The point is that the 44KHz 16bit track has already been compressed from the original recording. However you rip that track, lossless or lossy, it doesn't matter; you're still not getting the original track.
Actually - it wasn't compressed - it was the limits of the recording equipment at the time. 192KHz/24 bit wasn't common in the 80s.
Knowing this, it doesn't mean that the tracks some sites are selling as 192KHz 24bit are from the original sources, or will even sound better, either. The original track could have been recorded with bad equipment or settings. In other cases, when doing comparisons on CD tracks vs high resolution tracks from sites like HDTracks, you can sometimes find that the HDTracks track is just the CD track with increased reported resolution/file size - possibly due to the inability to acquire the original material, though it could also be as simple as pure greed and laziness. Not that all of the albums on those sites are fakes, but a few of them have been found to be ripoffs.
Unless the track are genuine 192KHz/24 bit tracks, that is true. CD tracks can sound as good or better than 192KHz/24 bit tracks, it all depends upon settings. CD tracks can also sound worse than 92KHz encoded MP3s, again, it depends upon settings.
There's also the fact that it's extremely unlikely anyone can tell the difference between an encode at 96KHz vs 192KHz. If they are both properly encoded from the same source, it's unlikely there will be any audible difference between them.
This, however, is patently false. Given appropriate equipment and a person with a reasonable ear (mine aren't even that great and they suffice) and you can definitely tell the difference between 92KHz and 192Khz, and even straight CD tracks they were encoded from. It does require that the original source have enough depth that something is lost, however. Simple electronica, or other music that samples heavily from trivial sources will not provide enough depth to tell.
At this point my entire collection is lossless (CD quality at a minimum), and yes, it even makes a difference in my car, which has a halfway decent audio system. The other vehicle needs new speakers and an amplifier, the former sound blown and the latter was never clean to begin with, enough so that I pretty much haven't listened to music in it in years, just haven't gotten around to replacing it as it was only short trips anyways.
You don't need to spend thousands anymore. A single K will get you close enough these days unless you want to fill 20+ by 20+ rooms with full bass (bass is where you'll wind up spending the most in large rooms despite what the audiophiles might want you to believe)
MP3s suck as soon as you turn them up even a little, amplifying their shortcomings. At low volumes, things still sound hollow, except for non-harmonic electronica, bleah. I personally prefer to listen to a lot of things at relatively low volumes through ear buds, but much louder when pumped through decent speakers. And yes, you can tell the differences in both cases.
Being deaf would suck, although we're all heading that way through time unless science saves us.
Driving is a privilege unless you're on your own property, this actually dates back many many millennia where people crossing other's "territory" was enough cause for war ending in complete extermination. Hint - roads - not your property.
"ALL MEN" was qualified as all propertied males of means, and at that time that meant white propertied males of means only, even thought "men" and "man" at the time was commonly taken as mankind, not males as we know the term today.
I'm assuming you're only trolling and not that dense.
When you get the phone call to pick up your already boxed personal effects from the guard at the gate, you'll re-evaluate the confidence in that statement.
I won't, I am 95.2% disabled, I can justify my hardware choices and it only takes a little resistance from IT for my responsibilities to be waived. Companies are entitled to benefits for employing me, and as the saying goes: Money talks; bullshit walks.;)
TLDR: I own your ass.
IOW you are capitulating and agreeing that you cannot connect things to a network without being found out?
Just wanted to be clear here since it appears you stepped outside the original claim and are now using a completely orthogonal clause to remain employed. I should also note that it would strongly depend on the company you're employed with, several I've been associated with would still give you that call, from the gate, if you were lucky. At least one you'd get that information as you were being booked into a federal prison. (Something about circumventing national security and them not giving a rats ass about you being disabled)
The hubris you exhibit, independent of the truthfulness of any of your other claims, would instantly put your application in the round bin were I your interviewer.
