a MITM attack and someone's private banking details are compromised because of it that indeed some serious questions would be leveled at you. Moreover citation would be needed he were suggesting the concrete legality of such actions, not the dubious - or questionable - legality of them.
Is Apple planning on giving refunds to anyone who owns a iDevice which was bought before the change in terms?
That really needs to be mandatory in these sorts of situations, same as with Sony's removal of the OtherOS functionality in the PS3. These 'policy changes' are becoming increasingly common in the industry now.
Weird, XP still suffers from it, and a similar problem does exist on W7.
Obviously...since it isn't a problem that can be changed and fix every older application without breaking backwards compatibility. Hence the reason that for a long time we have had side-by-side assemblies to combat this in native apps and.Net solved this with the global assembly cache and manifests. There is of course also the search path hierarchy for finding DLLs that allows them to be put in the application directory and the need to understand whether the benefits of dynamic linkage to 3rd party libraries are actually tangible and if not opt for safer static linkage.
So you could break backwards compatibility or produce mechanisms to avoid the problem, you can't expect the OS to make up for badly written software. And really you can run into a similar problem on unices with symlinks pointing to the wrong versions, ofcourse the advantage there is that you just have to point the link back to the older version for the applications the upgrade broke.
Not any more than any other company selling anything.
Intel want to stay ahead, but not too far ahead.
...why? So they can have competition? Why would they want competition. I seem to remember Intel clobbered AMDs offerings with the Core architecture after they had to get back in the game when AMD beat them with the Athlon64 and their failure that was the Netburst architecture certainly wasn't the result of stagnating innovation, in fact Core went back to the roots of the successful Pentium 3 architecture more than it compared to Netburst. They are certainly innovating with the Atom platform, i wouldn't call that 'stagnating'.
It was a shining example of a beautiful CPU that was not based on old tech and trying to be compatible with something from 1981.
Where have you been? Did you not see the shitstorm that Vista created when it even slightly broke compatibility with older systems? For the end user, being backwards compatible is more often than not a necessity, being the future is useless if it fails now. I think the Alpha was brilliant, as was much of the technology of SGI around that time, but they failed on one core issue, they didn't meet the needs of the end user.
Because how Microsoft interacts with device manufacturers is likely to have repercussions on to what extent these manufacturers will cooperate with the maintainers of Linux and the kernel of FreeBSD. A PC operating system with no compatible peripherals is useless.
Maybe it's because the PC market has already gone so far? In the last five years, handhelds have been gaining things--large color screens, powerful web browsers, built in wireless--that desktops have had for years. This stuff was physically impossible to do at small sizes five years ago.
Exactly, and people expect more and more out of their mobile devices, in fact the argument from mobile device makers (particularly apple with it's ipad) is that desktop pc users don't need any more than they already have and can actually sacrifice many of the features of the PC without losing their essential functionality. There is a much larger consumer-base driving innovation in smartphones (that is there are more people wanting smartphones to be as capable as PCs than there are wanting PCs to be more capable than they are), not to mention the upgrade cycle being MUCH shorter. That said I don't see PC innovation stagnating so much as the whole industry is diversifying, Intel have moved heavily into the netbook and tablet market and each of these different markets leverage off eachother.
That's a way old problem, comparable to the days when some idiot thought that co-operative multi-tasking in Mac OS was a good idea. Neither is at all relevant these days.
Meanwhile the "experts" at the Apple store tell customers that their machines "can't get viruses because they're built different". Seriously - this was overheard at one of their stores and it's mind boggling.
* even if you don't touch the drivers, different hardware can mean your non-driver update breaks. In other words: The hardware abstraction layer doesn't really abstract the hardware
For example? That sounds to me like a case of something not utilising the hardware abstraction layer correctly rather than the HAL being at fault.
The simple fact that buffer overflow attacks fail on a mac IS the reason why most attacks fail on a mac... windows has allowed stack code to execute for years. It one of the main vectors for malware, viruses... whereas OSx actually uses the CPU memory permissions to prevent it....
Sounds like you're referring to the NX bit, which has been utilised in a range of operating systems for many years to prevent most buffer overflows. Your comment:
windows has allowed stack code to execute for years
is incorrect in the context of executable space protection as this has been enabled (by default in fact) in Windows since XP SP2.
The problem with Stallman is that he is his own worst enemy. He effectively squatted in his MIT office where he worked as an unpaid researcher, the free software song is the most painful thing i've ever heard (and bears a striking resemblance to 'the lion sleeps tonight') and his Saint IGNUcius (youtube if you haven't seen it) is just weird...like not even funny weird, just weird. The fact is the vast majority of people don't want to embrace an ideology championed by someone like that.
What people don't realize are the monthly fees of $14.95 per month, PLUS you have to pay for the games.
