If apple couldn't afford the risk of letting the device be lost, why did they give it to someone who has a chance of losing it in a public place?
So no-one should ever give anything sensitive to anyone for risk of disclosure? Apple can afford the loss of the device, but it certainly has a negative impact - just like the loss of any sensitive information - and of course there are consequences of this since it could have been prevented by the individual who had charge of the device.
Personally I don't think he should be fired but if everytime someone inadvertently let sensitive information fall into the wrong hands people just looked the other way and decided 'oh well nobody's perfect' there would be no sense of personal responsibility to safeguard such information.
My understanding of XP Mode is that it's even more in-a-bottle than WoW was. Beyond that, XP Mode really doesn't do anything about DOS games.
Yes, that's true but i don't really see a way around that. Unless you want to constantly update your deprecated APIs to work with the new underlying operating system you are going to have to sandbox it somehow.
It would be nice if they had the resources to keep all those old APIs compatible with all the new features but it's just not worth it.
And it does make me worry that Microsoft might pull an Apple (ie, dropping XP Mode in the future like Apple dropped Classic Environment) given the demands of having to effectively keep up to date two OSs.
The difference being that - as you said - you can run even those old unsupported OSes on even the most modern hardware, or alternatively a virtualized mode or even a full virtualized environment. With Apple you can't run their OSes in a virtualized system and the older apple OSes won't run natively on the current intel hardware.
You're mostly right. Never the less, DOS and Win16 APIs were dropped in Win x64 unnecessarily. AFAIK, even though Long mode doesn't support VM86, all non-x86 WinNT lines already had an emulator in NTVDM, so it would have been quite possible to continue support of DOS and Win16 APIs in some capacity if desired.
They are supported to a degree, through the use of XP Mode in windows 7 even the latest 64bit OS is able to run old 16bit applications, I shouldn't think there is much need to expend effort supporting Win16 beyond that.
I'd say the incredibly vast majority of developers are quite happy for Win16 to no longer be supported in the latest development tools. You can run your old programs in the latest OS, you can develop them with the older development tools, really what more do you need?
DOS games on WinNT. Win16 on Win x64. I'm certain there are other big ones, but those are two big and obvious ones to me.
Those aren't API changes - which is the context of this discussion - those are major architectural changes. You can't expect compatibility that transcends architectures and operating systems.
What is "fairness" here, that developers should limit themselves to a common denominator, a feature subset which would let them easily port applications between whatever weird platform a given wannabe user goes ahead and buys?
Of course not, but that should be up to the developer, not one particular device manufacturer.
Slashdotters froth at the mouth in their animosity towards Apple.
So you - as a member of that community - then disagree with the words you have written following that sentence?
It's funny how people will generalise the views of a community that they are a part of to be the opposite of their own to make them feel special. Have you ever seen the pages of back and forth debate on issues like Apple's policies? If all - or even the majority - of the community were as you say they are then it would be pretty one-sided and there wouldn't be all these pages of arguments, flaming, etc...
exactly! and the same thing happened with sony's playstation 3, they provided subsidized hardware where the profit is made on accessories and games, however with the OtherOS functionality many users did not need those accessories and games so Sony found itself subsidizing organisations' super-computer clusters.
You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that.
Oracle's new licensing policy has now put us into a bind. We now have to pick up Oracle Sun-branded hardware, plus the hardware support contract, plus the Oracle Premium software service plan.
It's almost getting to an Apple-style of hardware/software tying, not quite there yet but it looks like that's what Oracle is driving at, making it only worth it to run Solaris if it's on their hardware (by tying the support contract).
Apple has moved from 68k to PPC to OS X to Intel to ARM to (proposed) POWER) for both 32/64 bit and all it took in those last steps was flag in the compiler.
PPC to OSX? They went from a hardware architecture to a software operating system?
I'm referring to the Window's market who shifted over to Apple in general because they lost faith in MS products in general.
So you're saying that is apple's target market? I think that's aiming a little narrow.
The iPhone is easy to use and not by the company they associate with viruses and computer crashes.
But what other phones that allow arbitrary code execution suffer from the problems you described? The end user is smart enough to know that there is a difference between their desktop PC and a smartphone.
Yeah: vessels going to sea today that were designed 10+ years ago are all running Windows NT (if they went with an MS OS). There's a scary thought: the most advanced weapons every devised run on Windows NT.
no-one is sitting at a pc running Microsoft Nuke to fire off missiles.
This is because they are selling a product to the end user demographic and it is a demographic sick of being rootkitted and virused and having their tech-savvyish friend come over and reinstall their OS again.
Can't seem to recall having heard of anyone needing to re-install their smartphone OS.
I can't wait until we can buy a Toyota and install Mercedes software on it.
Go for it, no one will stop you.
Oh, wait, your analogy was flawed. Microsoft doesn't make hardware. Ooops.
This has nothing to do with hardware but everything to do with software. Oooops.
