I mean, say a new version of Photoshop is released. The old one still works fine, so why upgrade?
Because Photoshop CS2 has new features that might be useful, such as improved support for the digital cameras (along with regularly updated raw format support). Regardless of Photoshop, new software or hardware for Windows generally works with Windows 2000 and XP. So, once again, those expensive "point upgrades" are not needed!
And by the way, if you're seriously considering.NET on Windows 98/ME, go back to it.
In no way would I consider.NET on Windows 98/Me. I was pointing out that the latest version of.NET is compatible with these old operating systems, along with Windows 2000, so those upgrades are not needed to run.NET software.
Point is, upgrades are a good thing, and on Linux, they're free.
Upgrades that are not needed for Windows 2000 as of now. They can be nice, but still, not needed. As you said, "the old one still works fine", including with new hardware/software. Some people might just want new features or get new software. They'll get support for the great majority of that *without* buying Windows XP.
FWIW, with Windows you don't really need those "point upgrades" until 5+ years until after they're released. Most new software still works with Windows 2000 (with the last free updates, of course). Sure, there are missing features and such, but the majority of the hardware out there supported in XP is still supported in 2000. The latest.NET Framework,.NET Framework 2.0, still runs on Windows 98 and Me as well as 2000/XP/2003. The latest version of Photoshop still runs on Windows 2000 as well as XP, as does most software I've seen.
I'm sure things are getting better, but the latest version of Photoshop only runs in Mac OS X 10.2 (2002) or later, and is "recommended" for use on 10.3 (2003) or 10.4 (2005) only. I've seen a lot of "System Requirements" for Mac software that explicitly require later versions of the OS. I suspect the APIs have stabilizied greatly across the past few versions.
People support Google *because* they believe it to be a company that might actually have morals!
Bullshit! I support Google because I like and use their search engine and a few of their other services, not because they have morals. If tomorrow some other company (even Microsoft) had a vastly superior search engine, I'd switch. While responsible corporations are nice, I (and most people) care only about the company's product, services, and support: in other words, what directly affects me as a customer.
RAID 5 requires at least three drives, and is fairly CPU intensive, so one would be better off with a real computer system that a) has a power supply that's not crap, b) has a faster CPU, b) has a bit more RAM, c) has support for more drives and possibly future expansion, and d) doesn't require you to hack it for a useful result.
A good midlevel solution is an nforce4 motherboard, with 4 250 sata drives, total cost around $600 w/ cpu mem, etc. You need a decent case though, and it will be noisier and louder. Plus side is better performance, full customization, and ability to use it as a router or such. You will have to configure it yourself, and likely throw windows on it because the nforce raid support is tricky on linux for a novice.
nForce RAID is a joke if you're not using XP Home or Professional. It's software RAID that can be maintained from the BIOS and is performed by nVidia's driver (instead of Microsoft's RAID driver). The only advantage of using nForce RAID is that it's possible to install Windows directly onto a nvRAID device, it's compatible with Windows XP Home, which apparently doesn't support Windows's software RAID, and gives you RAID5 (on newer nVidia chipsets) on Windows XP Professional. Otherwise, the performance is very similar to Windows's software RAID, and you're tied to an nvraid-capable motherboard (and the amount of ports available on that motherboard).
In summary, Linux users are much better off using Linux software RAID no matter what, and Windows users are much better off using software RAID (unless they're running XP Home or they want RAID5 and are running XP Pro). Debian makes it fairly easy to set up software RAID, and there are ways to get RAID5 in Windows XP Pro by hex editing a few files (and I assume any raid at all, in XP Home.)
I have a setup with eight mismatched hard drives (2x400GB Seagate, 1x250GB WD, 1x250GB Maxtor, 3x200GB Maxtor, and 1x200GB WD.) On those drives, I have 8x200GB for a 1.4GB RAID5 array, the operating system on a 2x50GB RAID1 array, and user profiles on a 2x200GB RAID1 array. I was going to install the OS on separate hard drives for better performance (using the extra space on the larger drives as backup), but decided not to for heat/space reasons.
Looks more like it's done at runtime via IDispatch or similar mechanisms.
Did you completely neglect to read what I said? The VB.NET compiler does the required late binding -- in other words, generates the late-binding code. Furthermore, as I said before, IDispatch is NOT USED --.NET Reflection is -- unless you're using COM, and in my example, you aren't.
so it's the same as C#, more or less?
