Don't even need to go that far. Windows 7's XP mode is simply a virtual machine in which the host remote desktop into via RDP protocol and export the app (Like RemoteApp).
Its a university Google needs to invest in if people think sniffing broadcasted unencrypted networks is a big deal (especially since even then a lot of things will be encrypted anyhow.
The thing is again, there's no difference between Express and Pro in that regard. If you're having issues with Express, you WILL have issues with Pro. Its simple to understand why: The compiler and the DLLs aren't even PART of Visual Studio, they come with the.NET framework (yes, the compiler too!) and that doesn't change between editions.
Make an app, compile it, pick all the files in the bin/release or bin/debug directory (by default), put them on the target machine. Just make sure the target machine has.NET 4.0 installed (the full thing. If you use Client Profile only then it adds the step of making sure you're targeting Client Profile in visual studio). Double click on the app. It just works. Thats for.NET
If you're one of the 3 people in the world who will make a Windows-only app in C++ (why the hell?), just add the C++ redistributable. Again, has JACK to do with the version of Visual Studio you're using.
.NET 4.0 breaks backward compatibility to some extent, yes. Except thats not what I was replying to. I was replying to a post saying that Visual Studio Professional was required because apps made with Express couldn't easily be deployed and thats bullshit =P
And Fusion works very much the way you described it. GAC -> Current dir in a couple different ways (Path would have been nice i guess). There's only a "lot of different ways" of referencing DLLs at compile times. At runtime it is very, very simple, with the only complexity being versioning.
There's no difference between an app made with VS Express and VS Pro. All you need is to install.NET 4.0 on the target machine. Thats it.
You seriously have to be brain dead to fail at that. I probably have over 100 distinct apps of all kind, ranging from windows services to web applications, going by noob command line apps and everything in between, across 15 companies and most continents, and countless customers, with all versions of visual studio (including express and ultimate), and literally: there's no difference unless you have third party dependencies. The apps "Just work"
lol, even Microsoft doesn't push Windows Ultimate (while you can find it online, its pretty tricky to find on shelves and Microsoft themselves say its not meant for the public). You do NOT need an anti-virus anymore unless you go crazy on warez (and if you go crazy on warez on Macs you'll get in trouble too), and you'll need to buy basically as many apps for Macs as you do for Windows. -AND- Microsoft basically gives all their stuff away for educational purpose (not quite, but close). You can get educational licenses for basically everything Microsoft sells + Adobe for a fraction of that, and that includes countless high end commercial apps students will never need.
Did you know that even many large -DESIGN AND GRAPHIC- companies like Pixar don't use Macs because its not the right tool for the job? (Neither is Windows in their case, but it just shows...)
Heck, even Microsoft has a bunch of "built in free languages, several open source and countless free tools", nevermind if you add the third party stuff... I reboot my computer exactly once a month and it patches overnight when I don't notice. Are you still using a 10 years old version of Windows or something?
Why not just host a browser on a Windows box and serve the applications through Citrix? (It works not unlike X remotely, where the end user experience is roughly like if the application was running locally). Thats what we did at my previous company when stuff was incompatible with user workstations.
Except you don't need antivirus/antispyware on Windows. The only people who need it are those who disable the security features right after a fresh install, and people leaning heavily toward illegal activities. Since Vista you really didn't need it.
You'll see how quickly a Linux box gets owned if I send grandma 100 free smilies with instructions about how to set exec permissions and how to sudo (similar to what you need to do to get "pwned" by an attachment in a default Win7 install).
10 years without anti-virus and anti-spyware with bi-yearly scan just to be sure I'm not crackpot, and no virus so far, and I'm not even careful...
But you'll say: "people get owned all the time on Windows!". Yeah, because when you setup Grandma's Linux box, you actually set it up for her, not just hit next next next finish and give her the admin password. I setup the Windows boxes for my family (in roughly the same amount of time I spend setting up Linux boxes), and they don't get viruses either:)
Main difference: Linux users use legitimate software, Windows users don't (even when the OSS equivalents exist for Windows) and pay the price.
Yes, i got my release dates mixed up. So I'll amend the statement to: "You just need to try a version of Windows that didn't come out during the days when Windows, Linux, and OSX were all garbage".
#1 falls in the Mactard category for the exact reason you put in parenthesis, personally.
