Isn't it possible to program a very basic, stripped down Windows clone that is at least Win95 compatible? For example, are you guys saying it's impossible just to get a familiar looking GUI that loads over DOS, displays 256 (or even just 16) colors in VGA mode, and has a mouse running? And could such a GUI be made so it can load up some very basic, simple Windows 95 programs -- like the calculator, the paint program, solitaire? I'm not a programmer but I do understand the complexity involved in programming an OS. Yet the above to me simply does not sound impossible to do today and in a fairly short amount of time. To me, it looks like the problem is is that many of the Windows clone projects have attempted to recreate the OS in its entirety from the start. If a team put together a very basic, working version of a Windows 95 clone described above, released it to the public and open-sourced it, it would start the ball rolling. Please enlighten me why the above is impossible/hard to pull off because I'd like to know why. It really looks to me that the issue of whether or not a Windows clone can be made centers really on limiting one's vision for the first version of such an OS. AF
I'm disappointed Jon didn't get this either...
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 1
* We're not supposed to hate Magneto, at least entirely. He was intentionally depicted as a villain with sympathetic qualities. * Why they edited out Cyclops and the other mutants' origin stories: Because it wasn't necessary to show in relation to the movie's essential plot. At the movie's climax, Magneto and Rogue are the ones who are key to executing Magneto's plan in "mutating" the New York City populace. That's why we are shown Magneto's origin, followed by Rogue's, only -- it's the whole "events come full circle" theme. Look, I'm as much as a geek as many of you people here, but I know this movie needed to be produced and edited toward the taste of a general audience. (I loved how they plausibly worked into the plot the "origin" of Rogue's white-streaked hair and why Magneto was wearing his trademark though damned dorky red helmet.) Thus, showing the origins of Scott, Jean, Xavier, etc. would have been outrightly geeky, patronizing to the hard-core geek demands of "going into more detail" that this contingent usually expects. Bryan Singer et al did this without sacrificing the spirit of these characters. Plus, us geeks will be satisfied when they release X-Men on DVD later this year with all the edited footage included. As for Magneto, in the sequel (and from the looks of it, we'll get one), I think he could become the good guy. He could take over Xavier's school (at Xavier's request) when something happens to the professor, and Magneto could lead the X-Men against a greater enemy which threatens all mutants and humanity. (There was a long-running arc in the comics where Magneto switched sides.) The first movie establishes the credibility of this possibility. AF
I know I'm in the minority and I accept this: But I've grown to intensely dislike going to the movie theater. The seating is lousy, the audience is rude and inconsiderate, the sound system is cranked up WAY too loud, the prices are getting too high, and the number of ads (not trailers) being run before a showing have become wearisome. I think of myself as a people person but the last place I want to commune with my fellow humans is at the theater. I live in Dallas, Texas, where the vast majority of our theaters are multiplexes, so this has probably affected my viewing pleasure. I still enjoy going to repertory and art house theaters. God I sound like an old cranky man -- but I'm 29 and once loved the theater experience when I was younger. I only go to the theater now if it's a very special "event" film (i.e. Phantom Menace and perhaps the upcoming X-Men), a date, or a really unique art house flick I just gotta see. Thank god for DVD -- this medium restored my love for movies. I saw Fight Club for the first time on DVD and felt that I enjoyed it more watching it as a solitary experience rather than in the theater. I've felt similarly about several movies I've watched for the first time on DVD -- I honestly don't think my like or dislike for certain movies has been colored by whether or not I saw them with a theater audience. I am willing to wait until a movie hits DVD before seeing it for the first time. As for streaming video digital films, I love watching the film shorts on sites like AtomFilms. If you have a broadband connection, it's really cool to watch these things on demand. Intimate, personal and off-beat subject matters in films like these seem to work best for this medium. But I doubt this method of film watching will replace the theatrical experience. Instead, I see it as an excellent means to showcase independent work (read: non-Hollywood shit). I see it threatening the TV networks more than the Hollywood movie studio business, and good riddance! AF