No. C# does not do late binding for you. You have to write the code yourself if you need to use late binding, or cast object types to what they're supposed to be.
Well, you probably could use the my namespace in C#, but it'd likely require the Vb runtime and be a pain.
You can do something like that with the aptly titled "That". "My" is in VB.NET, however, to make things easier for VB programmers, which tend to be beginners.
Which is really my point - VB and C# are basically the same, so trotting that out as an advantage over the JVM, where only Java is first class, doesn't make sense.
It is definitely an advantage. VB.NET and C#, while similar, provide choice. VB.NET has a lot of features for beginners/old VB developers -- some of which can't be done in C# the way they are done so easily in VB.NET (late binding and automatic type casting). Without them, it's more or less C# with different syntax. And some people prefer End statements and newlines to brackets and semicolons, so that alone is an advantage, at least to some.
You can get the automatic typecasting by using variants all over the place like VB does
there are no Variants in VB.NET. automatic type casting/conversion is done with strongly typed variables (e.g. Dim x As Integer: Dim y As String = "3": x = y makes x = 3.)
Late binding seems to be implemented via IDispatch, so that's supported just as well in C# or C++.
Late binding is done by the VB.NET compiler automatically; this isn't done at all in C#. (Dim x As Object = SqlCommand.ExecuteReader(): x.Close() in VB.NET is valid -- object x = SqlCommand.ExecuteReader(); x.Close(); in C# is not.) Of course, this is slow and bad.
IDispatch? Only if you're using COM. For.NET objects, late-binding uses.NET reflection.
What I was asking about was language features, not library stuff.
VB.NET has "library stuff" that's for use in VB.NET only -- specifically, the "convenience" functions like IsNumeric, and new "My" features. Those features, along with late-binding and automatic type casting/conversion, are what really differentiate VB.NET from C# -- not any significant non-syntax language features.
Who cares? What serious programmer actually uses VB.NET anyway?
What makes a "serious programmer"? Given VB.NET's alleged closeness to C#, why wouldn't a "serious programmer" use VB.NET if he or she preferred it?
VB.NET is designed to be easy. The features I listed in this post basically let the programmer write less code. Automatic casting/etc. can be disabled with Option Strict. VB.NET provides additional functionality that programmers can choose to use. Or not. With Option Strict turned on, the language is very similar to C# from the programmer's point of view. Without it, programmers need to think about a lot less and can get away with doing things they normally wouldn't be able to -- which, as long as they're careful (checking that strings have valid numeric data before changing to a number format, not abusing late binding, etc.) isn't too bad. It definitely saves a bit of time, although it does make it a bit easier to make mistakes.
I can't think of anything that C# can do that VB.NET can't. VB.NET provides additional functionality over C# in My and Microsoft.VisualBasic -- but ignoring those, and with Option Stirct on, VB.NET and C# are very, very similar minus the syntax differences. At that point, the functionality is very similar and there's little reason to use one over the other beyond syntax preference.
VB.NET has these where C# doesn't:
Automatic type casting (where appropriate);
Late binding;
Functions like IsNumeric, IsNothing, etc.;
the My namespace (in 2.0);
other things I can't remember right now
There are less things an inexperienced programmer has to worry about in VB.NET than in C# -- they can simply ignore what type a variable is and just use it, most of the time (e.g. SomeInt = SomeString will compile and hopefully work, if SomeString can be converted properly.) Many of the changes to VB are necessary in order to have full.NET object oriented functionality. There's a lot of only VB-specific features that make things easier and require less programming.
As for other languages, I can't really comment. There are other languages that have been ported to the CLR as well, but I have no interest in using them, and if I did, it'd probably be with a native/non-CLR implementation.
While it'd be nice to say that all of those languages are equally supported on Java, they aren't. Java is the primary language on the JVM; most documentation is for Java only; and functionality, performance, etc. with non-Java languages varies.
At the very least, Microsoft offers VB.NET and C# which are both equally supported by Microsoft and most vendors; they also have J# and C++, which have varying degrees of support (I can create web projects using C#, J#, or VB.NET;.NET Compact Framework projects with C# or VB.NET;.NET Windows Forms applications with any language.) All of these languages are supported out of the box with Visual Studio 2005.
