It is really just Microsoft not wanting Virtualization.
Now what sense does that make? Of course they do, and more so for their corporate clients than anyone. And, if corporations are upgrading from XP to Windows 7, chances are they're upgrading hardware too which makes this largely a non-issue. It doesn't make sense to code a software solution (kludge) for something that most current and all future hardware will support, in a yet-to-be-released operating system.
Imagine that, in *some* cases you'll have to buy new hardware for an operating system that is two generations ahead of your current OS. Try putting Snow Leopard on your G5 when it comes out. Two generations and you need a whole new *architecture.* And Apple's release cycle is much shorter. Where's the outrage there?
Agreed. By requiring the VT extensions they adopt the inherent security and performance benefits. Ironically, these are the two things slashdotters love to take shots at MS for, and in typical slashdot fashion they are going to fault them wherever possible, even when their decisions *are* taking security and performance into account.
I can't believe I had to scroll through 1/4 of the comments before someone pointed out that multi-threaded != multi-process. Firefox is certainly, without a doubt, already multithreaded.
You seem to be confusing multi-threaded with multi-process. Erlang won't easily overcome the architectural challenges in creating a multi-process application. Yes, it is well suited for highly threaded apps, but these are two completely different beasts.
Bravo, way to dodge the point - That you have no idea what you're talking about given your original statement. You're right though, the Windows audio sub-system was never designed to be used for and is not suited for professional audio. But how does this make it broken?
The motherboard (A7V133) is from 2001. The Duron processor is from 2003.
I only have 896 MB of RAM
So what you're saying is that Ubuntu runs great on a motherboard from 2001 a processor from 2003 and far more ram than came standard in 2001. This doesn't exactly counter my point.
What I did claim is the the ASIO writers took great pains to avoid using the other options.
Nicely played! Except that you were implying that the writers of the application you run for audio took great pains to avoid windows built in audio capabilities, by *using* ASIO. Do I have to quote you again?
The application I run is for audio. The writers took great pains to avoid using the in built audio capabilities of 98, XP, Vista and 7, *****by using the ASIO driver system***** which is as platform independent as possible, and avoids as much of Microsoft's code as possible.
You keep digging yourself further and further into a hole, showing just how little you understand about the subject. No "normal" person needs the latency or fidelity that ASIO provides unless they are listening to lossless formats and have speakers with a high enough dynamic range to produce the additional range and clarity that ASIO provides. From an application programmers standpoint, DirectSounds offers FAR better abstraction and support than ASIO, which is why you would *never* find ASIO support outside of professional audio software.
Well lets see, apparently you thought nobody else with knowledge on the subject would respond and just accept what you said as truth. Lets look at how you originally phrased it:
The writers took great pains to avoid using the in built audio capabilities of 98, XP, Vista and 7
That is WRONG. They did not avoid using any built in audio capabilities -- Every single professional audio application I've used supports DirectSound. However, being PROFESSIONAL audio applications, they *also* support ASIO for low latency operation. Besides that, you must have specific ASIO drivers, which most vendors don't supply. Why? Because programming against DirectSound is far easier, with the trade-off in latency which is a non-factor outside of the professional audio world. Again, nice try maniupulating the truth to spread fud.
It seems you completely forgot about the entire DRM/TCP crap
Where is your proof that such a thing exists? This is a talking point born out of the fact that people will just "accept" that its true. Show me some substance, not just baseless claims.
The writers took great pains to avoid using the in built audio capabilities of 98, XP, Vista and 7, by using the ASIO driver system which is as platform independent as possible, and avoids as much of Microsoft's code as possible.
This is a downright lie, or at least extreme ignorance on your part.
The reason they do this is because the Microsoft equivalent is unreliable, limited, and changes with every OS revision.
WRONG. The reason they do this is for performance. By bypassing the Windows audio layer, latency is greatly improved and has higher fidelity as ASIO output is bit identical. Your program also supports non-ASIO functionality, I know because I use Cubase. The only difference is, your latency is much worse.
No, Vista got slapped with the reputation for being a worthless piece of shite by, hmm, let's see, being a worthless piece of shite.
No, it got a bad start by breaking the driver model. Third party drivers were still immature and unstable. That has obviously changed, and since Windows 7 uses the same driver model, launch will be much smoother.
Vista SP3 PLUS Marketing hype PLUS Lipstick on a Pig... doesn't make it much faster.
You're absolutely right. The thing is though, Vista is a good operating system that is plagued by a stigma that is largely persisted by technology sites that, by default and in some sort of nerd conformance insist that all Microsoft products are garbage, an opinion formed with disregard to objectivity. By rebranding Windows Vista as Windows 7 and getting some tech sites to view it in a positive light, the layperson who holds any nerds technology opinion as inherent truth will be more apt to try and view it in a positive light as well.
Shouldn't it be expected that Vista/7 would run slower than XP which was initially developed during a time when hardware was much slower? It's not bloat, it's taking advantage of current hardware to implement new technologies. Go throw Ubuntu on a computer from 2001 and then go cry about how Linux has gotten slower. What the hell is the difference? Get off my lawn?
does this mean that console browsers[1] can't be standards compliant?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
I'm no web developer; what's the exact significance of the Acid test?
To make sure things render consistently across browsers, to make sure js behaves consistently across browsers.