So you pay $180 a year to have videos streamed to your PC. For $100 you can pick up a relatively modest graphics card, pop it in your PC, and have much better picture quality. The compression must be horrible. Even an ATI 4650 at 720P should be able to rival onlive.
Bonus: Captcha for this post was 'frauds'.
Not to mention with the lowering prices of high resolution displays, eyefinity (and the like), 3D displays and 7.1 surround sound setups who wants to fall back to low-quality streamed videos.
Also this system will never work with twitch gaming, like unreal tournament.
I'd certainly agree, yet UT3 is on the list of launch games, so they seem to think it's good enough.
All depends on your net connection, and your standards.
I'd suggest it doesn't depend on your standards, if you're getting flogged by gamers playing on local systems because they don't have the same input lag that isn't to do with your standards, that would be purely your network connection. The OnLive system will always introduce significant latency so you'll never be able to compete against those on local dedicated systems in twitch games.
Okay then, Einstein, how exactly did it bite them in the ass? How badly are they suffering, huh?
The lost sales through that period, they weren't going to support DVD but the market dictated that it was a necessary feature and they eventually had to backflip on that decision. It's a negative impact, it doesn't have to be catastrophic, dumbass.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that OS X could run old Mac OS applications with no trouble, even PPC ones on an Intel machine, and W7 croaks on some XP apps?
No u can't, even on a PPC with 10.5 you don't get the Classic environment.
I can, if it's the same OS that caused these particular problems in the first place.
and they provided multiple ways to circumvent it, yet some deva don't want to move ahead with it. They could enforce it but that would break backwards compatibility. What would u propose?
That and the fact that it is a lot more difficult to break things.
How so?
But I'm tired of the cheap apologies. It is never windos, is it?
Who's apologizing? And who's saying it's never windows? Seems like ur reading into things that aren't there.
the scheduling is handled by the OS
should actually include synchronisation and management, insofar as once you've spawned the new process it takes care of itself, you don't need to worry about cleaning it up (though you can kill it) and you don't need to worry about thread-management.
For performance reasons, tabs don't and shouldn't run in separate processes.
What performance reasons?
On most platforms, processes are more expensive than threads.
That's not a valid reason to suggest threads are more ideal than processes. In fact given the nature of a multi-tab web browser - where the bulk of the processing functionality is duplicated - processes are more suitable, at that level of abstraction you pretty much have one browser per-page anyway, just all sitting in one window. Sure things like inter-thread communication are faster than inter-process communication but in this scenario you don't need that communication so there is no benefit there.
I would suggest in this case you are better off with a process-per-page model than a multi-threaded renderer since - as was said earlier - the scheduling is handled by the OS. One single-threaded (or at least single-page, you'll get benefit out of spawning workers for some tasks) renderer per-page is going to be more efficient than one renderer handling scheduling and spawning worker threads to render multiple pages as it has to manage all that synchronisation as well.
Oh, so this was just an opinion, no real facts or anything to back it up - Understood. Your comment did not seem to present it self as an opinion to me, sorry for the miss-interpretation.
I'd think it's quite reasonable to assume - beyond the need for citation - that if you execute a MITM attack and someone's private banking details are compromised because of it that indeed some serious questions would be leveled at you. Moreover citation would be needed he were suggesting the concrete legality of such actions, not the dubious - or questionable - legality of them.
Is Apple planning on giving refunds to anyone who owns a iDevice which was bought before the change in terms?
That really needs to be mandatory in these sorts of situations, same as with Sony's removal of the OtherOS functionality in the PS3. These 'policy changes' are becoming increasingly common in the industry now.
Weird, XP still suffers from it, and a similar problem does exist on W7.
Obviously...since it isn't a problem that can be changed and fix every older application without breaking backwards compatibility. Hence the reason that for a long time we have had side-by-side assemblies to combat this in native apps and .Net solved this with the global assembly cache and manifests. There is of course also the search path hierarchy for finding DLLs that allows them to be put in the application directory and the need to understand whether the benefits of dynamic linkage to 3rd party libraries are actually tangible and if not opt for safer static linkage.
So you could break backwards compatibility or produce mechanisms to avoid the problem, you can't expect the OS to make up for badly written software. And really you can run into a similar problem on unices with symlinks pointing to the wrong versions, ofcourse the advantage there is that you just have to point the link back to the older version for the applications the upgrade broke.
Intel would certainly prefer to stagnate
Not any more than any other company selling anything.
Intel want to stay ahead, but not too far ahead.
...why? So they can have competition? Why would they want competition. I seem to remember Intel clobbered AMDs offerings with the Core architecture after they had to get back in the game when AMD beat them with the Athlon64 and their failure that was the Netburst architecture certainly wasn't the result of stagnating innovation, in fact Core went back to the roots of the successful Pentium 3 architecture more than it compared to Netburst. They are certainly innovating with the Atom platform, i wouldn't call that 'stagnating'.