Microsoft also has JScript.NET, which seems to be the bastard child of Microsoft's.NET languages -- probably intended for simple scripting use only.
Still, when someone says a product works with.NET, it's safe to assume that it's supported with at least VB.NET and C#, whereas most Java products are supported with Java as the language only.
Most phones support 1900mhz, which is the primary frequency used by T-Mobile users; as long as they stay in T-Mobile's coverage area. Cingular users that live in an area well covered by 1900mhz can also get by with 850-less phones. also, quad band phones are becoming increasingly common.
Huh? Buying unlocked phones is the best way to get up-to-date phones; otherwise, you're normally stuck with phones that have been available at least for a month elsewhere around the world.
T-Mobile and Cingular both lock their phones. Thus, to do do a simple SIM-switch, it must either be a phone locked to the same carrier, or have been manually unlocked (not a simple process)
Unlocking is not difficult once you have the code, which you can often pay for or with a small hassle get from your carrier. A much easier solution is to buy an unlocked phone, which is not difficult; you can get unlocked phones easily online, and they're starting to show up in retail stores like CompUSA as well.
I suggest trying Sony Ericsson again. They've improved greatly (although I use Nokia). The Nokia 3650 and Sony Ericsson T610 are both close to 3 years old now.
I've used the Sony Ericsson Z520a and W600i, both recently released Sony Ericsson phones, and the audio quality and reception is much, much better than any Motorola I've used and the old Sony Ericssons. I haven't experienced any drops on the Cingular network (vastly superior to T-Mobile here) since I stopped using Motorola. In general, the UI is faster on Sony Ericsson and Nokia phones, especially when you try to do things like send a text message, use the web browser, or play games. It's also much easier to use.
I have not owned a Samsung phone for over 2 years, but my mom's Samsung P107's UI is very fast.
I am now using a Nokia 6682, and it's better than every other phone I've used (with the exception of the size/weight, but I don't mind.)
You can set up large fonts in the applications you use or in the OS, but this becomes a difficulty if you want to use dual monitors. Companies like Dell make laptops with 17" widescreen 1900x1200 LCDs. If you wanted to connect a 19" CRT at 1280x960 (on mine, the highest resolution supporting 85Hz), or a 19" LCD at 1280x1024, everything will either be too big or too small on one of the monitors.
Running in a non-native resolution on an LCD is miserable, which is why I'm going for a 1200x800 15.4" widescreen laptop LCD.
Verizon is by far the most restrictive US carrier. The USA has two major GSM carriers which will let you use any compatible phone on their network. There is no activation process, no automatic settings download; just a quick SIM switch. They won't help you with setting up features like GPRS/EDGE, but the settings are easy to find and can be entered as long as the phone's settings are not locked to some other carrier.
Verizon, OTOH, doesn't like to activate any ESN (serial number) that isn't theirs, because they're "not E911 compatible". They say this regardless of the device's E911 compatibility. If you do manage to get a third-party phone activated on any CDMA carrier (Sprint, Alltel, Verizon), you'd have a very hard time getting all the network features working.
Re:I don't want to be stuck with one..
on
Pro C#
·
· Score: 1
ASP.NET is a combination of VBscript and C#.
There is no VBScript in ASP.NET, at all. VBScript was the most used language for classic ASP, but C# and VB.NET (which is very different from VBScript) are the primary ASP.NET languages. There is VB.NET, but that's server side only...
Also, in order to do alot of stuff in ASP.NET, it often trys to get you to use those two. ... .NET can work if it is server side... it';s just that when they try to do stuff client side, they deviate from standards and as such, break in anything but IE. It is their lack of sticking to standards and supporting standards that cause ASP.NET to break.
ASP.NET's client side generated JavaScript code, as of 2.0, is compatible with Opera, Firefox, and most browsers. This means that the easy-to-use controls & anything else that generates JavaScript/client side script spits out JavaScript that works with all browsers. There is no ActiveX (beyond XMLHTTP, which in IE is MSXML accessed via ActiveX), and no VBScript.
(Previous versions of ASP.NET would simply not provide client-side JavaScript code for non-IE browsers. The code it provided used the IE-only document.all collection instead of document.getElementById. However, ASP.NET 2.0 no longer has these issues.)