On Driving: but but but... it's a "RIGHT" to drive and a necessity! Otherwise, how would I get to....
On voting: but but but - you'd be discriminating and disenfranchising!!!! Our fore fathers explicitly wanted us ALL to vote - note the "ALL MEN" statement!
For those slow on the take - that'd be sarcasm on both counts, and neither statement is remotely accurrate
Regarding attempting to connect to a corporate network? Yes, he would know, automatically, and with very little effort, provided that their network is configured appropriately. And yes, you could get around it, or attempt to, but you might be found out in the attempt. Much can be done on the network side that you are completely 100% unaware of, especially if you think you can hook up your non-approved, unregistered equipment and that a competent Network Security Admin would be in the dark.
Don't you remember the bitching and whining about how long FEMA took when New Orleans got flooded? Relief supplies weren't getting there fast enough to suit people.
And the response would have been quicker with the current monitoring how? Or are you saying no one at FEMA, nor anyone related to a FEMA employee, nor anyone dealing with FEMA employees was aware that the levees broke in New Orleans and that it was a disaster of epic proportions because none of them watch TV or listen to a radio? It would have only taken 1.
Thanks, but since I actually ran both servers in their time, I'm not sure I should get extra points just for remembering stuff I worked with.
But for remembering Hobbes and Simtel, huge repos of what we would now term Open Source code, now that I could see. That was back in the days of straight FTP and having machines 1 or 2 hops off of the backbone. Those were the days... of no firewalls nor anything else, just one big happy family. It gives me shivers thinking about how insecure it all was.
Naah, there were more, and there were sites fed by Archie and Gopher, as well as FIDONET, depending upon how far back you want to go and what you're interested in looking for. Granted, they weren't HTML, but they did have content.
From TFA: VA Shiva Ayyadurai claims is to have created the first "graphical front end for an electronic mail system",
Which is still wrong. Even the piece about the "To:" and the use of user'@'host which existed in RFC469 around 74, reaffirmed in RFC498, and the Mail Transfer Protocol RFC772 dated 1980 which kicked off the the modern internet version of SMTP, none of which include VA Shiva's name, btw. I suppose all the programs that were running at that time that generated the need for those RFCs had no "graphical front end" for the electronic mail that they were serving?
and was the first to copyright the term "EMAIL".
It is the craziness of the mass media that translates a copyright filing as "Invention".
Now that one I can believe, but whether it's a legitimate copyright is a different thing. Knowing the military's proclivity to abbreviate, I wouldn't be surprised if e-mail and email, as well as EML and all caps forms in various ARPANET related documentation, already existed long before VA Shiva came along to "claim" the copyright. (Copyright is automatically granted, and as far as I know you can't copyright a word, you can Trademark it though.
First, I love this story purely because it is incontrovertible proof that the distributors do NOT have the best interests of the artists in hand, and that they flagrantly violate REAL copyrights.
That said, note that the original admitted liability was for $50 million for 300K infringements. The $6B figure was because the artists got tired of the delay game and demanded the maximum $20K per incident. So the real benefit of this case is when the RIAA comes knocking for whatever ridiculous sum, we can just point to this case and say the real damage is only $166.67/infringement as per accepted "payment of the prevailing ‘industry rate’ payable for mechanical reproduction,”" I do note that this was for "mechanical reproduction". However, since there were no limitations on the reproduction, I think it would be a simple argument to compare that to the reproduction done across computers and that the type of reproduction done is splitting hairs as far as damages go.
Actually, the question according to the DRDOS suit was whether DOS was an integral part of Win95 as MS claimed or not. DRDOS proved DOS was not an integral part of Win95, and that Win95 actually was nothing other than a shell running on top of DOS, requiring several features provided by DOS. They proved that Win95 could run on top of DRDOS, if DRDOS lied about itself and reported itself as DOS 7, which is also how they proved that Win95 still used a number of functions within DOS. That the Win95 shell significantly enhanced the abilities of the OS is not in question, but itself was not an actual OS.