It was a shining example of a beautiful CPU that was not based on old tech and trying to be compatible with something from 1981.
Where have you been? Did you not see the shitstorm that Vista created when it even slightly broke compatibility with older systems? For the end user, being backwards compatible is more often than not a necessity, being the future is useless if it fails now. I think the Alpha was brilliant, as was much of the technology of SGI around that time, but they failed on one core issue, they didn't meet the needs of the end user.
Because how Microsoft interacts with device manufacturers is likely to have repercussions on to what extent these manufacturers will cooperate with the maintainers of Linux and the kernel of FreeBSD. A PC operating system with no compatible peripherals is useless.
What's device driver signing got to do with that?
Maybe it's because the PC market has already gone so far? In the last five years, handhelds have been gaining things--large color screens, powerful web browsers, built in wireless--that desktops have had for years. This stuff was physically impossible to do at small sizes five years ago.
Exactly, and people expect more and more out of their mobile devices, in fact the argument from mobile device makers (particularly apple with it's ipad) is that desktop pc users don't need any more than they already have and can actually sacrifice many of the features of the PC without losing their essential functionality. There is a much larger consumer-base driving innovation in smartphones (that is there are more people wanting smartphones to be as capable as PCs than there are wanting PCs to be more capable than they are), not to mention the upgrade cycle being MUCH shorter. That said I don't see PC innovation stagnating so much as the whole industry is diversifying, Intel have moved heavily into the netbook and tablet market and each of these different markets leverage off eachother.
That's a way old problem, comparable to the days when some idiot thought that co-operative multi-tasking in Mac OS was a good idea. Neither is at all relevant these days.
Yeah DLLHell is an old problem, not even relevant anymore.
Meanwhile the "experts" at the Apple store tell customers that their machines "can't get viruses because they're built different". Seriously - this was overheard at one of their stores and it's mind boggling.
Maybe direct them here. Specifically:
However, since no system can be 100 percent immune from every threat, antivirus software may offer additional protection.
Never understood how someone can come up with such a crappy library management system in the first place.
What are you referring to there?
* even if you don't touch the drivers, different hardware can mean your non-driver update breaks. In other words: The hardware abstraction layer doesn't really abstract the hardware
For example? That sounds to me like a case of something not utilising the hardware abstraction layer correctly rather than the HAL being at fault.
Now I'm faced with trying to figure out a way to keep my computer fast and I'm not sure which way to go...
User accounts?
I'd prefer flying.
I'm linux.
The simple fact that buffer overflow attacks fail on a mac IS the reason why most attacks fail on a mac... windows has allowed stack code to execute for years. It one of the main vectors for malware, viruses... whereas OSx actually uses the CPU memory permissions to prevent it....
Sounds like you're referring to the NX bit, which has been utilised in a range of operating systems for many years to prevent most buffer overflows. Your comment:
windows has allowed stack code to execute for years
is incorrect in the context of executable space protection as this has been enabled (by default in fact) in Windows since XP SP2.
The problem with Stallman is that he is his own worst enemy. He effectively squatted in his MIT office where he worked as an unpaid researcher, the free software song is the most painful thing i've ever heard (and bears a striking resemblance to 'the lion sleeps tonight') and his Saint IGNUcius (youtube if you haven't seen it) is just weird...like not even funny weird, just weird. The fact is the vast majority of people don't want to embrace an ideology championed by someone like that.
Apple's own video about the iPhone 4 mentions the power-saving advances of the A4.
Relative to what though? The 3GS?
What people don't realize are the monthly fees of $14.95 per month, PLUS you have to pay for the games.
So you pay $180 a year to have videos streamed to your PC. For $100 you can pick up a relatively modest graphics card, pop it in your PC, and have much better picture quality. The compression must be horrible. Even an ATI 4650 at 720P should be able to rival onlive.
Bonus: Captcha for this post was 'frauds'.
Not to mention with the lowering prices of high resolution displays, eyefinity (and the like), 3D displays and 7.1 surround sound setups who wants to fall back to low-quality streamed videos.
Also this system will never work with twitch gaming, like unreal tournament.
I'd certainly agree, yet UT3 is on the list of launch games, so they seem to think it's good enough.
All depends on your net connection, and your standards.
I'd suggest it doesn't depend on your standards, if you're getting flogged by gamers playing on local systems because they don't have the same input lag that isn't to do with your standards, that would be purely your network connection. The OnLive system will always introduce significant latency so you'll never be able to compete against those on local dedicated systems in twitch games.
mod up!
Your profile pic has you wearing a black turtleneck.
Okay then, Einstein, how exactly did it bite them in the ass? How badly are they suffering, huh?
The lost sales through that period, they weren't going to support DVD but the market dictated that it was a necessary feature and they eventually had to backflip on that decision. It's a negative impact, it doesn't have to be catastrophic, dumbass.