That pretty much sums up my point. You say it "probably" runs on WINE, which means WINE hasn't even achieved 100% XP compatibility yet. But let's assume for a moment that it's basically compatible with XP. Then I should have said stuck in the XP era rather than the 2000 era, but that's not much of a difference (Windows 2000: 2000, Windows XP: 2001). It's now 2013, and there have been four major Windows versions since XP (2003, Vista, 7, 8) and counting (another one is coming out this year!). The way I see it WINE isn't keeping up with the pace of Windows development.
Mind you I wouldn't expect to be able to fully emulate 100% of Linux on a Windows machine either. There are always going to be challenges layering one OS's APIs on top of another OS.
Some quotes from the FAQ at winehq.com:
"Wine advertises its version as Windows XP"
"As of January 2009, Win64 support is being worked on, but is still far from stability"
"Currently Wine supports over 90% of the calls found in popular Windows specifications such as ECMA-234 and Open32. Wine is still adding Win32 APIs"
The article is about WINE. WINE doesn't allow you to run WinRT apps. It allows you to run Win32 apps (which is quite a large catalog... but then your joke wouldn't work so well). However WINE still isn't compatible with every Win32 app. WINE is stuck at around the Windows 2000 era in terms of the APIs it offers, and even then it has numerous bugs and is relatively slow compared to Win32 on actual Windows. Still, although it sounds like I'm bashing WINE, I'm not; I'm just pointing out its limitations. WINE is still extremely useful for allowing quite a lot of software to run.
"No one can conquer giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism when machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people?" Would you like to try again? You changed one instance of passive voice to active, but not the other: "... ARE CONSIDERED..." So you kind of proved my point that avoiding passive voice is not so easy. Sometimes you have to do awkward contortions to accomplish this, and the end result using active voice doesn't necessarily flow any better. What does it actually accomplish (serious question if you care to answer)?
In the example quote you gave, there's no subject. How would you rewrite that quote, using the active voice, so that it flows as smoothly as the original quote?
I distinctly remember using NTLMv2 in both NT 4.0 and Win2K, for a product I was developing for those platforms. NTLMv2 was an option. You could also choose whether the negotiation could downgrade to NTLM if the other side didn't support NTLMv2, or if the negotiation would insist on NTLMv2. But NTLMv2 didn't become the default until Vista -- the first version of Windows that strongly emphasized security.
I ran Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on a 386DX/33 with 8MB of RAM. So, I can attest that a 486 was not required for NT4. It may have used some of the 486's features if running on a 486, but it wasn't a requirement.
Windows XP 64-bit is not Windows XP at all. The name is confusing. Windows XP 64-bit is Windows 2003 but marketed more at workstations than servers. Windows XP 64-bit's service pack levels will be identical to Windows 2003's service pack levels, because they are the same OS.
When I was in college, "Software Engineering" was one class in the CS major. There was no Software Engineering degree available at my school, and I suspect at no college or university.
I just would be surprised if NTFS gained additional abilities it did not have before.
Disclosure: I'm a developer at Microsoft and I work on NTFS. So, I'm not as surprised as you are.:) NTFS is under active development. It gets new features every release. I've actually implemented some of them.
I seem to remember I was using CygWin
Well, I have no idea how CygWin's 'ln' command (I assume it was called) decided to implement symbolic links under the hood. I'd guess it was probably creating shortcuts rather than real symbolic links. More recent versions might create real symbolic links. Incidentally, 'mklink' was introduced in Vista, and it is an internal command in cmd.exe (i.e. there is no mklink.exe).
The last time I tried using mklink I gave up when I realized most applications couldn't follow the symlink. What good is a symlink if it's only usable by the shell?
Windows developers are NOT expecting symlinks.
My bet is that most WindowsRT applications will break if they encounter a path with a symlink.