Regarding #2, my lapse in coding windows is showing - the non-preemptive time slicing only applies to pre-NT windows. NT itself still time-slices and blocking I/O will result in a context switch.
Your statements regarding I/O, including keyboard input, were patently false at least as recently as XP and Office 2003. It was possible to essentially lock up most of the system leaving only existing taskmanager and consoles responsive to the user (ALT-TAB allowed you to switch to those, nothing else responded) This would have been an all MS installation. I don't recall and not having any such system handy today, I can't say whether all I/O would lock up, or just the GUI responsiveness until the operation in progress completed. Quite honestly, it's a problem I no longer care about, having dealt with it through NT4, WIn 2K, and the several iterations of XP also known as service packs I no longer run anything by MS (I don't recall if NT 3.51 had issues with this item, as it had other shortcomings that negated its use and IIRC, it didn't have the problematic API layer)
I guess we could just chalk up that last bit to piss poor coding on MS's part since there were other programs available that would not be subject to that lockup that were doing all the same high level functions as the MS apps (display, input, disk and network I/O, etc) although I don't know how they would have worked on a system subjected to such a lock up.
Here's my response to #1, about windows (3.1 and 95/98/ME since their core architecture remained the same) running on top of the MS DOS shell:
Because Win95 still rests on top of DOS, it relies on DOS memory: the so-called conventional memory below one megabyte. While almost all memory allocation by Windows programs comes out of extended memory above one megabyte, nonetheless every single Windows program -- even the newest Win32 program -- does still require a small amount of conventional memory, to hold a DOS data structure called the Program Segment Prefix (PSP). Every running Windows program must have a PSP. This structure is only about 300 bytes, but those bytes must come out of the memory below 1 MB, so that they can be visible to MS-DOS.
Besides undermining Microsoft's claims that DOS is gone from Win95, that each Windows program has a DOS PSP also means that Win95 can get wedged into "out-of-memory" situations, simply because all DOS memory below 1 MB has been allocated.
There's more, but that's what the links for. The simple layman's view is this - Windows was an app, and DOS was required to run that app, even on Win95+. The reason the DRDOS reference above was pertinent is because this was the reason that MS lost the suit. That you don't understand this, is probably because you bought this. The lesson you should learn from this is never take the word of a vested interest at face value. That's mistake #1 on your part, especially since finding it and referencing it took all of 2 minutes.
Now on to #2 of what you don't understand: From MS itself, Win2K (NT Kernel) is time-sliced, for all intents and purposes to 15ms. This has not really changed as far as I know even in the most recent kernel. (I was under the impression it was 16ms, since that is what shows on the clock, but perhaps there's a 1ms overhead in thread context switching, quite believable). In case you don't understand this particular topic either, what it means is that even if you yield() or sleep() a thread at the beginning of it's execution, windows won't activate another thread until the next time slice. Even more interesting is that at least for one application, the system clock calls during a time slice will always return the same exact long, indicating that the thread has certain restrictions put upon it, in windows at least. This is not the case with real OSes. (Yes, I do not hold MS or Windows in high regard, it's no secret.)
I hope I've opened your eyes just a little bit and taught you something, since you were apparently completely ignorant of these low-level pieces of information.
I'm not sure you know what you think you know (actually I am sure, you're as batty as a cave).
In 3.1 there might have been a vmm386 dll, but make no mistake, DOS ran the show. Windows was an application on top of a DOS shell. Additionally, no Windows OS, even to this day, is pre-emptive. They are time sliced. If you doubt this, run a tight loop with timed print statements, such as in a VM. The log clock will be in 16ms slices, for current MS OSes.
In Win 95/98/ME, no matter what MS tells you, the same holds true. They truly were applications running on top of DOS. If you don't agree with that statement, go look up DRDOS's lawsuit resolution in 2000 but originally filed in 96, about practices noted before then. Windows didn't even have the concept of a HAL until NT.
