As far as simulating goes (maybe prototyping as well, to a certain extent), if you look on their webpage, they apparently wrote a hardware simulation proggie for Win95/NT.
For the newer (3D) machines, I believe resolution isn't an issue (because of the high scalability of the 3D vector-based graphics). However, for older games (like Zelda for example), emulators that output at a higher resolution are probably just spoofing.
Open-source software isn't any easier to develop per se, if you're a single programmer developing never-before-seen software. However, OSS does have the advantages of code-sharing, which (IMHO) makes it easy to build upon already existing apps, in order to get exactly what you want. It's great that the BeOS API is incredibly well documented and that they include tons of sample code, but can you take somebody else's app, modify it, and re-publish it freely, to allow somebody else to do the same thing? That's what this guy was talking about. I like the fact that I could write a little app, toss it into the net, and 2 weeks later, get a copy of my old app modified (hopefully improved) by a total stranger who thought it looked cool.
Sadly, this seems to be Microsoft's idea of software design: Either the big, slow, bloated, shiny software with all sorts of bells and whistles, or handhelds running cheap monochrome GUI running stripped versions of their big bloated apps. I suppose it hasn't occured to them that some people might want to run fast apps on a real computer.
Maybe it's not a serial number at all. Maybe it's just a name. After all, if you're living on a backwater planet like Tatooine and you have only a small chance of ever leaving, why would you need to take into account all the other droids in the galaxy, or even the planet for that matter? R2's serial number is probably a 128-bit integer or something stored deep inside his hard drive (or memory blocks, or whatever) and is only used for identification when it is clearly needed.
Do you seriously think Apple innovates more than the entire PC industry? If so, you're either living in a cave or seriously misinformed. The whole information technology industry is defined by a constant innovation (have you ever heard how fast computers lose value because the technology is constantly being replaced by newer stuff?). Apple was a forerunner in bringing computers into the home. Unfortunately, they're so obnoxiously stupid that instead of setting trends and allowing everybody to participate (as in the PC industry), they make something new and 'protect' it like a child with a new toy. If there's one thing Apple needs to understand, it's that if other people think your product is cool, great. If other people want to make similar products, LET THEM! That's the way MARKETS are made! If the inventors of the automobile decided to keep all their technology locked up in a vault we'd still be running around with horses and buggies.
Until Apple decides to stop playing the spoiled child in the computer world, they'll never be more than a stagnating company that needs to market transparent blue boxes to survive.
There's one problem with making low-level electronics, filesystem details, etc. not relevant to the end-user: it makes people STUPID. Not stupid about everything, it just ensures that Apple's user base is comprised mostly of people who have no idea, and who don't care, what's in their computer, and what the differences are between their hardware and other hardware.
All users should have at least some knowledge about their hardware, at least for the basis of comparison. You can argue all you like about how my computer is a bitch to configure, how DIP switches and jumpers piss you off, but if there's one thing I learned, it's that the harder it is, the more you learn. Same thing goes for Linux: the learning curve is very steep, so at first you have this feeling of powerlessness, but as you overcome those early problems, you empower yourself more and more with knowledge.
I've always believed that you should HAVE to learn stuff about the machine you're working on in order to use it properly, and I feel that it IS sad that Apple tries to make their computers (and their OS) idiot-friendly. I like knowing the difference between an IRQ and an I/O port. I like knowing the difference between SCSI and IDE. Knowledge IS power. And the more you try to make thing easy to use, the less power you actually have.
What? You don't need protected memory and true multitasking? I don't imagine how anybody even remotely serious about using a computer can say that. They're not just 'features', as you put, no more than the BSOD is a feature in NT. They're core elements in any modern OS, and it's a shame that Apple still hasn't gotten on top of it. I'll agree with the other guy; MacOS isn't a viable OS in my opinion, even if you are the group Apple is targeting with the iMac.
You're a wuss... I spend all day reading stuff (on my screen, not on paper) and I don't notice any ill effects. Current screens do a very good job of allowing people to view text. Nobody ever said that they were a substitute for paper... they're a replacement. A much better one, at that.
And if you really want a screen to act like paper, there are new cholesterol-based mono screens coming out that are supposed to actually look and act like paper. But until then, I'm much happier reading text on my plain old 17" monitor.
You're obviously either misinformed or a Micro$oft lackey like my brother. Microsoft constructed a set of benchmarks, their only goal being that the benchmarks show NT outperforming Linux. Each OS has strong and weak points, but what Mindcraft and MS did was build a series of benchmarks that a well-tuned NT machine handles really well compared to a vanilla Linux installation.
I don't understand your opinion about the kernel... what do you mean, stuck everything in the kernel to get this performance? What are you talking about?