Add to it the people who use Apple because they're designers and all designers should use Apple (which is amusing, since many of the software they use work better on other platforms, and quite a few of the very large design/graphic companies like Pixar are not primarly on Macs)
#2 is a good enough reason. I'd point out that the Windows command line is now pretty damn strong, now that Windows has an actual shell (as opposed to the joke that is cmd.exe) and that all of the new core MS products leverage it (for example, Exchange is now fully configurable via command line: The UI does nothing more than call the commands, unix style)
Indeed. The only real innovation in term of e-readers since the first handheld ones (ala Palm Pilot or similar) has been e-ink, and with color ones coming out soonish, this is seriously the way to go. You don't read several hundred pages in one sitting on an Ipad or similar devices, its just painful. And a book shouldn't need to be recharged every couple of days. E-ink readers and their month-long battery life (if you have a kindle, remember to turn off wifi =P) is the way to go.
I've worked for a few companies who did this, but using Citrix to do this. So if you needed to access the IE6 only app, you used a shortcut on your desktop or something that would open a remote IE6 running in a controlled environment that only had access to the legacy app and nothing else. It was surprisingly easy to setup, too. Citrix (like WinServer2008 or X) lets you run remote apps as if they were local, so its pretty seamless to end users, and the client (as far as I know) doesn't even need to be Windows.
Pretty much the best solution in this case, or for any legacy app thats preventing you from upgrading or changing platform.
The modern way of doing shell scripting in Windows is now powershell, and most things are quickly moving toward that. Its not as integrated in the OS, but its damn close, and in many ways its better than alternative scripting languages (object piping instead of text piping, for example).
Now if its the best thing for your requirement? I don't know. But if you're planning to stick to shell scripting, do yourself a favor and upgrade.
At this point, while the products Apple is shipping obviously have good points (many of them) and in many ways are going in the right direction, it still wouldn't matter. If Apple had released an e-Ink tablet, we'd be reading how anything non-e-ink is bound to die and that backlit tablets are dead. If they released something that is in every way opposite to the iPad, we'd be reading about how anything close to the current ipad is dead and simply "not the right tool for the job".
Apple, the greatest marketing company in existance. A company that can make the most closed product ever, and have even OSS advocates embrace it as the holy grail.
Windows 7's issue here isn't anything based on capabilies, design, or limitations. Its that "It wasn't approved by Apple fanboys" and nothing else.
A -lot- of commercial software have that in their licenses. So many, in fact, that I find myself wondering if there aren't laws in some first world countries that force that to be in there somewhere unless you have specific certifications.
Its true with most things: When people dodge the law, wether directly or by loopholes, there's no incensive to get the law changed, and things stay in an annoying gray area, and thats not good for anyone. Deal with the law, see how much it sucks, THEN there's a chance things will change.
This. Even ready-made resellers have pretty small devices built on Win Home Server that can take a LOT of drives. Mine supports 4, but there's many models that can take 8, 12, or more drives. The OS is rock solid and has a lot of neat features, like being able to access your network from an SSL secured web app (built in) from anywhere with indexed search, and its easy to develop plugins for (though there's a ton available already) to extend it.
Misinformation and historical reasons. Urban legends, pretty much. And the fact that the technology on which a lot of people learnt to program didnt support it for a long time (even though everything else did).
That line really bothers me. How many times before have ways been found around things like SQL sanitization procedures?
-Extremely few-, if you're talking about correct SQL management. The only one that comes to mind among serious RDBMSs (DB2, Sybase, SQL Server, Oracle, Postgres...) was a datatype exploit in Oracle that only worked locally, AND was more theoritical than anything.
Parameterized queries (the only good way of handling "sql sanitization") are virtually flawless. Now, if you're talking about string escaping, as is very popular on PHP/MYSQL stacks...well, yeah, thats swiss cheeze, dangerous, and bad practice (and unfortunately extremely popular)
An interesting statistic that also kind of prove your point is the salary of the average VB.NET programmer vs C# programmer.
The two languages as of the current version are almost at feature parity (in the next version coming out in a few days, they are are feature parity aside for like, 2 things), so for all practical purpose, they are the same except one uses IF/End IF and the other uses curly braces.
However, from a demographic point of view, most VB.NET programmers had a VB6 background (VB6 being much higher level/RAD than the.NET platform), while C# devs mostly came from Java/C++.
End result, the average C# programmer in all the studies/surveys/etc done -always- ends up being paid more. That is even though you can do the -same- thing in both languages, and they run on the same platform and framework.
Why? It has nothing to do with the language itself, its the demographic. With all the flak it got, VB6 was an excellent environment, its just that people who used it sucked (since it was so easy), and they still suck once they move to VB.NET.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't even need to go that far. Windows 7's XP mode is simply a virtual machine in which the host remote desktop into via RDP protocol and export the app (Like RemoteApp).
Its a university Google needs to invest in if people think sniffing broadcasted unencrypted networks is a big deal (especially since even then a lot of things will be encrypted anyhow.