No they didn't. The early works were written in a time of measurement that principally revolved around a lunar calendar. There are about 13 lunar cycles per year. Divide those hundreds by 13 and you'll note very average ages.
...During that time, Microsoft has released three versions of Windows NT Workstation: XP, Vista, and 7.
Do note that this was not for lack of trying. They failed to release BlackComb and Longhorn both, restarting development and creating that bastardization now known as Vista. Don't confused inability to get a release out the door with... whatever point you were trying to make.
And you missed one, if you're going to go that far back and including significant releases - Windows 2000 was released in Feb, 2000 and was certainly more major than XP, compared to its predecessor.
... A situation where, just to run a recent app, I'd have to pay Apple not just to upgrade my operating system, but in my case, upgrade my hardware too - none of my Macs were post-Panther compatible, and more fool I if I'd bought a Mac then that was - was just plain ridiculous.
I bought a Powerbook in late 2004, it came with Panther, and ran Tiger and Leopard, the last of the PowerPC OSes. I also got an Intel laptop with Leopard, now running SL. I am good with all the apps except a few Lion only versions that I don't really need to upgrade at this point (meaning their Leopard/SL versions run just fine and provide all needed functionality)
That's just to state that if your PowerPC Apples weren't capable of running Tiger, they must have been pretty old indeed, and they were still good for 4+ years (just an out and out guess) before they couldn't run the latest apps.
More the reason to run Lion (or ML) in a VM. You have all the latest goodies when you need them, can test everything, but don't have to leave the comfort of your current OS behind if you don't want to.
It wasn't really just an application. It used DOS to boot and as a piggy-back for some device drivers, but otherwise, it was a real operating system. It was a shitty one, but it did, in fact, run the show.
That wasn't true for 3.1, 95, 98, nor ME. In all of them, the DOS layer ran the show. If you doubt that, just run a memtest or delete a windows file from DOS and see what remains.
Despite the quick turnaround, 10.8 actually add a lot of features to OSX. This is not a "Service Pack", it is indeed a full upgrade. Apple seems to be using it's billions to ramp up development on the OS.
And this actually bugs me as I'm about to "upgrade" to Lion this weekend.
As for OS X Service Packs, they are free, and come out regularly. As a bonus, unlike MS Service Packs, OS X service packs don't change your underlying OS by adding and removing features, they just fix things. And they notify you automatically, it's your choice to load them, and you usually have to sign in with an admin account to update system items.
And who doesn't buy their normal RAM or hard disks after market?
When things get scarce, THAT is when civilization breaks down. This is when you will see clearly what people are willing to do to other people when they want something bad enough. A simple example of "civilization" breaking down might be found in what happened when alcohol was prohibited in the U.S.
You are still mistaken. So our cheap plastic toys are gone. Our cheap cell phones. We actually don't "need" either one to live. Most people would adapt just fine, and there won't be a break down in civilization as we know it because the supply of cheap new things stopped coming. There are still items available, and perhaps not everyone gets to drive that big bad cadillac escalade. So what. They'll adapt. Now if you prevented them from having any car at all, then you'd have problems.
BTW, prohibition wasn't a total breakdown in society either, it was just short of a rebellion against a group of "we know what you need better than you people"
...we can't have a "civilized" society as we know it without the things we have from other countries at Walmart prices....
This is a fundamental fallacy in your thinking. "Civilized" society as we know it has no dependency on material things, but relates to how we treat each other.
There were a lot of who went through college in the early-mid 90s where Hungarian notation was considered proper software development...
Good grief! I predate your classes significantly, and we already knew that Hungarian Notation was a bad idea. Of course, we were refactoring code from the 60s and 70s, which some pieces had some of the aspects of hungarian notation on it, and it was quickly resolved that it was a "bad idea" [Tm] to encode type or any other information into a variable name that wasn't a part of its functional description.