I think you're referring to.lnk files, aka shortcuts, which are a shell concept. The shell needed this concept because for a long time, Windows didn't have symbolic links. As an earlier poster said, Windows Vista+ does support symbolic links. The shell doesn't know anything about them. They are implemented in NTFS, and any app should just work with them. There are certainly ways apps can burn themselves with symbolic links (just like with Unix symbolic links), but with ordinary usage like opening/reading/writing/closing files, it's totally transparent.
And Microsoft is already pushing its own Windows Phone 8 devices to compete with Nokia, so it's not just a rumor.
Whoa. Citation please? You can't make an assertion like that without some kind of evidence.
If you're referring to the Surface tablet, that's Windows 8 RT (a slightly shrunk down version of the Windows 8 desktop OS), not Windows Phone 8 (a smartphone OS). This is in contrast to Apple's strategy which is to have the smartphone and tablet share the same OS, distinct from the desktop OS.
The underlying flaw affects IE 9 and earlier, and from what has been seen so far, the in-the-wild exploit only targets IE 8 and 7 on Windows XP only, Bekrar said.
They should have put Wi-Fi onboard. Park the car in your garage or driveway, hope on your home network, voila.
I enjoyed this typo. It is eerily appropriate.
What do you consider drastic UI changes? In which Windows version did they change the UI drastically from the previous version? In my mind the last drastic change was in Win95, when they switched from the Program Manager (you have a folder window containing icons for apps, and subfolders open in their own windows) to the Start Menu (pop-up menu that presents apps in a scrollable list, and subfolders open in their own scrollable menus). Since then the changes have been very small, such as various customizations you can do with the taskbar, changing the appearance of the Start Menu icon itself, adding some transparency here and there, etc. The basic UI hasn't really changed in 17 years; Win8 is the first drastic change since Win95.
Slashdot Mirror
How's Duke Nukem Forever on that rig?
That pretty much sums up my point. You say it "probably" runs on WINE, which means WINE hasn't even achieved 100% XP compatibility yet. But let's assume for a moment that it's basically compatible with XP. Then I should have said stuck in the XP era rather than the 2000 era, but that's not much of a difference (Windows 2000: 2000, Windows XP: 2001). It's now 2013, and there have been four major Windows versions since XP (2003, Vista, 7, 8) and counting (another one is coming out this year!). The way I see it WINE isn't keeping up with the pace of Windows development.
Mind you I wouldn't expect to be able to fully emulate 100% of Linux on a Windows machine either. There are always going to be challenges layering one OS's APIs on top of another OS.
Some quotes from the FAQ at winehq.com:
"Wine advertises its version as Windows XP"
"As of January 2009, Win64 support is being worked on, but is still far from stability"
"Currently Wine supports over 90% of the calls found in popular Windows specifications such as ECMA-234 and Open32. Wine is still adding Win32 APIs"
The article is about WINE. WINE doesn't allow you to run WinRT apps. It allows you to run Win32 apps (which is quite a large catalog... but then your joke wouldn't work so well). However WINE still isn't compatible with every Win32 app. WINE is stuck at around the Windows 2000 era in terms of the APIs it offers, and even then it has numerous bugs and is relatively slow compared to Win32 on actual Windows. Still, although it sounds like I'm bashing WINE, I'm not; I'm just pointing out its limitations. WINE is still extremely useful for allowing quite a lot of software to run.
I agree this article is flame bait, because the patch in question does NOT break hibernation. It only breaks resume from hibernation.
"No one can conquer giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism when machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people?" ..." So you kind of proved my point that avoiding passive voice is not so easy. Sometimes you have to do awkward contortions to accomplish this, and the end result using active voice doesn't necessarily flow any better. What does it actually accomplish (serious question if you care to answer)?
Would you like to try again? You changed one instance of passive voice to active, but not the other: "... ARE CONSIDERED
In the example quote you gave, there's no subject. How would you rewrite that quote, using the active voice, so that it flows as smoothly as the original quote?
