VB6 was a complete shit and it didn't stop people from using it.
I bet somehow MS makes it easy for Windows based developers to use those frameworks. I am betting on it knowing how MS works and how false their promises are along with those puppets supporting them.
a bit from that, a bit from this and we don't see a single.NET software being out there except some demo like media players.
It is like every month, I see a software coded in.NET framework (not bad on Windows) and when I check, it is impossible to make it run on any other thing except windows.
and I run Azureus (now Vuze) on 3 different operating systems and 2 different CPUs which has nothing to do with each other.
It looks like Apple is making sure that they will stay as 3%-10% on smart phone market too. Symbian will own way higher when the entire thing is somehow free and open source. Just like J2ME started to popup on cheapest handsets on market.
Also thanks to the.NET thing and upcoming Windows Azure thing, MS Windows Mobile will gain further speed in enterprise. Thanks to iPhone, it looks "open" and "free" to developers now.
All of this just because of what? Some suit doesn't want anyone to code iTunes competitor on iPhone. World's first actually working handheld Unix/NeXT... Sad really.
I also want to believe that entire thing is a misunderstanding, Opera has job to do on real smartphones (WinMO, Symbian, J2ME) rather than trying to port their stuff to a locked device.
Does Opera need such thing while their application works on anything rather than iPhone one way or another?
You should see their version 9.5 betas on true smart phones.
I also think part of iPhone SDK agreement exists just to make sure Opera won't be shipped on iPhone.
Opera isn't some new startup company trying to get attention, Opera is currently _the standard_ on anything rather than iPhone which is a "i" phone, not a "smart" phone.
If Apple gets serious about game support, they will look to one, already working solution and it is SDL.
There are decent multiplatform games coded thanks to SDL and they work perfectly on OS X.
OpenGL will stay no matter whatever MS does thanks to consoles at least and handheld. Forget everything, the new fashion iPhone runs OpenGL. (or some form of it)
OpenGL's true power comes from the extendibility and multi vendor democracy resulting it to be platform neutral.
People will soon demand to have their game on their PC/ Laptop and mobile device. Same game. That is where things go to and with current way of DirectX, there is no way to do it. They abused DirectX upgrade to sell new operating system which has horrible performance issues with games. That is DirectX for you.
They are opportunistic and way too polite to their big developer partners. So for sake of them, things get polluted to a point that nobody can truly understand them.
The opposite side is Apple. They openly say (even for their own apps like Finder) "The function this application uses is depreciated, this warning will appear once". What happens if you don't care? Your application or even driver crashes "politely" in next OS X major version. Adobe relying on it won't matter at all. That is how they could force Microsoft to use XCode/Cocoa API on Mac Office 08. MS even had to deal with strict gcc rejecting to compile it. (read their blog, it is fun).
Icaza says Linux/BSD will have support for it thanks to (insert some nerd but hip label) project and Novell is behind it.
Of course it will lack something like actual thing being 1-2 major versions behind but who cares? Gotta shut up people speaking about true cloud computing right?
Cloud Computing is something that doesn't care what brand CPU you are using on what OS as long as it has some standards (REAL ONES) support. Will MS deliver it? Where are official SilverLight 32/64 binaries for Linux?
I could build my own binary if I wanted to. Thing is, they didn't care. That is Sun and a gigantic open source project. Open Source's true power comes from being multi platform as far as possible. MS ships office 08 and says G4 500 processor is supported, Open Office guys don't bother to put a PPC/Universal binary to their official downloads and when they look at Amazon top 10 Mac sales, they see MS Office on that list. They say "Oh maccies, when will they learn?", they forget that not everyone buying it is a MS puppet or some low IQ guy who thinks it is the only solution.
Having native GUI doesn't make it a true OS X Application either.
The reason that the new OS X won't be run on PPC is there are no benefits of pure 64bit kernel/apps on PowerPC. There are no extra registers, commands, no 3.2 GB memory issue, nothing. You have a 64bit solution already with Leopard and even Tiger (if on Terminal). Pure 64bit kernel? I didn't see any benefits of it on quad G5 but Linux and BSD is there to install.
Of course Apple won't sit and explain how backwards their new CPU partner is and how the entire issue happened (AMD going 64, Intel staying behind)
The PowerPC support truly ends when iLife/iWork doesn't support PowerPC. Nothing else. It is not couple of open source x11 nerds to choose it, it is Apple's choice.