Then again, Microsoft was always a decade or more behind the curve (I'm assuming you were learning MS programming at that time) so I don't know why this revelation should surprise me.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that the 44KHz 16bit track has already been compressed from the original recording. However you rip that track, lossless or lossy, it doesn't matter; you're still not getting the original track.
Actually - it wasn't compressed - it was the limits of the recording equipment at the time. 192KHz/24 bit wasn't common in the 80s.
Knowing this, it doesn't mean that the tracks some sites are selling as 192KHz 24bit are from the original sources, or will even sound better, either. The original track could have been recorded with bad equipment or settings. In other cases, when doing comparisons on CD tracks vs high resolution tracks from sites like HDTracks, you can sometimes find that the HDTracks track is just the CD track with increased reported resolution/file size - possibly due to the inability to acquire the original material, though it could also be as simple as pure greed and laziness. Not that all of the albums on those sites are fakes, but a few of them have been found to be ripoffs.
Unless the track are genuine 192KHz/24 bit tracks, that is true. CD tracks can sound as good or better than 192KHz/24 bit tracks, it all depends upon settings. CD tracks can also sound worse than 92KHz encoded MP3s, again, it depends upon settings.
There's also the fact that it's extremely unlikely anyone can tell the difference between an encode at 96KHz vs 192KHz. If they are both properly encoded from the same source, it's unlikely there will be any audible difference between them.
This, however, is patently false. Given appropriate equipment and a person with a reasonable ear (mine aren't even that great and they suffice) and you can definitely tell the difference between 92KHz and 192Khz, and even straight CD tracks they were encoded from. It does require that the original source have enough depth that something is lost, however. Simple electronica, or other music that samples heavily from trivial sources will not provide enough depth to tell.
At this point my entire collection is lossless (CD quality at a minimum), and yes, it even makes a difference in my car, which has a halfway decent audio system. The other vehicle needs new speakers and an amplifier, the former sound blown and the latter was never clean to begin with, enough so that I pretty much haven't listened to music in it in years, just haven't gotten around to replacing it as it was only short trips anyways.
You don't need to spend thousands anymore. A single K will get you close enough these days unless you want to fill 20+ by 20+ rooms with full bass (bass is where you'll wind up spending the most in large rooms despite what the audiophiles might want you to believe)
MP3s suck as soon as you turn them up even a little, amplifying their shortcomings. At low volumes, things still sound hollow, except for non-harmonic electronica, bleah. I personally prefer to listen to a lot of things at relatively low volumes through ear buds, but much louder when pumped through decent speakers. And yes, you can tell the differences in both cases.
Being deaf would suck, although we're all heading that way through time unless science saves us.
Driving is a privilege unless you're on your own property, this actually dates back many many millennia where people crossing other's "territory" was enough cause for war ending in complete extermination. Hint - roads - not your property.
"ALL MEN" was qualified as all propertied males of means, and at that time that meant white propertied males of means only, even thought "men" and "man" at the time was commonly taken as mankind, not males as we know the term today.
I'm assuming you're only trolling and not that dense.
I won't, I am 95.2% disabled, I can justify my hardware choices and it only takes a little resistance from IT for my responsibilities to be waived. Companies are entitled to benefits for employing me, and as the saying goes: Money talks; bullshit walks. ;)
TLDR: I own your ass.
IOW you are capitulating and agreeing that you cannot connect things to a network without being found out?
Just wanted to be clear here since it appears you stepped outside the original claim and are now using a completely orthogonal clause to remain employed. I should also note that it would strongly depend on the company you're employed with, several I've been associated with would still give you that call, from the gate, if you were lucky. At least one you'd get that information as you were being booked into a federal prison. (Something about circumventing national security and them not giving a rats ass about you being disabled)
The hubris you exhibit, independent of the truthfulness of any of your other claims, would instantly put your application in the round bin were I your interviewer.
