The music industry was rather hoping that there would be a market for higher quality than CD, in the form of SACD an DVD-Audio.
Don't forget the Blu-ray album reported the other week. To me, it just smacks of trying to get rid of music which is portable; let's all go back to strapping hulking disc (or, god forbid, cassette) players to our belts with bags of the relevant storage medium on our backs. Not that I think this so-called hi-def audio is a bad idea, just the execution of it..
Surely this was the point of the.NET virtual machine, to compile to CLR run on *?
..and it undoubtedly will run (pure).NET apps just fine given a version of the framework ships with Win8; TFA talks about x86 and ARM native apps, not.NET
I mean, I think a proper GUI, plug-n-play, 32-bit multitasking, etc. were reason enough to distiguish it from win 3.11, but man, chill.
On paper, yes. In practicality, no. Did you ever even (try to) use Windows 95? The GUI and multitasking was a very poor attempt at what other other systems had been doing better for years; the plug-n-play aspect was a joke - the plug-n-pray anecdote duly deserved, if you could get working drivers.
There's a general opinion (from my experience at least) that those monsters dubbed "IT Managers" typically see "free software" as meaning "no support"; and it's not always without justification. A lot of people in the IT industry consider more money to mean a better product - probably because they (naively) assume that some level support is paid for by the cost of the software - after all while someone is still using it, it has to be supported, yes?
Similarly, how many times have you grabbed some "open source" software only to find the web links are broken, the email addresses no longer valid or dependencies broken because version 1.1 interfaces were "improved" in 1.2 last week? More than a couple, I'd hazard. Admittedly, perhaps the more commercial companies are more reliable than small groups of hobbyists. On the other hand, Microsoft links are often broken - even in their own search engine, but they do offer alternative suggestions a lot of the time.
We're looking into some software at the moment which seems to have no documentation and what links there are appear to be broken. It's enough to make you give up and pay through the nose just for an easy life, and that's ultimately what it comes down to. Yes, people can be naive and some can be told to RTFM to solve their problem but if the FM isn't written in an easily understandable way (especially if you're just branching into a particular area), what can you do? A lot of people buy something and expect it to work out of the box. It's easier to make a phone call than get past the firewall, search for the IRC groups/newsgroups and attempt to get a decent answer without waiting several weeks.
Regardless of the whistles and bells on a product, you can guarantee that the area which can ALWAYS be improved on is the documentation and support.
Amiga? Dead? No, just been wheezing a bit in the corner for the past decade. It's not running wild, but there's still some juice left yet. I keep mine tucked away in the corner when I need something I can rely on working as I want.
There seems to be a general discomfort in the/. community (as pointed out before) that whenever an Amiga story pokes it's head outa the barrel, it gets shot at. The fact some readers and critics seem a little confused over the matter doesn't help.
AmigaDE."It's nothing to do with AmigaOS"... well, yes, quite right. It's a "new" approach to a problem. Very little to do with the Classic machines. Get over it.
AmigaOS is Dead. Well, no. The fact Haage and Partner are still selling products like StormC proves there is still a whsiper of life. It is a great system - I've yet to be impressed by other OSs like Linux and especially Windows in quite the same way.
Only Amiga by name... well, yes, yet again. It's the company that is called AMIGA now, not simply the machines. A fact oft overlooked here, it seems. Might as well call Linux by the name of Corel and be done. Same difference.
Yes, the classic boxes are old - yes the hardware can be considered almost obsolete in comparison to modern stuff; almost like the somewhat nasty and almost archaic x86 boxes that a lot of Linux systems run on. But we're not simply talking about the old boxes. At least give the guys a chance to produce a system and then slag it off.
Slashdot Mirror
The music industry was rather hoping that there would be a market for higher quality than CD, in the form of SACD an DVD-Audio.
Don't forget the Blu-ray album reported the other week. To me, it just smacks of trying to get rid of music which is portable; let's all go back to strapping hulking disc (or, god forbid, cassette) players to our belts with bags of the relevant storage medium on our backs. Not that I think this so-called hi-def audio is a bad idea, just the execution of it..
Surely this was the point of the .NET virtual machine, to compile to CLR run on *?
..and it undoubtedly will run (pure) .NET apps just fine given a version of the framework ships with Win8; TFA talks about x86 and ARM native apps, not .NET
I mean, I think a proper GUI, plug-n-play, 32-bit multitasking, etc. were reason enough to distiguish it from win 3.11, but man, chill.
On paper, yes. In practicality, no. Did you ever even (try to) use Windows 95? The GUI and multitasking was a very poor attempt at what other other systems had been doing better for years; the plug-n-play aspect was a joke - the plug-n-pray anecdote duly deserved, if you could get working drivers.
Wait .. why does it feel I'm describing Vista?
Ahem, first line from the RKM: Libraries (Commodore, Inc. 1992), page 2:
"The Amiga uses preemptive multitasking.. "
Perhaps someone should suggest using the Slashdot poll for elections. Everyone trusts that.
Oh, wait, do we really want CowboyNeal voted in every time?!
There's a general opinion (from my experience at least) that those monsters dubbed "IT Managers" typically see "free software" as meaning "no support"; and it's not always without justification. A lot of people in the IT industry consider more money to mean a better product - probably because they (naively) assume that some level support is paid for by the cost of the software - after all while someone is still using it, it has to be supported, yes?
Similarly, how many times have you grabbed some "open source" software only to find the web links are broken, the email addresses no longer valid or dependencies broken because version 1.1 interfaces were "improved" in 1.2 last week? More than a couple, I'd hazard. Admittedly, perhaps the more commercial companies are more reliable than small groups of hobbyists. On the other hand, Microsoft links are often broken - even in their own search engine, but they do offer alternative suggestions a lot of the time.
We're looking into some software at the moment which seems to have no documentation and what links there are appear to be broken. It's enough to make you give up and pay through the nose just for an easy life, and that's ultimately what it comes down to. Yes, people can be naive and some can be told to RTFM to solve their problem but if the FM isn't written in an easily understandable way (especially if you're just branching into a particular area), what can you do? A lot of people buy something and expect it to work out of the box. It's easier to make a phone call than get past the firewall, search for the IRC groups/newsgroups and attempt to get a decent answer without waiting several weeks.
Regardless of the whistles and bells on a product, you can guarantee that the area which can ALWAYS be improved on is the documentation and support.
Amiga? Dead? No, just been wheezing a bit in the corner for the past decade. It's not running wild, but there's still some juice left yet. I keep mine tucked away in the corner when I need something I can rely on working as I want. /. community (as pointed out before) that whenever an Amiga story pokes it's head outa the barrel, it gets shot at. The fact some readers and critics seem a little confused over the matter doesn't help.
There seems to be a general discomfort in the
AmigaDE. "It's nothing to do with AmigaOS" ... well, yes, quite right. It's a "new" approach to a problem. Very little to do with the Classic machines. Get over it.
AmigaOS is Dead. Well, no. The fact Haage and Partner are still selling products like StormC proves there is still a whsiper of life. It is a great system - I've yet to be impressed by other OSs like Linux and especially Windows in quite the same way.
Only Amiga by name ... well, yes, yet again. It's the company that is called AMIGA now, not simply the machines. A fact oft overlooked here, it seems. Might as well call Linux by the name of Corel and be done. Same difference.
Yes, the classic boxes are old - yes the hardware can be considered almost obsolete in comparison to modern stuff; almost like the somewhat nasty and almost archaic x86 boxes that a lot of Linux systems run on. But we're not simply talking about the old boxes. At least give the guys a chance to produce a system and then slag it off.
All IMO as I understand it, of course. :)