Just a small comment about the number of apps available for Linux: Let's ask Freshmeat how many new apps are released every day for Linux... For example, for Wednesday (yesterday), there are over 40 entries in the Freshmeat index... granted, some are not new apps, just new versions. However, if we take 40 releases per day as a ballbark figure, that's over 14000 releases a year. Hmm. What did the Micro$oft page say?
"Over 8,000 Windows NT compatible applications available"? Interesting.
Everybody KNOWS Micro$oft OSes are crap. Even the people who use NT wouldn't touch Win95 or 98 with a ten-foot pole.
It's altogether far too easy to mess up Windows... my neighbor bought a brand new machine, and the day after I installed Win98 on it for him, it started crashing every time he opened explorer! Just one example of the great disadvantages of having a GUI-based system... when you screw up explorer, doing anything on a Windoze machine becomes extremely difficult.
Service Pack 4 hasn't brought many core operating system changes... it's a patch. It mostly updates networking protocols and makes NT Y2K compliant (?). It changes very little to the internals of the OS. Read the SP4 readme.
Actually, I admin both a network running NT and a few Linux boxes... For most basic things, the Linux boxes are easier to admin, unless you're an idiot.
Like mail, for example. Gee, was setting up a mailserver under Linux ever easy! Call your provider, edit sendmail.cf, and run sendmail on boot. Ooooooo... now I can call myself a Linux expert!;)
One thing that strikes me when I see the NT vs Linux FUD on Micro$oft's site is the following: I've been using NT 4.0 for a while now at the office, and I've installed only a few minor upgrades to the OS (Micro$oft Service Packs). So basically, NT 4.0 (server or otherwise) has stayed pretty much the same since it came out a while back.
However, this is not the case with Linux. I installed a RH 5.0 box about six months ago, and within those six months, I've upgraded kernels twice, up to 2.2.1, with noticeable results. This is a critical difference between the proprietary/commercial model and the open source model. The evolution isn't the same. When Micro$oft finally releases Windows 2000, it's evolutionary curve will be the same as NT 4.0: a few service packs, and possibly some patches for other stuff, but generally, Micro$oft OS's stop evolving as soon as they are born. Linux evolves continuously, and because of this, has a much easier time dealing with all the so-called 'issues' Micro$oft claims are crippling it.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as simulating goes (maybe prototyping as well, to a certain extent), if you look on their webpage, they apparently wrote a hardware simulation proggie for Win95/NT.
For the newer (3D) machines, I believe resolution isn't an issue (because of the high scalability of the 3D vector-based graphics). However, for older games (like Zelda for example), emulators that output at a higher resolution are probably just spoofing.
Open-source software isn't any easier to develop per se, if you're a single programmer developing never-before-seen software. However, OSS does have the advantages of code-sharing, which (IMHO) makes it easy to build upon already existing apps, in order to get exactly what you want. It's great that the BeOS API is incredibly well documented and that they include tons of sample code, but can you take somebody else's app, modify it, and re-publish it freely, to allow somebody else to do the same thing? That's what this guy was talking about. I like the fact that I could write a little app, toss it into the net, and 2 weeks later, get a copy of my old app modified (hopefully improved) by a total stranger who thought it looked cool.
So if 75% of all statistics are meaningless, why'd you ask for them in the first place?
Sadly, this seems to be Microsoft's idea of software design: Either the big, slow, bloated, shiny software with all sorts of bells and whistles, or handhelds running cheap monochrome GUI running stripped versions of their big bloated apps. I suppose it hasn't occured to them that some people might want to run fast apps on a real computer.
My question is, why would you want to run Win 3.1 apps on Win95? Or run Win95 at all, for that matter (except for games, of course).
As for me, I'll stick to using Word on WinNT running in a window with VMWare. At least that way when I get a BSOD I don't have to reboot...
Uller
Maybe it's not a serial number at all. Maybe it's just a name. After all, if you're living on a backwater planet like Tatooine and you have only a small chance of ever leaving, why would you need to take into account all the other droids in the galaxy, or even the planet for that matter? R2's serial number is probably a 128-bit integer or something stored deep inside his hard drive (or memory blocks, or whatever) and is only used for identification when it is clearly needed.
Do you seriously think Apple innovates more than the entire PC industry? If so, you're either living in a cave or seriously misinformed. The whole information technology industry is defined by a constant innovation (have you ever heard how fast computers lose value because the technology is constantly being replaced by newer stuff?). Apple was a forerunner in bringing computers into the home. Unfortunately, they're so obnoxiously stupid that instead of setting trends and allowing everybody to participate (as in the PC industry), they make something new and 'protect' it like a child with a new toy. If there's one thing Apple needs to understand, it's that if other people think your product is cool, great. If other people want to make similar products, LET THEM! That's the way MARKETS are made! If the inventors of the automobile decided to keep all their technology locked up in a vault we'd still be running around with horses and buggies.