On Driving: but but but... it's a "RIGHT" to drive and a necessity! Otherwise, how would I get to ....
On voting: but but but - you'd be discriminating and disenfranchising!!!! Our fore fathers explicitly wanted us ALL to vote - note the "ALL MEN" statement!
For those slow on the take - that'd be sarcasm on both counts, and neither statement is remotely accurrate
Regarding attempting to connect to a corporate network? Yes, he would know, automatically, and with very little effort, provided that their network is configured appropriately. And yes, you could get around it, or attempt to, but you might be found out in the attempt. Much can be done on the network side that you are completely 100% unaware of, especially if you think you can hook up your non-approved, unregistered equipment and that a competent Network Security Admin would be in the dark.
Don't you remember the bitching and whining about how long FEMA took when New Orleans got flooded? Relief supplies weren't getting there fast enough to suit people.
And the response would have been quicker with the current monitoring how? Or are you saying no one at FEMA, nor anyone related to a FEMA employee, nor anyone dealing with FEMA employees was aware that the levees broke in New Orleans and that it was a disaster of epic proportions because none of them watch TV or listen to a radio? It would have only taken 1.
Thanks, but since I actually ran both servers in their time, I'm not sure I should get extra points just for remembering stuff I worked with.
But for remembering Hobbes and Simtel, huge repos of what we would now term Open Source code, now that I could see. That was back in the days of straight FTP and having machines 1 or 2 hops off of the backbone. Those were the days... of no firewalls nor anything else, just one big happy family. It gives me shivers thinking about how insecure it all was.
Naah, there were more, and there were sites fed by Archie and Gopher, as well as FIDONET, depending upon how far back you want to go and what you're interested in looking for. Granted, they weren't HTML, but they did have content.
From TFA: VA Shiva Ayyadurai claims is to have created the first "graphical front end for an electronic mail system",
Which is still wrong. Even the piece about the "To:" and the use of user'@'host which existed in RFC469 around 74, reaffirmed in RFC498, and the Mail Transfer Protocol RFC772 dated 1980 which kicked off the the modern internet version of SMTP, none of which include VA Shiva's name, btw. I suppose all the programs that were running at that time that generated the need for those RFCs had no "graphical front end" for the electronic mail that they were serving?
and was the first to copyright the term "EMAIL". It is the craziness of the mass media that translates a copyright filing as "Invention".
Now that one I can believe, but whether it's a legitimate copyright is a different thing. Knowing the military's proclivity to abbreviate, I wouldn't be surprised if e-mail and email, as well as EML and all caps forms in various ARPANET related documentation, already existed long before VA Shiva came along to "claim" the copyright. (Copyright is automatically granted, and as far as I know you can't copyright a word, you can Trademark it though.
First, I love this story purely because it is incontrovertible proof that the distributors do NOT have the best interests of the artists in hand, and that they flagrantly violate REAL copyrights.
That said, note that the original admitted liability was for $50 million for 300K infringements. The $6B figure was because the artists got tired of the delay game and demanded the maximum $20K per incident. So the real benefit of this case is when the RIAA comes knocking for whatever ridiculous sum, we can just point to this case and say the real damage is only $166.67/infringement as per accepted "payment of the prevailing ‘industry rate’ payable for mechanical reproduction,”" I do note that this was for "mechanical reproduction". However, since there were no limitations on the reproduction, I think it would be a simple argument to compare that to the reproduction done across computers and that the type of reproduction done is splitting hairs as far as damages go.
Every time sone one mentions "No child left behind", this picture comes to mind.
Actually, the question according to the DRDOS suit was whether DOS was an integral part of Win95 as MS claimed or not. DRDOS proved DOS was not an integral part of Win95, and that Win95 actually was nothing other than a shell running on top of DOS, requiring several features provided by DOS. They proved that Win95 could run on top of DRDOS, if DRDOS lied about itself and reported itself as DOS 7, which is also how they proved that Win95 still used a number of functions within DOS. That the Win95 shell significantly enhanced the abilities of the OS is not in question, but itself was not an actual OS.