The rest of your post is so ridiculous that I won't bother responding to it.
You can use the 32-bit GUI libraries by threading your app. If you're writing performance code, you should have threaded your app a log time ago.
It's not quite that easy. It's one thing to have a threaded, single process application; it's another thing to require two separate processes and use IPC between them.
Why do any of those things need to be 64-bit? Notepad? IE? How could those ever need more than 4 GB of memory?
They don't. But the entire OS, minus the 32-bit parts used to execute 32-bit software, is compiled for 64-bit. And it runs 32-bit software just fine.
The main use for 64-bit is for scientists doing number crunching. And Tiger does that... not perfect, in that some libraries are still 32-bit.
Some? Try libSystem & some math binaries.
But 10.5 is promised to be fully 64-bit so that will get rid of annoyances of having to do work-arounds for 32-bit libraries. (A 64-bit app can still use 32-bit libraries, it's just a bit of a pain)
Sure, you can do just about anything with fancy IPC.
If the rumors are indeed true and Apple will be shipping 32-bit only Intel CPUs, Apple will eventually have mixed 32/64 bit software on Intel.
It's not completely 64-bit. It's capable of running 64-bit software on a capable CPU, but much of the OS is still 32-bit. I believe you can't have 64-bit software that uses the GUI.
The current Intel OS X builds are 32-bit. Assuming Apple is indeed going to be shipping Yonah-based notebooks, this won't change (as Yonah does not support EM64T/x64.)
Compare this to the x64 versions of Windows XP/2003, which are actually 64-bit, use 64-bit drivers, etc., and can run 32-bit and 64-bit GUI software simultaneously. The shell (explorer.exe) is 64-bit, as is most of the OS software (notepad, all the services, etc.) Both 32- and 64-bit versions of IE and Win Media Player are included, for compatibility with old codecs/plugins/etc. You can run a 64-bit Internet Explorer and a 32-bit Firefox simultaneously with no issues.
Still, just about every program I use is 32-bit only or runs the same way in 32- and 64-bit.
The operating systems may be similar in that most phones let you dial numbers and hit send to make a call and then end to hang up the call. But just about every phone manufacturer has its own OS, with its own feature set, phone book, ringtone settings, etc.
For those of us that pay more attention to the phone's functionality instead of looks/form factor, the ROKR and RAZR will be very similar, whereas the RAZR compared to a Sony Ericsson would be rather different.
The operating system of the two phones is fairly similar. Beyond the ROKR's iTunes and memory card functionality, and the form factor, the phones are more or less the same.
Re:Let the web language wars begin!!!
on
PHP 5 Recipes
·
· Score: 1
No, it is not "possibly". ASP.NET 2.0 is much better at cross-browser compatibility than 1.1. I have yet to encounter an ASP.NET 2.0 control that does not have equivalent functionality in Firefox and Internet Explorer. ASP.NET 2.0 also outputs valid XHTML.
(Most of the issues in ASP.NET 1.1 were due to JavaScript code for validation and such that worked only in Internet Explorer. Even then, ASP.NET controls in other browsers would still work -- but without the added JavaScript functionality, basically meaning more postbacks were required.)
Sites that only work properly in Internet Explorer using ASP.NET are most likely this way because the site itself or controls it uses are poorly designed, not because of ASP.NET.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Ask Slashdot 2. ??? 3. Profit!
I'm sure things are getting better, but the latest version of Photoshop only runs in Mac OS X 10.2 (2002) or later, and is "recommended" for use on 10.3 (2003) or 10.4 (2005) only. I've seen a lot of "System Requirements" for Mac software that explicitly require later versions of the OS. I suspect the APIs have stabilizied greatly across the past few versions.
Bullshit! I support Google because I like and use their search engine and a few of their other services, not because they have morals. If tomorrow some other company (even Microsoft) had a vastly superior search engine, I'd switch. While responsible corporations are nice, I (and most people) care only about the company's product, services, and support: in other words, what directly affects me as a customer.
nForce RAID is a joke if you're not using XP Home or Professional. It's software RAID that can be maintained from the BIOS and is performed by nVidia's driver (instead of Microsoft's RAID driver). The only advantage of using nForce RAID is that it's possible to install Windows directly onto a nvRAID device, it's compatible with Windows XP Home, which apparently doesn't support Windows's software RAID, and gives you RAID5 (on newer nVidia chipsets) on Windows XP Professional. Otherwise, the performance is very similar to Windows's software RAID, and you're tied to an nvraid-capable motherboard (and the amount of ports available on that motherboard).