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it possible to program a very basic, stripped down Windows clone that is at least Win95 compatible? For example, are you guys saying it's impossible just to get a familiar looking GUI that loads over DOS, displays 256 (or even just 16) colors in VGA mode, and has a mouse running? And could such a GUI be made so it can load up some very basic, simple Windows 95 programs -- like the calculator, the paint program, solitaire? I'm not a programmer but I do understand the complexity involved in programming an OS. Yet the above to me simply does not sound impossible to do today and in a fairly short amount of time. To me, it looks like the problem is is that many of the Windows clone projects have attempted to recreate the OS in its entirety from the start. If a team put together a very basic, working version of a Windows 95 clone described above, released it to the public and open-sourced it, it would start the ball rolling. Please enlighten me why the above is impossible/hard to pull off because I'd like to know why. It really looks to me that the issue of whether or not a Windows clone can be made centers really on limiting one's vision for the first version of such an OS. AF
* We're not supposed to hate Magneto, at least entirely. He was intentionally depicted as a villain with sympathetic qualities. * Why they edited out Cyclops and the other mutants' origin stories: Because it wasn't necessary to show in relation to the movie's essential plot. At the movie's climax, Magneto and Rogue are the ones who are key to executing Magneto's plan in "mutating" the New York City populace. That's why we are shown Magneto's origin, followed by Rogue's, only -- it's the whole "events come full circle" theme. Look, I'm as much as a geek as many of you people here, but I know this movie needed to be produced and edited toward the taste of a general audience. (I loved how they plausibly worked into the plot the "origin" of Rogue's white-streaked hair and why Magneto was wearing his trademark though damned dorky red helmet.) Thus, showing the origins of Scott, Jean, Xavier, etc. would have been outrightly geeky, patronizing to the hard-core geek demands of "going into more detail" that this contingent usually expects. Bryan Singer et al did this without sacrificing the spirit of these characters. Plus, us geeks will be satisfied when they release X-Men on DVD later this year with all the edited footage included. As for Magneto, in the sequel (and from the looks of it, we'll get one), I think he could become the good guy. He could take over Xavier's school (at Xavier's request) when something happens to the professor, and Magneto could lead the X-Men against a greater enemy which threatens all mutants and humanity. (There was a long-running arc in the comics where Magneto switched sides.) The first movie establishes the credibility of this possibility. AF
I know I'm in the minority and I accept this: But I've grown to intensely dislike going to the movie theater. The seating is lousy, the audience is rude and inconsiderate, the sound system is cranked up WAY too loud, the prices are getting too high, and the number of ads (not trailers) being run before a showing have become wearisome. I think of myself as a people person but the last place I want to commune with my fellow humans is at the theater. I live in Dallas, Texas, where the vast majority of our theaters are multiplexes, so this has probably affected my viewing pleasure. I still enjoy going to repertory and art house theaters. God I sound like an old cranky man -- but I'm 29 and once loved the theater experience when I was younger. I only go to the theater now if it's a very special "event" film (i.e. Phantom Menace and perhaps the upcoming X-Men), a date, or a really unique art house flick I just gotta see. Thank god for DVD -- this medium restored my love for movies. I saw Fight Club for the first time on DVD and felt that I enjoyed it more watching it as a solitary experience rather than in the theater. I've felt similarly about several movies I've watched for the first time on DVD -- I honestly don't think my like or dislike for certain movies has been colored by whether or not I saw them with a theater audience. I am willing to wait until a movie hits DVD before seeing it for the first time. As for streaming video digital films, I love watching the film shorts on sites like AtomFilms. If you have a broadband connection, it's really cool to watch these things on demand. Intimate, personal and off-beat subject matters in films like these seem to work best for this medium. But I doubt this method of film watching will replace the theatrical experience. Instead, I see it as an excellent means to showcase independent work (read: non-Hollywood shit). I see it threatening the TV networks more than the Hollywood movie studio business, and good riddance! AF