Regarding #2, my lapse in coding windows is showing - the non-preemptive time slicing only applies to pre-NT windows. NT itself still time-slices and blocking I/O will result in a context switch.
Your statements regarding I/O, including keyboard input, were patently false at least as recently as XP and Office 2003. It was possible to essentially lock up most of the system leaving only existing taskmanager and consoles responsive to the user (ALT-TAB allowed you to switch to those, nothing else responded) This would have been an all MS installation. I don't recall and not having any such system handy today, I can't say whether all I/O would lock up, or just the GUI responsiveness until the operation in progress completed. Quite honestly, it's a problem I no longer care about, having dealt with it through NT4, WIn 2K, and the several iterations of XP also known as service packs I no longer run anything by MS (I don't recall if NT 3.51 had issues with this item, as it had other shortcomings that negated its use and IIRC, it didn't have the problematic API layer)
I guess we could just chalk up that last bit to piss poor coding on MS's part since there were other programs available that would not be subject to that lockup that were doing all the same high level functions as the MS apps (display, input, disk and network I/O, etc) although I don't know how they would have worked on a system subjected to such a lock up.
Because Win95 still rests on top of DOS, it relies on DOS memory: the so-called conventional memory below one megabyte. While almost all memory allocation by Windows programs comes out of extended memory above one megabyte, nonetheless every single Windows program -- even the newest Win32 program -- does still require a small amount of conventional memory, to hold a DOS data structure called the Program Segment Prefix (PSP). Every running Windows program must have a PSP. This structure is only about 300 bytes, but those bytes must come out of the memory below 1 MB, so that they can be visible to MS-DOS.
Besides undermining Microsoft's claims that DOS is gone from Win95, that each Windows program has a DOS PSP also means that Win95 can get wedged into "out-of-memory" situations, simply because all DOS memory below 1 MB has been allocated.
There's more, but that's what the links for. The simple layman's view is this - Windows was an app, and DOS was required to run that app, even on Win95+. The reason the DRDOS reference above was pertinent is because this was the reason that MS lost the suit. That you don't understand this, is probably because you bought this. The lesson you should learn from this is never take the word of a vested interest at face value. That's mistake #1 on your part, especially since finding it and referencing it took all of 2 minutes.
Now on to #2 of what you don't understand: From MS itself, Win2K (NT Kernel) is time-sliced, for all intents and purposes to 15ms. This has not really changed as far as I know even in the most recent kernel. (I was under the impression it was 16ms, since that is what shows on the clock, but perhaps there's a 1ms overhead in thread context switching, quite believable). In case you don't understand this particular topic either, what it means is that even if you yield() or sleep() a thread at the beginning of it's execution, windows won't activate another thread until the next time slice. Even more interesting is that at least for one application, the system clock calls during a time slice will always return the same exact long, indicating that the thread has certain restrictions put upon it, in windows at least. This is not the case with real OSes. (Yes, I do not hold MS or Windows in high regard, it's no secret.)
I hope I've opened your eyes just a little bit and taught you something, since you were apparently completely ignorant of these low-level pieces of information.
I'm not sure you know what you think you know (actually I am sure, you're as batty as a cave).
In 3.1 there might have been a vmm386 dll, but make no mistake, DOS ran the show. Windows was an application on top of a DOS shell. Additionally, no Windows OS, even to this day, is pre-emptive. They are time sliced. If you doubt this, run a tight loop with timed print statements, such as in a VM. The log clock will be in 16ms slices, for current MS OSes.
In Win 95/98/ME, no matter what MS tells you, the same holds true. They truly were applications running on top of DOS. If you don't agree with that statement, go look up DRDOS's lawsuit resolution in 2000 but originally filed in 96, about practices noted before then. Windows didn't even have the concept of a HAL until NT.
