More importantly, there's a distinct difference here; the difference between OS 9 and OS X is more significant than the difference between W95 and WXP. (Yes, I know XP is NT under the hood, but OS X is still even more different from OS 9.)
Apple is stopping support for an old version that has no real multitasking, no memory protection, no cli (therefore, a pain to support, especialy remotely), and in any number of other ways is generally horrible under the hood
You can say the same about Windows 95, I'm sure of it, but Apple didn't include as many compatibility layers as with WinXP. If an old program doesn't work under XP, don't fret -- there's tons of things you can do about it.
XP lets old programs run as isolated, protected processes, that older versions of Windows didn't permit. Also, on the XP CD there is a utility that allows you to tweak hundreds of API and environment settings for that application, including to the "Compatibility" tab on the application shortcut.
This is very frustrating for a OS X user that is trying to run Classic apps -- they have to start the Classic OS 9 in a separate window, with its own desktop! That's like VMWare almost! At the least I think OS X should provide a facility where API translation is provided, such that Classic apps can run in process directly under OS X. Just like FreeBSD can run Linux binaries, OS X should run OS n.X binaries.
No mention of object oriented FS. it's coming - I've had two Microsoft developers personally assure me that it's coming RSN - in the next release of Windows. So yes, fake, but I call upon different evidence for that decision.
Did you notice that little progress bar in My computer under the drives? That's supposed to be working through an emulation layer for the new FS, to make it talk to NTFS.
There should be. In XP, the "Luna" interface actually runs as a system service called "Themes." Simply go into the services thingee in Control Panel, and stop and disable the Themes service. Whoo hoo, you're back to the speedy Win2k interface, but still with some XP goodies.
Yeah, too bad when I submitted this TWO WHOLE WEEKS AGO (see below) the screenshots were still up, yet the slashdot editors rejected it instantly... i.e. within a minute.
2002-10-21 03:04:41 Windows NT 6 (Longhorn) Screenshots Revealed (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
-Albert Arnold Gore, Jr, 3/11/99
Re:This is the perfect backup tool
on
Ghost for Unix
·
· Score: 2
I'm waiting for the day when some d00d will run both on the same b0x! Then, he can like, back up his stuff through FTP, FTP it back through localhost, and it will be l33t!
Kind of like a Rube Goldberg contest for doing mundane day-to-day system maintenance tasks!
Michael is a total fucktard; the simple fact that your post is pointing this out (which is very clearly related to this article) does not deserve a mod-down.
At my school, you can obtain WinXP Professional, Office XP Professional, and FrontPage 2002 each for $5, and Visual Studio.NET for $10. That's almost $2000 worth of software (full, licensed versions) for about $25. Not bad, even for students.
I'm pretty sure this is possible in Perl, but in ASP you would do a Request.ServerVariables ("SERVER_NAME") and append it to your URL in the links. That way, you CAN get an absolute URL dynamically generated according to the server it's on. Why they didn't do it is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
over n'yah
pre-SP3 release of WinXP
SP1 just came out recently =)
More importantly, there's a
distinct difference here; the difference between OS 9 and OS X
is more significant than the difference between W95 and WXP.
(Yes, I know XP is NT under the hood, but OS X is still even
more different from OS 9.)
Apple is stopping support for an old version that has no real
multitasking, no memory protection, no cli (therefore, a pain to
support, especialy remotely), and in any number of other ways is
generally horrible under the hood
You can say the same about Windows 95, I'm sure of it, but Apple didn't include as many compatibility layers as with WinXP. If an old program doesn't work under XP, don't fret -- there's tons of things you can do about it.
XP lets old programs run as isolated, protected processes, that older versions of Windows didn't permit. Also, on the XP CD there is a utility that allows you to tweak hundreds of API and environment settings for that application, including to the "Compatibility" tab on the application shortcut.
This is very frustrating for a OS X user that is trying to run Classic apps -- they have to start the Classic OS 9 in a separate window, with its own desktop! That's like VMWare almost! At the least I think OS X should provide a facility where API translation is provided, such that Classic apps can run in process directly under OS X. Just like FreeBSD can run Linux binaries, OS X should run OS n.X binaries.
Yeah, that makes it really easy to send Word forms and to revise and edit the documents, and send them back to the owner.
How true, I suppose the amount of snow varies from season to season?
No mention of object oriented FS. it's coming - I've had two Microsoft developers personally assure me that it's coming RSN - in the next release of Windows. So yes, fake, but I call upon different evidence for that decision.
Did you notice that little progress bar in My computer under the drives? That's supposed to be working through an emulation layer for the new FS, to make it talk to NTFS.
It's no surprise that I've been on Linux for years.
And it's also no surprise from your post that you're a complete fucking idiot. Thanks for playing, hoser.
XP has virtual desktops... you just need to download the "Virtual Desktop Manager" applet... here.
Wrong, my IE 6.0 in XP SP1 is dated Copyright 2001.
There should be. In XP, the "Luna" interface actually runs as a system service called "Themes." Simply go into the services thingee in Control Panel, and stop and disable the Themes service. Whoo hoo, you're back to the speedy Win2k interface, but still with some XP goodies.
The original XP had "Codename Whistler" written across the side of the start menu.
Yeah, too bad when I submitted this TWO WHOLE WEEKS AGO (see below) the screenshots were still up, yet the slashdot editors rejected it instantly... i.e. within a minute.
2002-10-21 03:04:41 Windows NT 6 (Longhorn) Screenshots Revealed (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
I'm partial to the STOP error myself ... "A problem has been detected and Windows has been
shut down to prevent damage to your computer."
Damage? Like, what? Would my hard disk have caught fire had it not shut down?
Projects marked "Stage 1 -- Planning" don't count.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
-Albert Arnold Gore, Jr, 3/11/99
I'm waiting for the day when some d00d will run both on the same b0x! Then, he can like, back up his stuff through FTP, FTP it back through localhost, and it will be l33t!
Kind of like a Rube Goldberg contest for doing mundane day-to-day system maintenance tasks!
How correct--they need to get used to "Kernel painc: Aiee, killing interrupt handler!" and a page of gobbledegook preceding it.
Michael is a total fucktard; the simple fact that your post is pointing this out (which is very clearly related to this article) does not deserve a mod-down.
At my school, you can obtain WinXP Professional, Office XP Professional, and FrontPage 2002 each for $5, and Visual Studio.NET for $10. That's almost $2000 worth of software (full, licensed versions) for about $25. Not bad, even for students.
I'm pretty sure this is possible in Perl, but in ASP you would do a Request.ServerVariables ("SERVER_NAME") and append it to your URL in the links. That way, you CAN get an absolute URL dynamically generated according to the server it's on. Why they didn't do it is beyond me.
(NT/OS X had little to no support for apps running on previous versions)
You're gonna have to wait a few years for PalmOS XP to be released.
How about putting up an "alternative universe slashdot" for us to play on?
You mean like IRC bot-war channels? That's ridiculous.
On the new server?
Remember to point your HOSTS file to 66.35.250.150!
Well, I can tell you that right now, I'm getting very fast, if not instant response from slashdot.
The last few weeks it has been slower than poop through a tar pit; often I'd have to submit forms more than once to get them to process.
Exodus is an upstream ISP. They own uber pipes on the coasts.
Agent-X is neither dead nor a pool?
Discuss, I'm feeling verklempt.