The thing is again, there's no difference between Express and Pro in that regard. If you're having issues with Express, you WILL have issues with Pro. Its simple to understand why: The compiler and the DLLs aren't even PART of Visual Studio, they come with the .NET framework (yes, the compiler too!) and that doesn't change between editions.
Make an app, compile it, pick all the files in the bin/release or bin/debug directory (by default), put them on the target machine. Just make sure the target machine has .NET 4.0 installed (the full thing. If you use Client Profile only then it adds the step of making sure you're targeting Client Profile in visual studio). Double click on the app. It just works. Thats for .NET
If you're one of the 3 people in the world who will make a Windows-only app in C++ (why the hell?), just add the C++ redistributable. Again, has JACK to do with the version of Visual Studio you're using.
.NET 4.0 breaks backward compatibility to some extent, yes. Except thats not what I was replying to. I was replying to a post saying that Visual Studio Professional was required because apps made with Express couldn't easily be deployed and thats bullshit =P
And Fusion works very much the way you described it. GAC -> Current dir in a couple different ways (Path would have been nice i guess). There's only a "lot of different ways" of referencing DLLs at compile times. At runtime it is very, very simple, with the only complexity being versioning.
There's no difference between an app made with VS Express and VS Pro. All you need is to install .NET 4.0 on the target machine. Thats it.
You seriously have to be brain dead to fail at that. I probably have over 100 distinct apps of all kind, ranging from windows services to web applications, going by noob command line apps and everything in between, across 15 companies and most continents, and countless customers, with all versions of visual studio (including express and ultimate), and literally: there's no difference unless you have third party dependencies. The apps "Just work"
lol, even Microsoft doesn't push Windows Ultimate (while you can find it online, its pretty tricky to find on shelves and Microsoft themselves say its not meant for the public). You do NOT need an anti-virus anymore unless you go crazy on warez (and if you go crazy on warez on Macs you'll get in trouble too), and you'll need to buy basically as many apps for Macs as you do for Windows. -AND- Microsoft basically gives all their stuff away for educational purpose (not quite, but close). You can get educational licenses for basically everything Microsoft sells + Adobe for a fraction of that, and that includes countless high end commercial apps students will never need.
Did you know that even many large -DESIGN AND GRAPHIC- companies like Pixar don't use Macs because its not the right tool for the job? (Neither is Windows in their case, but it just shows...)
Heck, even Microsoft has a bunch of "built in free languages, several open source and countless free tools", nevermind if you add the third party stuff... I reboot my computer exactly once a month and it patches overnight when I don't notice. Are you still using a 10 years old version of Windows or something?
Why not just host a browser on a Windows box and serve the applications through Citrix? (It works not unlike X remotely, where the end user experience is roughly like if the application was running locally). Thats what we did at my previous company when stuff was incompatible with user workstations.
Don't forget that Apple is also the company that were able to push trusted computing to the mass with a round of applause...
Except you don't need antivirus/antispyware on Windows. The only people who need it are those who disable the security features right after a fresh install, and people leaning heavily toward illegal activities. Since Vista you really didn't need it.
You'll see how quickly a Linux box gets owned if I send grandma 100 free smilies with instructions about how to set exec permissions and how to sudo (similar to what you need to do to get "pwned" by an attachment in a default Win7 install).
10 years without anti-virus and anti-spyware with bi-yearly scan just to be sure I'm not crackpot, and no virus so far, and I'm not even careful...
But you'll say: "people get owned all the time on Windows!". Yeah, because when you setup Grandma's Linux box, you actually set it up for her, not just hit next next next finish and give her the admin password. I setup the Windows boxes for my family (in roughly the same amount of time I spend setting up Linux boxes), and they don't get viruses either :)
Main difference: Linux users use legitimate software, Windows users don't (even when the OSS equivalents exist for Windows) and pay the price.
Yes, i got my release dates mixed up. So I'll amend the statement to: "You just need to try a version of Windows that didn't come out during the days when Windows, Linux, and OSX were all garbage".
Technically, you just need to try a version of Windows that didn't come out before OSX came out... XP was a serious piece of crap.
#1 falls in the Mactard category for the exact reason you put in parenthesis, personally.
