I can run Windows programs all the way down to ones made for Windows 3.1 on XP. Microsoft puts a lot of stock into backwards compatibility. Perhaps you should rethink that statement?
"I can" and "I can always" are very different. Heck there are Win2k programs that do not work on XP. at the same time there are probably Win 1.0 programs that will. So what.
I initially moved to OS/2 from WFW 3.11 when WFW would balk at some Win 3.0 programs and I know that good old DOS programs were happier on my OS/2 machine than any Windows platform. I could also multitask the DOS programs under OS/2 but in Windows95 many dos programs required me to only boot DOS and then that killed any multitasking.
I have since moved to Linux for my daily activity but I still run Win2k for some things. I'm not a zealot for any OS. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but backwords compatibility is
a) not always as advertized b) unrequired bloatware c) rarely important d) always important e) a system used to fool users into upgrading, then when it fails to be, causes the user to buy new applications.
If version 2.0 of an OS is 90% backwords compatible, it can be advertized as backwards compatible and you might upgrade from version 1.0. However in a short period of time you will almost certainly (especially at a workstation or home computer) run into an application in the 10% group and you will have to upgrade that as well. In the meantime the bloatware makes everything run slower so you will upgrade your hardware. Soon a new Version 3.0 of the Operating System will come out and you will see that it is backwards compatible and you will want to be able to point out to the Jones family that you are not a neo-luddite and you will buy the new version and everything repeats.
If you manage to resist and you are connected to the Internet, the various worms, trojans, virri, and malware will eventually require you to patch, fix, upgrade, etc until a new version is the simpler solution and you will submit. Ressistance is futile!
The point he is trying to make is that people are still making software that installs incorectly on the supported current OS options that Microsoft sells, perhaps because they are coding for older unsupported versions that function in a substatntially different way. This is happening with comercial software and it is not known to the user until after the software is obtained that this is the case.
It then forces the user to operate his Operating System in an Unsafe manner OR choose to not use the software and therefore reduce the usefulness of the software. Microsoft could have chosen to provide a "software Interlock" that would prevent that software from functioning except in the safe manner. While this would have reduced it's functionality somewhat, it would have reduced the exposure to harm for the large majority of computer users who do not understand the dangers of unsafe computing, let alone what unsafe computing is.
Is it all Microsoft's fault? No. but do they share some responsibility with the application developer to provide a safe computing environment for the user and others... most definatly yes. That Linux shares with Unix a very sane file storage mechanisim that is very well designed for a multiuser environment is not luck but a good design that traces its evolution back to Bell Labs in 1969.
The simple solution to ionospheric problems is to go to higher frequencies. UHF (300-3000 MHz) or higher are moslty imune to these problems and I'm quite sure that ISS and the Shuttle have UHF and microwave (1 GHz-Infra Red) frequencies available. In fact it's almost certain that most space communication takes place at these frequencies.
Amateur Radio stations aboard the now toasted Mir, Shuttle, ISS and other satellites use(d) frequencies from VHF (30 MHz -300 MHz)and up. even during solar events, VHF and upper HF frequencies will probably penetrate the ionosphere if the entry angle is steep enough.
Slashdot Mirror
That's Spoo, fresh or aged
I can run Windows programs all the way down to ones made for Windows 3.1 on XP. Microsoft puts a lot of stock into backwards compatibility. Perhaps you should rethink that statement?
"I can" and "I can always" are very different. Heck there are Win2k programs that do not work on XP. at the same time there are probably Win 1.0 programs that will. So what.
I initially moved to OS/2 from WFW 3.11 when WFW would balk at some Win 3.0 programs and I know that good old DOS programs were happier on my OS/2 machine than any Windows platform. I could also multitask the DOS programs under OS/2 but in Windows95 many dos programs required me to only boot DOS and then that killed any multitasking.
I have since moved to Linux for my daily activity but I still run Win2k for some things. I'm not a zealot for any OS. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but backwords compatibility is
a) not always as advertized
b) unrequired bloatware
c) rarely important
d) always important
e) a system used to fool users into upgrading, then when it fails to be, causes the user to buy new applications.
If version 2.0 of an OS is 90% backwords compatible, it can be advertized as backwards compatible and you might upgrade from version 1.0. However in a short period of time you will almost certainly (especially at a workstation or home computer) run into an application in the 10% group and you will have to upgrade that as well. In the meantime the bloatware makes everything run slower so you will upgrade your hardware. Soon a new Version 3.0 of the Operating System will come out and you will see that it is backwards compatible and you will want to be able to point out to the Jones family that you are not a neo-luddite and you will buy the new version and everything repeats.
If you manage to resist and you are connected to the Internet, the various worms, trojans, virri, and malware will eventually require you to patch, fix, upgrade, etc until a new version is the simpler solution and you will submit. Ressistance is futile!
The point he is trying to make is that people are still making software that installs incorectly on the supported current OS options that Microsoft sells, perhaps because they are coding for older unsupported versions that function in a substatntially different way. This is happening with comercial software and it is not known to the user until after the software is obtained that this is the case.
It then forces the user to operate his Operating System in an Unsafe manner OR choose to not use the software and therefore reduce the usefulness of the software. Microsoft could have chosen to provide a "software Interlock" that would prevent that software from functioning except in the safe manner. While this would have reduced it's functionality somewhat, it would have reduced the exposure to harm for the large majority of computer users who do not understand the dangers of unsafe computing, let alone what unsafe computing is.
Is it all Microsoft's fault? No. but do they share some responsibility with the application developer to provide a safe computing environment for the user and others... most definatly yes. That Linux shares with Unix a very sane file storage mechanisim that is very well designed for a multiuser environment is not luck but a good design that traces its evolution back to Bell Labs in 1969.
The simple solution to ionospheric problems is to go to higher frequencies. UHF (300-3000 MHz) or higher are moslty imune to these problems and I'm quite sure that ISS and the Shuttle have UHF and microwave (1 GHz-Infra Red) frequencies available. In fact it's almost certain that most space communication takes place at these frequencies.
Amateur Radio stations aboard the now toasted Mir, Shuttle, ISS and other satellites use(d) frequencies from VHF (30 MHz -300 MHz)and up. even during solar events, VHF and upper HF frequencies will probably penetrate the ionosphere if the entry angle is steep enough.