They actually have P2P binary I heard but didn't bother to put it on site. This will race with MS Office which supports 500 Mhz G4 processors. Yea, right!
I think "almost identical" part is true. A versiontracker/OS X comment sums up the issue with "almost identical" office packages trying to be MS Office.
Pasting (not mine)
" It's like switching methadone for the heroin.
The point of dumping MsOffice is to say goodbye to bloat, dunderous user interface and slow performance.
Ignoring PPC users and acting like they have outdated piece of junk by not providing a PPC binary in official page won't help too much either.
I can't imagine how huge work MS guys required to keep PPC compatibility while converting (rewriting) that gigantic source named MS Office. That could provide insight about why they are still number 1 on Office marketshare.
As they ignored my CPU (and many others), I won't be going to third party sites to download it or compile from source. Why should I care? Apple, MS, NeoOffice guys care about my CPU.
Whatever OpenOffice guys think, the "Office" and "Real stuff" Mac people didn't throw their PPC macs out of the window since Apple switched to Intel.
They didn't care enough to put a single PPC binary to downloads, that shows their lack of care and knowledge of the platform. Putting Aqua GUI Widgets doesn't matter too much to me.
I am glad I ignored both Open office and MS Office and purchased family license for iWork '08. That is the native OS X Office along with OS X/NeXT model of doing things. For the dbase etc. stuff, I will use KDE Office compiled by Fink. If I ever need it.
In theory HIGGS particle should exist and standard model is true but dozens of countries and thousands of scientists have built the biggest machine ever known to prove it exists or not. If it doesn't exist, it will also serve to science too.
You are paying for DRM content, not the free content and you can't back anything DRM offsite, it breaks the very basic scheme of DRM.
I am saying it as a guy who bought a DRM-PDF from them and can't read it because of a system reinstall/upgrade. Thanks to Adobe and their idiotic partnering with MS (Passport) for that too.
Just like iPhone, buying a device from a company which you don't agree with their policies and somehow hacking it doesn't sound good to me.
I must say I would buy Kindle if Amazon idiots shipped it to the really needing ones (overseas) and offer basic OS X support. Buying a book for $20 and paying $30 to a trustable post&packaging isn't funny really.
I remember their older work, Eidolon on Atari 800XL for example. Lucas arts was a very risk taking and adventurous company which invents things just like its founder has been once upon a time.
Also look at how many platforms they supported before they became a MS DirectX puppet. Supporting that number of platforms in pure ASM (mostly) wasn't a trivial task.
new game will be PC only (must be directx) and also "LucasArts is hoping to snipe some of the World of Warcraft customer base.". Somehow, they also need to re-assure the support of older title will continue.
I am just saying Blizzard still ships updates (even converting them to Intel) to 5-6 year old games and they use technologies like OpenGL as far as possible. They can easily ship a PS3 version for example. As they also have a CPU independent version, even iPhone version is possible.
Lucas arts should wake up and see the light, get off from Microsoft train and look the amazing possibilities once you try to stick with standards.
Now lets hope they won't buy that Cider thing after this message and claim they got OS X binary.
It is potentially unwanted only for Microsoft. I don't enable --detect-pua too. Trojan is a huge claim, trojan is documented and it is something which promises a user something and does something else. It looked way interesting to me so as I said before, I have run a simple "hijack this" (like tripwire but way simple) test. It does delete the WGA check and does nothing else. I am sure actual analysts at AV vendors like Kaspersky did way more advanced tests.
It is clear that someone abused ClamAV database and worst is, they don't care. Lazy AV vendors copying their.sigs are also effected.
Some white hat guy coded RemoveWGA.exe which uninstalls the WGA check installed by Microsoft claiming to be unremovable. When you check it with Kaspersky, it says it is clean. You run trend's 'hijack this" and see what it does manually, it is clean too. You send it to Kaspersky engineer to check it once again, guy says it is really, really clean.
ClamAV detects it as a trojan, not a generic type, an actual one with name. RemoveWGA.exe: Trojan.RemovWGA FOUND
I also took my time to tell them that it is obviously an abuse of their open source and community approach, they didn't respond or remove it from their list. You can easily guess who (or his friend) abused their sigs. The point is, as a OS X user who doesn't use windows except that horrible emulated Virtual PC 7, I sit and spare my time to handle the abuse.
If there are people blaming companies going with pricey solutions, they should spare time to it. I am not even commenting about the horrible false detections regarding Symbian OS.