Maybe we should let Toyota continue to be "closed" and we can choose to buy a Toyota or not..
What's this got to do with being closed or open? Nothing! You can install whatever software you want in your car, no-one will stop you from that, there is no clause saying 'if you buy this car you cannot install any other software in it'. The only hurdle you will face is a technical one, overcome that and you have no problems. In the case of iphone OS there is no technical hurdle, it's just apple saying you aren't allowed. So your car analogy FAILS!
It is going to sue because apple bans applications not programmed in C/C++/Objective C. Apple states this is because compatibility layers make bad apps, I would think it is more of a middle finger to adobe who has publicly announced it's plans to make a flash to iphone tool.
Have you seen the requirements for Windows Phone 7?.NET or Silverlight, that is it.
And if you have a cross-compilation tool - which is of course what this issue is all about - on Windows Phone 7 it would be fine, Apple bans it for iFashionable devices. You need to properly understand what section 3.3.1 is about.
apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.
While you are at it, sue Sony for their store on the PS3 and sue Microsoft for their XBox Live and sue Verizon because they only let apps for their phones be sold via their app store, and sue...
Do you even know what this discussion is about? it's nothing to do with the app store serving only the iFashionable platforms, it's about utilising that fact to prevent competition by denying applications on non-technical grounds. PS Store, XBox Live, etc... do not do this! If you build a cross-platform application for PS and XBox there is no problem with regard to the PS Store or XBox live, however on the App Store this is forbidden.
In either event, they announced the product to their customers and sold them on an idea they were not in a position to deliver
You might as well say no-one is ever in a position to guarantee anything for the iphone ever since Apple can remove and deny applications whenever they want on whatever grounds and can change their developer agreements to disallow anything at any time. No-one who provides software for the iphone is in any position to ever guarantee delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
If apple couldn't afford the risk of letting the device be lost, why did they give it to someone who has a chance of losing it in a public place?
So no-one should ever give anything sensitive to anyone for risk of disclosure? Apple can afford the loss of the device, but it certainly has a negative impact - just like the loss of any sensitive information - and of course there are consequences of this since it could have been prevented by the individual who had charge of the device.
Personally I don't think he should be fired but if everytime someone inadvertently let sensitive information fall into the wrong hands people just looked the other way and decided 'oh well nobody's perfect' there would be no sense of personal responsibility to safeguard such information.
My understanding of XP Mode is that it's even more in-a-bottle than WoW was. Beyond that, XP Mode really doesn't do anything about DOS games.
Yes, that's true but i don't really see a way around that. Unless you want to constantly update your deprecated APIs to work with the new underlying operating system you are going to have to sandbox it somehow.
It would be nice if they had the resources to keep all those old APIs compatible with all the new features but it's just not worth it.
And it does make me worry that Microsoft might pull an Apple (ie, dropping XP Mode in the future like Apple dropped Classic Environment) given the demands of having to effectively keep up to date two OSs.
The difference being that - as you said - you can run even those old unsupported OSes on even the most modern hardware, or alternatively a virtualized mode or even a full virtualized environment. With Apple you can't run their OSes in a virtualized system and the older apple OSes won't run natively on the current intel hardware.
You're mostly right. Never the less, DOS and Win16 APIs were dropped in Win x64 unnecessarily. AFAIK, even though Long mode doesn't support VM86, all non-x86 WinNT lines already had an emulator in NTVDM, so it would have been quite possible to continue support of DOS and Win16 APIs in some capacity if desired.
They are supported to a degree, through the use of XP Mode in windows 7 even the latest 64bit OS is able to run old 16bit applications, I shouldn't think there is much need to expend effort supporting Win16 beyond that.
I'd say the incredibly vast majority of developers are quite happy for Win16 to no longer be supported in the latest development tools. You can run your old programs in the latest OS, you can develop them with the older development tools, really what more do you need?
Same here in Australia.
DOS games on WinNT. Win16 on Win x64. I'm certain there are other big ones, but those are two big and obvious ones to me.
Those aren't API changes - which is the context of this discussion - those are major architectural changes. You can't expect compatibility that transcends architectures and operating systems.
Neither of the iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch are general purpose computers.
Oh come on, what is your definition of general purpose computing then? I'd say the iPad fits pretty much everything.
What is "fairness" here, that developers should limit themselves to a common denominator, a feature subset which would let them easily port applications between whatever weird platform a given wannabe user goes ahead and buys?
Of course not, but that should be up to the developer, not one particular device manufacturer.
The "applications" in the apple store are mostly junk, or not really real applications.
Like all the iFart clones...good thing they limited cross-compilation, wouldn't want those brilliant developers creating cross-platform apps!
Slashdotters froth at the mouth in their animosity towards Apple.
So you - as a member of that community - then disagree with the words you have written following that sentence?