I distinctly remember using NTLMv2 in both NT 4.0 and Win2K, for a product I was developing for those platforms. NTLMv2 was an option. You could also choose whether the negotiation could downgrade to NTLM if the other side didn't support NTLMv2, or if the negotiation would insist on NTLMv2. But NTLMv2 didn't become the default until Vista -- the first version of Windows that strongly emphasized security.
Sucks to be in one of those 28.8 states.
I ran Windows NT Workstation 4.0 on a 386DX/33 with 8MB of RAM. So, I can attest that a 486 was not required for NT4. It may have used some of the 486's features if running on a 486, but it wasn't a requirement.
Just going to point out that the link you gave to show that IE8 is more popular than IE9, actually shows that IE9 overtook IE8 about 7 months ago.
Windows XP 64-bit is not Windows XP at all. The name is confusing. Windows XP 64-bit is Windows 2003 but marketed more at workstations than servers. Windows XP 64-bit's service pack levels will be identical to Windows 2003's service pack levels, because they are the same OS.
You know, you could have just done a simple web search. There are university degrees in Software Engineering. Example: http://uwaterloo.ca/software-engineering/home
No, they did not exist prior to Vista.
I just would be surprised if NTFS gained additional abilities it did not have before.
Disclosure: I'm a developer at Microsoft and I work on NTFS. So, I'm not as surprised as you are. :) NTFS is under active development. It gets new features every release. I've actually implemented some of them.
I seem to remember I was using CygWin
Well, I have no idea how CygWin's 'ln' command (I assume it was called) decided to implement symbolic links under the hood. I'd guess it was probably creating shortcuts rather than real symbolic links. More recent versions might create real symbolic links. Incidentally, 'mklink' was introduced in Vista, and it is an internal command in cmd.exe (i.e. there is no mklink.exe).
I think you're referring to .lnk files, aka shortcuts, which are a shell concept. The shell needed this concept because for a long time, Windows didn't have symbolic links. As an earlier poster said, Windows Vista+ does support symbolic links. The shell doesn't know anything about them. They are implemented in NTFS, and any app should just work with them. There are certainly ways apps can burn themselves with symbolic links (just like with Unix symbolic links), but with ordinary usage like opening/reading/writing/closing files, it's totally transparent.
Whoa. Citation please? You can't make an assertion like that without some kind of evidence.
If you're referring to the Surface tablet, that's Windows 8 RT (a slightly shrunk down version of the Windows 8 desktop OS), not Windows Phone 8 (a smartphone OS). This is in contrast to Apple's strategy which is to have the smartphone and tablet share the same OS, distinct from the desktop OS.
Interesting that Internet Explorer is nowhere in those search results. What does that say?
It's glass all the way down, baby.
The underlying flaw affects IE 9 and earlier, and from what has been seen so far, the in-the-wild exploit only targets IE 8 and 7 on Windows XP only, Bekrar said.
Because: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but these mach 3.5 laser guided missiles are using 3.5E AC rules.
FTFY.
They should have put Wi-Fi onboard. Park the car in your garage or driveway, hope on your home network, voila.
I enjoyed this typo. It is eerily appropriate.
What do you consider drastic UI changes? In which Windows version did they change the UI drastically from the previous version? In my mind the last drastic change was in Win95, when they switched from the Program Manager (you have a folder window containing icons for apps, and subfolders open in their own windows) to the Start Menu (pop-up menu that presents apps in a scrollable list, and subfolders open in their own scrollable menus). Since then the changes have been very small, such as various customizations you can do with the taskbar, changing the appearance of the Start Menu icon itself, adding some transparency here and there, etc. The basic UI hasn't really changed in 17 years; Win8 is the first drastic change since Win95.
A: Nobody is forcing you to have shit all over your front door.
B: False. Some of the neighborhood kids like to come by and smear shit on my front door as a prank.
A: Nobody forces you to keep it.
B: Ah, very true.
It comes bundled with Emacs?