Until Apple decides to stop playing the spoiled child in the computer world, they'll never be more than a stagnating company that needs to market transparent blue boxes to survive.
There's one problem with making low-level electronics, filesystem details, etc. not relevant to the end-user: it makes people STUPID. Not stupid about everything, it just ensures that Apple's user base is comprised mostly of people who have no idea, and who don't care, what's in their computer, and what the differences are between their hardware and other hardware.
All users should have at least some knowledge about their hardware, at least for the basis of comparison. You can argue all you like about how my computer is a bitch to configure, how DIP switches and jumpers piss you off, but if there's one thing I learned, it's that the harder it is, the more you learn. Same thing goes for Linux: the learning curve is very steep, so at first you have this feeling of powerlessness, but as you overcome those early problems, you empower yourself more and more with knowledge.
I've always believed that you should HAVE to learn stuff about the machine you're working on in order to use it properly, and I feel that it IS sad that Apple tries to make their computers (and their OS) idiot-friendly. I like knowing the difference between an IRQ and an I/O port. I like knowing the difference between SCSI and IDE. Knowledge IS power. And the more you try to make thing easy to use, the less power you actually have.
What? You don't need protected memory and true multitasking? I don't imagine how anybody even remotely serious about using a computer can say that. They're not just 'features', as you put, no more than the BSOD is a feature in NT. They're core elements in any modern OS, and it's a shame that Apple still hasn't gotten on top of it. I'll agree with the other guy; MacOS isn't a viable OS in my opinion, even if you are the group Apple is targeting with the iMac.
You're a wuss... I spend all day reading stuff (on my screen, not on paper) and I don't notice any ill effects. Current screens do a very good job of allowing people to view text. Nobody ever said that they were a substitute for paper... they're a replacement. A much better one, at that.
And if you really want a screen to act like paper, there are new cholesterol-based mono screens coming out that are supposed to actually look and act like paper. But until then, I'm much happier reading text on my plain old 17" monitor.
You're obviously either misinformed or a Micro$oft lackey like my brother. Microsoft constructed a set of benchmarks, their only goal being that the benchmarks show NT outperforming Linux. Each OS has strong and weak points, but what Mindcraft and MS did was build a series of benchmarks that a well-tuned NT machine handles really well compared to a vanilla Linux installation.
I don't understand your opinion about the kernel... what do you mean, stuck everything in the kernel to get this performance? What are you talking about?
Just a small comment about the number of apps available for Linux: Let's ask Freshmeat how many new apps are released every day for Linux... For example, for Wednesday (yesterday), there are over 40 entries in the Freshmeat index... granted, some are not new apps, just new versions. However, if we take 40 releases per day as a ballbark figure, that's over 14000 releases a year. Hmm. What did the Micro$oft page say?
"Over 8,000 Windows NT compatible applications available"? Interesting.
Everybody KNOWS Micro$oft OSes are crap. Even the people who use NT wouldn't touch Win95 or 98 with a ten-foot pole.
It's altogether far too easy to mess up Windows... my neighbor bought a brand new machine, and the day after I installed Win98 on it for him, it started crashing every time he opened explorer! Just one example of the great disadvantages of having a GUI-based system... when you screw up explorer, doing anything on a Windoze machine becomes extremely difficult.
Service Pack 4 hasn't brought many core operating system changes... it's a patch. It mostly updates networking protocols and makes NT Y2K compliant (?). It changes very little to the internals of the OS. Read the SP4 readme.
Actually, I admin both a network running NT and a few Linux boxes... For most basic things, the Linux boxes are easier to admin, unless you're an idiot.
;)
Like mail, for example. Gee, was setting up a mailserver under Linux ever easy! Call your provider, edit sendmail.cf, and run sendmail on boot. Ooooooo... now I can call myself a Linux expert!
One thing that strikes me when I see the NT vs Linux FUD on Micro$oft's site is the following: I've been using NT 4.0 for a while now at the office, and I've installed only a few minor upgrades to the OS (Micro$oft Service Packs). So basically, NT 4.0 (server or otherwise) has stayed pretty much the same since it came out a while back.
However, this is not the case with Linux. I installed a RH 5.0 box about six months ago, and within those six months, I've upgraded kernels twice, up to 2.2.1, with noticeable results. This is a critical difference between the proprietary/commercial model and the open source model. The evolution isn't the same. When Micro$oft finally releases Windows 2000, it's evolutionary curve will be the same as NT 4.0: a few service packs, and possibly some patches for other stuff, but generally, Micro$oft OS's stop evolving as soon as they are born. Linux evolves continuously, and because of this, has a much easier time dealing with all the so-called 'issues' Micro$oft claims are crippling it.