I suspect the imaginary threats they fail is like the usual wintrolls argument "So do you think Linux/OS X is secure? Run rm -rf / and see what happens." They run a test which no actual virus/worm author (it is a money making industry) will bother to code and they blame real life solution failing to detect it.
Couple of worms actually install pirate Kaspersky with a special setting to ignore them so they are sure they are the only malware they are running. That is the prestige of Kaspersky for you and state of current threats. Virus/Worm writing as way beyond the amateur sickos writing malware now. It is a huge industry in black hat terms.
The new version of Kaspersky and couple of other vendors who spends money to development instead of animated ads tries to go with "white list" approach.
For example, while it does very suspicious things (due to its function), Zonealarm is very known to the AV solution and once it is surely the ZA it trusts, it won't bother with it too much UNLESS it starts doing things which it isn't known to do. It adds lot to the performance and Kaspersky is the last vendor to blame about heuristics since its early versions. If they didn't do a lot of heuristics against unknown threats, they wouldn't be blamed for making it "slower" than free AVG and robbing the users.
I can understand why Mr. Kaspersky is particularly touched by the claim of the test and the products failure against imaginary threat. Kaspersky was one of the first AV solutions to run a small virtual machine and emulate things before giving them go. It is also running way deeper than many on the market (ring 0) so that is why it may create horrible slowness with hypervisor, emulation type of Windows. E.g. on Virtual PC 7, it is plain suicide to run it.
If Cloud computing (the real one) takes off, your netbook may do actual supercomputer things like transcoding a movie in 10x realtime just with a web browser and TCP/IP connection.
I am just hoping for Apple... The OS X Leopard has the technologies required to do such things is there but nobody knows how to implement them without freaking people yet. Hopefully that Mobile Me icon being a cloud keeps the promise.
If it runs Windows on x86, viruses/worms/backdoors/rootkits are possible... Also registry cleaning etc. needs to be done. It sounds as weird but it is the reality.
In theory all of the malware can be run on that super computer.
Slashdot Mirror
VB6 was a complete shit and it didn't stop people from using it.
I bet somehow MS makes it easy for Windows based developers to use those frameworks. I am betting on it knowing how MS works and how false their promises are along with those puppets supporting them.
a bit from that, a bit from this and we don't see a single .NET software being out there except some demo like media players.
It is like every month, I see a software coded in .NET framework (not bad on Windows) and when I check, it is impossible to make it run on any other thing except windows.
and I run Azureus (now Vuze) on 3 different operating systems and 2 different CPUs which has nothing to do with each other.
It looks like Apple is making sure that they will stay as 3%-10% on smart phone market too. Symbian will own way higher when the entire thing is somehow free and open source. Just like J2ME started to popup on cheapest handsets on market.
Also thanks to the .NET thing and upcoming Windows Azure thing, MS Windows Mobile will gain further speed in enterprise. Thanks to iPhone, it looks "open" and "free" to developers now.
All of this just because of what? Some suit doesn't want anyone to code iTunes competitor on iPhone. World's first actually working handheld Unix/NeXT... Sad really.
If you aren't into Mac scene, Gruber is kind of Apple apologist blogger.
A person who doesn't know about Opera Mini at first place shouldn't be a tech blogger after all.
There are 19 million people using (note:using) Opera Mini daily in a month. http://www.opera.com/mobile_report/2008/09/
I also want to believe that entire thing is a misunderstanding, Opera has job to do on real smartphones (WinMO, Symbian, J2ME) rather than trying to port their stuff to a locked device.
Does Opera need such thing while their application works on anything rather than iPhone one way or another?
You should see their version 9.5 betas on true smart phones.
I also think part of iPhone SDK agreement exists just to make sure Opera won't be shipped on iPhone.
Opera isn't some new startup company trying to get attention, Opera is currently _the standard_ on anything rather than iPhone which is a "i" phone, not a "smart" phone.
If Apple gets serious about game support, they will look to one, already working solution and it is SDL.
There are decent multiplatform games coded thanks to SDL and they work perfectly on OS X.
OpenGL will stay no matter whatever MS does thanks to consoles at least and handheld. Forget everything, the new fashion iPhone runs OpenGL. (or some form of it)
OpenGL's true power comes from the extendibility and multi vendor democracy resulting it to be platform neutral.
People will soon demand to have their game on their PC/ Laptop and mobile device. Same game. That is where things go to and with current way of DirectX, there is no way to do it. They abused DirectX upgrade to sell new operating system which has horrible performance issues with games. That is DirectX for you.