In summary, Linux users are much better off using Linux software RAID no matter what, and Windows users are much better off using software RAID (unless they're running XP Home or they want RAID5 and are running XP Pro). Debian makes it fairly easy to set up software RAID, and there are ways to get RAID5 in Windows XP Pro by hex editing a few files (and I assume any raid at all, in XP Home.)
I have a setup with eight mismatched hard drives (2x400GB Seagate, 1x250GB WD, 1x250GB Maxtor, 3x200GB Maxtor, and 1x200GB WD.) On those drives, I have 8x200GB for a 1.4GB RAID5 array, the operating system on a 2x50GB RAID1 array, and user profiles on a 2x200GB RAID1 array. I was going to install the OS on separate hard drives for better performance (using the extra space on the larger drives as backup), but decided not to for heat/space reasons.
IDispatch? Only if you're using COM. For .NET objects, late-binding uses .NET reflection.
VB.NET has "library stuff" that's for use in VB.NET only -- specifically, the "convenience" functions like IsNumeric, and new "My" features. Those features, along with late-binding and automatic type casting/conversion, are what really differentiate VB.NET from C# -- not any significant non-syntax language features. No.VB.NET is designed to be easy. The features I listed in this post basically let the programmer write less code. Automatic casting/etc. can be disabled with Option Strict. VB.NET provides additional functionality that programmers can choose to use. Or not. With Option Strict turned on, the language is very similar to C# from the programmer's point of view. Without it, programmers need to think about a lot less and can get away with doing things they normally wouldn't be able to -- which, as long as they're careful (checking that strings have valid numeric data before changing to a number format, not abusing late binding, etc.) isn't too bad. It definitely saves a bit of time, although it does make it a bit easier to make mistakes.
I can't think of anything that C# can do that VB.NET can't. VB.NET provides additional functionality over C# in My and Microsoft.VisualBasic -- but ignoring those, and with Option Stirct on, VB.NET and C# are very, very similar minus the syntax differences. At that point, the functionality is very similar and there's little reason to use one over the other beyond syntax preference.
Automatic type casting (where appropriate);
Late binding; Functions like IsNumeric, IsNothing, etc.;
the My namespace (in 2.0);
other things I can't remember right now
There are less things an inexperienced programmer has to worry about in VB.NET than in C# -- they can simply ignore what type a variable is and just use it, most of the time (e.g. SomeInt = SomeString will compile and hopefully work, if SomeString can be converted properly.) Many of the changes to VB are necessary in order to have full .NET object oriented functionality. There's a lot of only VB-specific features that make things easier and require less programming.
As for other languages, I can't really comment. There are other languages that have been ported to the CLR as well, but I have no interest in using them, and if I did, it'd probably be with a native/non-CLR implementation.
At the very least, Microsoft offers VB.NET and C# which are both equally supported by Microsoft and most vendors; they also have J# and C++, which have varying degrees of support (I can create web projects using C#, J#, or VB.NET; .NET Compact Framework projects with C# or VB.NET; .NET Windows Forms applications with any language.) All of these languages are supported out of the box with Visual Studio 2005.
Microsoft also has JScript.NET, which seems to be the bastard child of Microsoft's .NET languages -- probably intended for simple scripting use only.
Still, when someone says a product works with .NET, it's safe to assume that it's supported with at least VB.NET and C#, whereas most Java products are supported with Java as the language only.
Most phones support 1900mhz, which is the primary frequency used by T-Mobile users; as long as they stay in T-Mobile's coverage area. Cingular users that live in an area well covered by 1900mhz can also get by with 850-less phones. also, quad band phones are becoming increasingly common.
Huh? Buying unlocked phones is the best way to get up-to-date phones; otherwise, you're normally stuck with phones that have been available at least for a month elsewhere around the world.
Unlocking is not difficult once you have the code, which you can often pay for or with a small hassle get from your carrier. A much easier solution is to buy an unlocked phone, which is not difficult; you can get unlocked phones easily online, and they're starting to show up in retail stores like CompUSA as well.