Any other delusions you'd like dismissed?
Divide that by 13 and you get 71.
No they didn't. The early works were written in a time of measurement that principally revolved around a lunar calendar. There are about 13 lunar cycles per year. Divide those hundreds by 13 and you'll note very average ages.
Do note that this was not for lack of trying. They failed to release BlackComb and Longhorn both, restarting development and creating that bastardization now known as Vista. Don't confused inability to get a release out the door with ... whatever point you were trying to make.
And you missed one, if you're going to go that far back and including significant releases - Windows 2000 was released in Feb, 2000 and was certainly more major than XP, compared to its predecessor.
I bought a Powerbook in late 2004, it came with Panther, and ran Tiger and Leopard, the last of the PowerPC OSes. I also got an Intel laptop with Leopard, now running SL. I am good with all the apps except a few Lion only versions that I don't really need to upgrade at this point (meaning their Leopard/SL versions run just fine and provide all needed functionality)
That's just to state that if your PowerPC Apples weren't capable of running Tiger, they must have been pretty old indeed, and they were still good for 4+ years (just an out and out guess) before they couldn't run the latest apps.
More the reason to run Lion (or ML) in a VM. You have all the latest goodies when you need them, can test everything, but don't have to leave the comfort of your current OS behind if you don't want to.
It wasn't really just an application. It used DOS to boot and as a piggy-back for some device drivers, but otherwise, it was a real operating system. It was a shitty one, but it did, in fact, run the show.
That wasn't true for 3.1, 95, 98, nor ME. In all of them, the DOS layer ran the show. If you doubt that, just run a memtest or delete a windows file from DOS and see what remains.
Despite the quick turnaround, 10.8 actually add a lot of features to OSX. This is not a "Service Pack", it is indeed a full upgrade. Apple seems to be using it's billions to ramp up development on the OS.
And this actually bugs me as I'm about to "upgrade" to Lion this weekend.
As for OS X Service Packs, they are free, and come out regularly. As a bonus, unlike MS Service Packs, OS X service packs don't change your underlying OS by adding and removing features, they just fix things. And they notify you automatically, it's your choice to load them, and you usually have to sign in with an admin account to update system items.
And who doesn't buy their normal RAM or hard disks after market?
When things get scarce, THAT is when civilization breaks down. This is when you will see clearly what people are willing to do to other people when they want something bad enough. A simple example of "civilization" breaking down might be found in what happened when alcohol was prohibited in the U.S.
You are still mistaken. So our cheap plastic toys are gone. Our cheap cell phones. We actually don't "need" either one to live. Most people would adapt just fine, and there won't be a break down in civilization as we know it because the supply of cheap new things stopped coming. There are still items available, and perhaps not everyone gets to drive that big bad cadillac escalade. So what. They'll adapt. Now if you prevented them from having any car at all, then you'd have problems.
BTW, prohibition wasn't a total breakdown in society either, it was just short of a rebellion against a group of "we know what you need better than you people"
...we can't have a "civilized" society as we know it without the things we have from other countries at Walmart prices....
This is a fundamental fallacy in your thinking. "Civilized" society as we know it has no dependency on material things, but relates to how we treat each other.
There were a lot of who went through college in the early-mid 90s where Hungarian notation was considered proper software development...
Good grief! I predate your classes significantly, and we already knew that Hungarian Notation was a bad idea. Of course, we were refactoring code from the 60s and 70s, which some pieces had some of the aspects of hungarian notation on it, and it was quickly resolved that it was a "bad idea" [Tm] to encode type or any other information into a variable name that wasn't a part of its functional description.
Then again, Microsoft was always a decade or more behind the curve (I'm assuming you were learning MS programming at that time) so I don't know why this revelation should surprise me.
Sounds more like a failure to properly encapsulate your code to me.
Hungarian Notation was a bad idea after the first code with it was written and needed modification.