It's funny how people will generalise the views of a community that they are a part of to be the opposite of their own to make them feel special. Have you ever seen the pages of back and forth debate on issues like Apple's policies? If all - or even the majority - of the community were as you say they are then it would be pretty one-sided and there wouldn't be all these pages of arguments, flaming, etc...
exactly! and the same thing happened with sony's playstation 3, they provided subsidized hardware where the profit is made on accessories and games, however with the OtherOS functionality many users did not need those accessories and games so Sony found itself subsidizing organisations' super-computer clusters.
The thousands making Android, J2ME etc. apps would look strangely at your strange ideas.
Well if you can actually show some numbers that would help your argument.
You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that.
They have a monopoly on mobile application sales.
Oracle's new licensing policy has now put us into a bind. We now have to pick up Oracle Sun-branded hardware, plus the hardware support contract, plus the Oracle Premium software service plan.
It's almost getting to an Apple-style of hardware/software tying, not quite there yet but it looks like that's what Oracle is driving at, making it only worth it to run Solaris if it's on their hardware (by tying the support contract).
Apple has moved from 68k to PPC to OS X to Intel to ARM to (proposed) POWER) for both 32/64 bit and all it took in those last steps was flag in the compiler.
PPC to OSX? They went from a hardware architecture to a software operating system?
Intel to ARM? When did that happen?
didn't they - or someone else - even xray the chip and find that it is indeed an ARM chip?
I'm referring to the Window's market who shifted over to Apple in general because they lost faith in MS products in general.
So you're saying that is apple's target market? I think that's aiming a little narrow.
The iPhone is easy to use and not by the company they associate with viruses and computer crashes.
But what other phones that allow arbitrary code execution suffer from the problems you described? The end user is smart enough to know that there is a difference between their desktop PC and a smartphone.
Yeah: vessels going to sea today that were designed 10+ years ago are all running Windows NT (if they went with an MS OS). There's a scary thought: the most advanced weapons every devised run on Windows NT.
no-one is sitting at a pc running Microsoft Nuke to fire off missiles.
This is because they are selling a product to the end user demographic and it is a demographic sick of being rootkitted and virused and having their tech-savvyish friend come over and reinstall their OS again.
Can't seem to recall having heard of anyone needing to re-install their smartphone OS.
I can't wait until we can buy a Toyota and install Mercedes software on it.
Go for it, no one will stop you.
Oh, wait, your analogy was flawed. Microsoft doesn't make hardware. Ooops.
This has nothing to do with hardware but everything to do with software. Oooops.
Maybe we should let Toyota continue to be "closed" and we can choose to buy a Toyota or not..
What's this got to do with being closed or open? Nothing! You can install whatever software you want in your car, no-one will stop you from that, there is no clause saying 'if you buy this car you cannot install any other software in it'. The only hurdle you will face is a technical one, overcome that and you have no problems. In the case of iphone OS there is no technical hurdle, it's just apple saying you aren't allowed. So your car analogy FAILS!
Boo hoo, Adobe. Apple doesn't have to support Adobe products on their platform. Apple's market share is small enough that they're not a monopoly.
They aren't asking them to support it, they are asking them to not explicitly deny it. They aren't even asking Apple to do any work to help them.
Use our product! On your product! Without paying us! Or we'll sue you!
have you got any idea what this discussion is about? Adobe hasn't told Apple to use their product at all!
It is going to sue because apple bans applications not programmed in C/C++/Objective C. Apple states this is because compatibility layers make bad apps, I would think it is more of a middle finger to adobe who has publicly announced it's plans to make a flash to iphone tool.
Have you seen the requirements for Windows Phone 7? .NET or Silverlight, that is it.
And if you have a cross-compilation tool - which is of course what this issue is all about - on Windows Phone 7 it would be fine, Apple bans it for iFashionable devices. You need to properly understand what section 3.3.1 is about.
apple needs to be sued over there app store lock in and lock down as some of there banning may be going to far.
While you are at it, sue Sony for their store on the PS3 and sue Microsoft for their XBox Live and sue Verizon because they only let apps for their phones be sold via their app store, and sue...
Do you even know what this discussion is about? it's nothing to do with the app store serving only the iFashionable platforms, it's about utilising that fact to prevent competition by denying applications on non-technical grounds. PS Store, XBox Live, etc... do not do this! If you build a cross-platform application for PS and XBox there is no problem with regard to the PS Store or XBox live, however on the App Store this is forbidden.
Louis Gerbarg has written up a very good explanation of the issues involved.
It's stupid, primarily because of this:
In either event, they announced the product to their customers and sold them on an idea they were not in a position to deliver
You might as well say no-one is ever in a position to guarantee anything for the iphone ever since Apple can remove and deny applications whenever they want on whatever grounds and can change their developer agreements to disallow anything at any time. No-one who provides software for the iphone is in any position to ever guarantee delivery.
They don't have to cut off their software entirely. They can just make their Mac versions half-assed ports of the Windows versions.
Oh, wait, they already did that
How is Photoshop Elements a half-assed port? It's exactly the same on both platforms.