Add to it the people who use Apple because they're designers and all designers should use Apple (which is amusing, since many of the software they use work better on other platforms, and quite a few of the very large design/graphic companies like Pixar are not primarly on Macs)
#2 is a good enough reason. I'd point out that the Windows command line is now pretty damn strong, now that Windows has an actual shell (as opposed to the joke that is cmd.exe) and that all of the new core MS products leverage it (for example, Exchange is now fully configurable via command line: The UI does nothing more than call the commands, unix style)
Indeed. The only real innovation in term of e-readers since the first handheld ones (ala Palm Pilot or similar) has been e-ink, and with color ones coming out soonish, this is seriously the way to go. You don't read several hundred pages in one sitting on an Ipad or similar devices, its just painful. And a book shouldn't need to be recharged every couple of days. E-ink readers and their month-long battery life (if you have a kindle, remember to turn off wifi =P) is the way to go.
I've worked for a few companies who did this, but using Citrix to do this. So if you needed to access the IE6 only app, you used a shortcut on your desktop or something that would open a remote IE6 running in a controlled environment that only had access to the legacy app and nothing else. It was surprisingly easy to setup, too. Citrix (like WinServer2008 or X) lets you run remote apps as if they were local, so its pretty seamless to end users, and the client (as far as I know) doesn't even need to be Windows.
Pretty much the best solution in this case, or for any legacy app thats preventing you from upgrading or changing platform.
The modern way of doing shell scripting in Windows is now powershell, and most things are quickly moving toward that. Its not as integrated in the OS, but its damn close, and in many ways its better than alternative scripting languages (object piping instead of text piping, for example).
Now if its the best thing for your requirement? I don't know. But if you're planning to stick to shell scripting, do yourself a favor and upgrade.
At this point, while the products Apple is shipping obviously have good points (many of them) and in many ways are going in the right direction, it still wouldn't matter. If Apple had released an e-Ink tablet, we'd be reading how anything non-e-ink is bound to die and that backlit tablets are dead. If they released something that is in every way opposite to the iPad, we'd be reading about how anything close to the current ipad is dead and simply "not the right tool for the job".
Apple, the greatest marketing company in existance. A company that can make the most closed product ever, and have even OSS advocates embrace it as the holy grail.
Windows 7's issue here isn't anything based on capabilies, design, or limitations. Its that "It wasn't approved by Apple fanboys" and nothing else.
So open I can't install it (legally) on my hardware even though it can work on it. In other news, US laws are easy to read! They're in plain text!
A -lot- of commercial software have that in their licenses. So many, in fact, that I find myself wondering if there aren't laws in some first world countries that force that to be in there somewhere unless you have specific certifications.
This. seriously.
Its true with most things: When people dodge the law, wether directly or by loopholes, there's no incensive to get the law changed, and things stay in an annoying gray area, and thats not good for anyone. Deal with the law, see how much it sucks, THEN there's a chance things will change.
That bug was fixed a long time ago. Sorry, I don't live in the past. Did you know that once upon a time Linux was buggy as hell?
This. Even ready-made resellers have pretty small devices built on Win Home Server that can take a LOT of drives. Mine supports 4, but there's many models that can take 8, 12, or more drives. The OS is rock solid and has a lot of neat features, like being able to access your network from an SSL secured web app (built in) from anywhere with indexed search, and its easy to develop plugins for (though there's a ton available already) to extend it.
Even more weird is why C# is out but VB.NET is in. Replace the curly braces by End {Something} and they're basically the same for 99% of purposes.
Misinformation and historical reasons. Urban legends, pretty much. And the fact that the technology on which a lot of people learnt to program didnt support it for a long time (even though everything else did).
Nothing more, really.
-Extremely few-, if you're talking about correct SQL management. The only one that comes to mind among serious RDBMSs (DB2, Sybase, SQL Server, Oracle, Postgres...) was a datatype exploit in Oracle that only worked locally, AND was more theoritical than anything.
Parameterized queries (the only good way of handling "sql sanitization") are virtually flawless. Now, if you're talking about string escaping, as is very popular on PHP/MYSQL stacks...well, yeah, thats swiss cheeze, dangerous, and bad practice (and unfortunately extremely popular)
An interesting statistic that also kind of prove your point is the salary of the average VB.NET programmer vs C# programmer.
The two languages as of the current version are almost at feature parity (in the next version coming out in a few days, they are are feature parity aside for like, 2 things), so for all practical purpose, they are the same except one uses IF/End IF and the other uses curly braces.
However, from a demographic point of view, most VB.NET programmers had a VB6 background (VB6 being much higher level/RAD than the .NET platform), while C# devs mostly came from Java/C++.
End result, the average C# programmer in all the studies/surveys/etc done -always- ends up being paid more. That is even though you can do the -same- thing in both languages, and they run on the same platform and framework.
Why? It has nothing to do with the language itself, its the demographic. With all the flak it got, VB6 was an excellent environment, its just that people who used it sucked (since it was so easy), and they still suck once they move to VB.NET.