I've used the Sony Ericsson Z520a and W600i, both recently released Sony Ericsson phones, and the audio quality and reception is much, much better than any Motorola I've used and the old Sony Ericssons. I haven't experienced any drops on the Cingular network (vastly superior to T-Mobile here) since I stopped using Motorola. In general, the UI is faster on Sony Ericsson and Nokia phones, especially when you try to do things like send a text message, use the web browser, or play games. It's also much easier to use.
I have not owned a Samsung phone for over 2 years, but my mom's Samsung P107's UI is very fast.
I am now using a Nokia 6682, and it's better than every other phone I've used (with the exception of the size/weight, but I don't mind.)
Running in a non-native resolution on an LCD is miserable, which is why I'm going for a 1200x800 15.4" widescreen laptop LCD.
Verizon, OTOH, doesn't like to activate any ESN (serial number) that isn't theirs, because they're "not E911 compatible". They say this regardless of the device's E911 compatibility. If you do manage to get a third-party phone activated on any CDMA carrier (Sprint, Alltel, Verizon), you'd have a very hard time getting all the network features working.
There is no VBScript in ASP.NET, at all. VBScript was the most used language for classic ASP, but C# and VB.NET (which is very different from VBScript) are the primary ASP.NET languages. There is VB.NET, but that's server side only...
ASP.NET's client side generated JavaScript code, as of 2.0, is compatible with Opera, Firefox, and most browsers. This means that the easy-to-use controls & anything else that generates JavaScript/client side script spits out JavaScript that works with all browsers. There is no ActiveX (beyond XMLHTTP, which in IE is MSXML accessed via ActiveX), and no VBScript.
(Previous versions of ASP.NET would simply not provide client-side JavaScript code for non-IE browsers. The code it provided used the IE-only document.all collection instead of document.getElementById. However, ASP.NET 2.0 no longer has these issues.)
The rest of your post is so ridiculous that I won't bother responding to it.
otherwise, it's System control panel -> Advanced -> Performance settings button -> Advanced -> Processor scheduling
It's not quite that easy. It's one thing to have a threaded, single process application; it's another thing to require two separate processes and use IPC between them.
They don't. But the entire OS, minus the 32-bit parts used to execute 32-bit software, is compiled for 64-bit. And it runs 32-bit software just fine.
Some? Try libSystem & some math binaries. Sure, you can do just about anything with fancy IPC.If the rumors are indeed true and Apple will be shipping 32-bit only Intel CPUs, Apple will eventually have mixed 32/64 bit software on Intel.
It's not completely 64-bit. It's capable of running 64-bit software on a capable CPU, but much of the OS is still 32-bit. I believe you can't have 64-bit software that uses the GUI.
The current Intel OS X builds are 32-bit. Assuming Apple is indeed going to be shipping Yonah-based notebooks, this won't change (as Yonah does not support EM64T/x64.)
Compare this to the x64 versions of Windows XP/2003, which are actually 64-bit, use 64-bit drivers, etc., and can run 32-bit and 64-bit GUI software simultaneously. The shell (explorer.exe) is 64-bit, as is most of the OS software (notepad, all the services, etc.) Both 32- and 64-bit versions of IE and Win Media Player are included, for compatibility with old codecs/plugins/etc. You can run a 64-bit Internet Explorer and a 32-bit Firefox simultaneously with no issues.
Still, just about every program I use is 32-bit only or runs the same way in 32- and 64-bit.
For those of us that pay more attention to the phone's functionality instead of looks/form factor, the ROKR and RAZR will be very similar, whereas the RAZR compared to a Sony Ericsson would be rather different.
The operating system of the two phones is fairly similar. Beyond the ROKR's iTunes and memory card functionality, and the form factor, the phones are more or less the same.
Google's "Do No Evil" motto found to be obsolete.
(Most of the issues in ASP.NET 1.1 were due to JavaScript code for validation and such that worked only in Internet Explorer. Even then, ASP.NET controls in other browsers would still work -- but without the added JavaScript functionality, basically meaning more postbacks were required.)
Sites that only work properly in Internet Explorer using ASP.NET are most likely this way because the site itself or controls it uses are poorly designed, not because of ASP.NET.