They are opportunistic and way too polite to their big developer partners. So for sake of them, things get polluted to a point that nobody can truly understand them.
The opposite side is Apple. They openly say (even for their own apps like Finder) "The function this application uses is depreciated, this warning will appear once". What happens if you don't care? Your application or even driver crashes "politely" in next OS X major version. Adobe relying on it won't matter at all. That is how they could force Microsoft to use XCode/Cocoa API on Mac Office 08. MS even had to deal with strict gcc rejecting to compile it. (read their blog, it is fun).
Icaza says Linux/BSD will have support for it thanks to (insert some nerd but hip label) project and Novell is behind it.
Of course it will lack something like actual thing being 1-2 major versions behind but who cares? Gotta shut up people speaking about true cloud computing right?
Cloud Computing is something that doesn't care what brand CPU you are using on what OS as long as it has some standards (REAL ONES) support. Will MS deliver it? Where are official SilverLight 32/64 binaries for Linux?
I could build my own binary if I wanted to. Thing is, they didn't care. That is Sun and a gigantic open source project. Open Source's true power comes from being multi platform as far as possible. MS ships office 08 and says G4 500 processor is supported, Open Office guys don't bother to put a PPC/Universal binary to their official downloads and when they look at Amazon top 10 Mac sales, they see MS Office on that list. They say "Oh maccies, when will they learn?", they forget that not everyone buying it is a MS puppet or some low IQ guy who thinks it is the only solution.
Having native GUI doesn't make it a true OS X Application either.
The reason that the new OS X won't be run on PPC is there are no benefits of pure 64bit kernel/apps on PowerPC. There are no extra registers, commands, no 3.2 GB memory issue, nothing. You have a 64bit solution already with Leopard and even Tiger (if on Terminal). Pure 64bit kernel? I didn't see any benefits of it on quad G5 but Linux and BSD is there to install.
Of course Apple won't sit and explain how backwards their new CPU partner is and how the entire issue happened (AMD going 64, Intel staying behind)
The PowerPC support truly ends when iLife/iWork doesn't support PowerPC. Nothing else. It is not couple of open source x11 nerds to choose it, it is Apple's choice.
They actually have P2P binary I heard but didn't bother to put it on site. This will race with MS Office which supports 500 Mhz G4 processors. Yea, right!
They are acting like hip teenagers, "Dude, it is Intel now, go and upgrade your CPU". It is not a GAME for God's sake, it is an office application.
Even if I had only Intel Macs, I would still care since it shows how ignorant they are about the platform and its userbase.
I think "almost identical" part is true. A versiontracker/OS X comment sums up the issue with "almost identical" office packages trying to be MS Office.
Pasting (not mine)
"
It's like switching methadone for the heroin.
The point of dumping MsOffice is to say goodbye to bloat, dunderous user interface and slow performance.
A copy of a poor model is just a poor copy. "
Ignoring PPC users and acting like they have outdated piece of junk by not providing a PPC binary in official page won't help too much either.
I can't imagine how huge work MS guys required to keep PPC compatibility while converting (rewriting) that gigantic source named MS Office. That could provide insight about why they are still number 1 on Office marketshare.
As they ignored my CPU (and many others), I won't be going to third party sites to download it or compile from source. Why should I care? Apple, MS, NeoOffice guys care about my CPU.
Whatever OpenOffice guys think, the "Office" and "Real stuff" Mac people didn't throw their PPC macs out of the window since Apple switched to Intel.
They didn't care enough to put a single PPC binary to downloads, that shows their lack of care and knowledge of the platform. Putting Aqua GUI Widgets doesn't matter too much to me.
I am glad I ignored both Open office and MS Office and purchased family license for iWork '08. That is the native OS X Office along with OS X/NeXT model of doing things. For the dbase etc. stuff, I will use KDE Office compiled by Fink. If I ever need it.
In theory HIGGS particle should exist and standard model is true but dozens of countries and thousands of scientists have built the biggest machine ever known to prove it exists or not. If it doesn't exist, it will also serve to science too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
You are paying for DRM content, not the free content and you can't back anything DRM offsite, it breaks the very basic scheme of DRM.
I am saying it as a guy who bought a DRM-PDF from them and can't read it because of a system reinstall/upgrade. Thanks to Adobe and their idiotic partnering with MS (Passport) for that too.
Just like iPhone, buying a device from a company which you don't agree with their policies and somehow hacking it doesn't sound good to me.
I must say I would buy Kindle if Amazon idiots shipped it to the really needing ones (overseas) and offer basic OS X support. Buying a book for $20 and paying $30 to a trustable post&packaging isn't funny really.
I remember their older work, Eidolon on Atari 800XL for example. Lucas arts was a very risk taking and adventurous company which invents things just like its founder has been once upon a time.
Check it to see what I mean
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-eidolon
Also look at how many platforms they supported before they became a MS DirectX puppet. Supporting that number of platforms in pure ASM (mostly) wasn't a trivial task.
new game will be PC only (must be directx) and also "LucasArts is hoping to snipe some of the World of Warcraft customer base.". Somehow, they also need to re-assure the support of older title will continue.
I am just saying Blizzard still ships updates (even converting them to Intel) to 5-6 year old games and they use technologies like OpenGL as far as possible. They can easily ship a PS3 version for example. As they also have a CPU independent version, even iPhone version is possible.
Lucas arts should wake up and see the light, get off from Microsoft train and look the amazing possibilities once you try to stick with standards.
Now lets hope they won't buy that Cider thing after this message and claim they got OS X binary.
It is potentially unwanted only for Microsoft. I don't enable --detect-pua too. Trojan is a huge claim, trojan is documented and it is something which promises a user something and does something else. It looked way interesting to me so as I said before, I have run a simple "hijack this" (like tripwire but way simple) test. It does delete the WGA check and does nothing else. I am sure actual analysts at AV vendors like Kaspersky did way more advanced tests.
It is clear that someone abused ClamAV database and worst is, they don't care. Lazy AV vendors copying their .sigs are also effected.
Some white hat guy coded RemoveWGA.exe which uninstalls the WGA check installed by Microsoft claiming to be unremovable. When you check it with Kaspersky, it says it is clean. You run trend's 'hijack this" and see what it does manually, it is clean too. You send it to Kaspersky engineer to check it once again, guy says it is really, really clean.
ClamAV detects it as a trojan, not a generic type, an actual one with name.
RemoveWGA.exe: Trojan.RemovWGA FOUND
I also took my time to tell them that it is obviously an abuse of their open source and community approach, they didn't respond or remove it from their list. You can easily guess who (or his friend) abused their sigs. The point is, as a OS X user who doesn't use windows except that horrible emulated Virtual PC 7, I sit and spare my time to handle the abuse.
If there are people blaming companies going with pricey solutions, they should spare time to it. I am not even commenting about the horrible false detections regarding Symbian OS.
I suspect the imaginary threats they fail is like the usual wintrolls argument "So do you think Linux/OS X is secure? Run rm -rf / and see what happens." They run a test which no actual virus/worm author (it is a money making industry) will bother to code and they blame real life solution failing to detect it.
Couple of worms actually install pirate Kaspersky with a special setting to ignore them so they are sure they are the only malware they are running. That is the prestige of Kaspersky for you and state of current threats. Virus/Worm writing as way beyond the amateur sickos writing malware now. It is a huge industry in black hat terms.
The new version of Kaspersky and couple of other vendors who spends money to development instead of animated ads tries to go with "white list" approach.
For example, while it does very suspicious things (due to its function), Zonealarm is very known to the AV solution and once it is surely the ZA it trusts, it won't bother with it too much UNLESS it starts doing things which it isn't known to do. It adds lot to the performance and Kaspersky is the last vendor to blame about heuristics since its early versions. If they didn't do a lot of heuristics against unknown threats, they wouldn't be blamed for making it "slower" than free AVG and robbing the users.
I can understand why Mr. Kaspersky is particularly touched by the claim of the test and the products failure against imaginary threat. Kaspersky was one of the first AV solutions to run a small virtual machine and emulate things before giving them go. It is also running way deeper than many on the market (ring 0) so that is why it may create horrible slowness with hypervisor, emulation type of Windows. E.g. on Virtual PC 7, it is plain suicide to run it.
If Cloud computing (the real one) takes off, your netbook may do actual supercomputer things like transcoding a movie in 10x realtime just with a web browser and TCP/IP connection.
I am just hoping for Apple... The OS X Leopard has the technologies required to do such things is there but nobody knows how to implement them without freaking people yet. Hopefully that Mobile Me icon being a cloud keeps the promise.
If it runs Windows on x86, viruses/worms/backdoors/rootkits are possible... Also registry cleaning etc. needs to be done. It sounds as weird but it is the reality.
In theory all of the malware can be run on that super computer.