Surely you can offer the same ecmascript feature as everyone else, and ignore the css and have something that works?
I can't even begin to wonder how this would work. Why would you even want this? A text browser is a text browser, as the web evolves it is becoming more irrelevant as the web becomes more interactive.
Heck I can't explain why they're so excited, but they are.
I used to have a deep burning hatred for Microsoft, but that has since changed because the quality of their products has improved dramatically, to the point where I am excited to see what they are going to do next. One example I like to cite is when I made the switch from developing Java to.NET, C# specifically. I initially thought that C# was a cheap copy of Java with some minor syntactic differences, but after just 6 months I have come to love it, and loathe the idea of having to develop in Java again. I've also been impressed with the Xbox 360 and their online service, and despite the stigma Vista has been a great OS for me, actually crashing for the first time on me in a year last night.
The Oracle acquisition is like a big second chance for Java
Agreed. It would be nice to see Java evolve. Instead it's remained stagnant and is likely to become the next COBOL, something people will dread writing in for the next 30 years while other languages continue to evolve. C# started where Java left off, and is now leaps and bounds beyond Java in nearly every aspect. I think it was pretty negligent on Sun's part to let it get to this point.
Slashdot Mirror
It is really just Microsoft not wanting Virtualization.
Now what sense does that make? Of course they do, and more so for their corporate clients than anyone. And, if corporations are upgrading from XP to Windows 7, chances are they're upgrading hardware too which makes this largely a non-issue. It doesn't make sense to code a software solution (kludge) for something that most current and all future hardware will support, in a yet-to-be-released operating system.
I love now how slashdotters are faulting Microsoft for going the safe, secure, performance-minded route.
Imagine that, in *some* cases you'll have to buy new hardware for an operating system that is two generations ahead of your current OS. Try putting Snow Leopard on your G5 when it comes out. Two generations and you need a whole new *architecture.* And Apple's release cycle is much shorter. Where's the outrage there?
Agreed. By requiring the VT extensions they adopt the inherent security and performance benefits. Ironically, these are the two things slashdotters love to take shots at MS for, and in typical slashdot fashion they are going to fault them wherever possible, even when their decisions *are* taking security and performance into account.
I can't believe I had to scroll through 1/4 of the comments before someone pointed out that multi-threaded != multi-process. Firefox is certainly, without a doubt, already multithreaded.
You seem to be confusing multi-threaded with multi-process. Erlang won't easily overcome the architectural challenges in creating a multi-process application. Yes, it is well suited for highly threaded apps, but these are two completely different beasts.
Bravo, way to dodge the point - That you have no idea what you're talking about given your original statement. You're right though, the Windows audio sub-system was never designed to be used for and is not suited for professional audio. But how does this make it broken?
The motherboard (A7V133) is from 2001. The Duron processor is from 2003.
I only have 896 MB of RAM
So what you're saying is that Ubuntu runs great on a motherboard from 2001 a processor from 2003 and far more ram than came standard in 2001. This doesn't exactly counter my point.
What I did claim is the the ASIO writers took great pains to avoid using the other options.
Nicely played! Except that you were implying that the writers of the application you run for audio took great pains to avoid windows built in audio capabilities, by *using* ASIO. Do I have to quote you again?
The application I run is for audio. The writers took great pains to avoid using the in built audio capabilities of 98, XP, Vista and 7, *****by using the ASIO driver system***** which is as platform independent as possible, and avoids as much of Microsoft's code as possible.
You keep digging yourself further and further into a hole, showing just how little you understand about the subject. No "normal" person needs the latency or fidelity that ASIO provides unless they are listening to lossless formats and have speakers with a high enough dynamic range to produce the additional range and clarity that ASIO provides. From an application programmers standpoint, DirectSounds offers FAR better abstraction and support than ASIO, which is why you would *never* find ASIO support outside of professional audio software.
Nice try though.
How does that make my statement wrong?
Well lets see, apparently you thought nobody else with knowledge on the subject would respond and just accept what you said as truth. Lets look at how you originally phrased it:
The writers took great pains to avoid using the in built audio capabilities of 98, XP, Vista and 7
That is WRONG. They did not avoid using any built in audio capabilities -- Every single professional audio application I've used supports DirectSound. However, being PROFESSIONAL audio applications, they *also* support ASIO for low latency operation. Besides that, you must have specific ASIO drivers, which most vendors don't supply. Why? Because programming against DirectSound is far easier, with the trade-off in latency which is a non-factor outside of the professional audio world. Again, nice try maniupulating the truth to spread fud.
It seems you completely forgot about the entire DRM/TCP crap
Where is your proof that such a thing exists? This is a talking point born out of the fact that people will just "accept" that its true. Show me some substance, not just baseless claims.
as someone who used Vista from the RC days right until months after the release
Some of it was fixed in SP1 but I didn't try it for long enough to find out what... I haven't even considered running Vista since and never will.
At least you admit that you have no desire to form an objective opinion.
The writers took great pains to avoid using the in built audio capabilities of 98, XP, Vista and 7, by using the ASIO driver system which is as platform independent as possible, and avoids as much of Microsoft's code as possible.
This is a downright lie, or at least extreme ignorance on your part.
The reason they do this is because the Microsoft equivalent is unreliable, limited, and changes with every OS revision.
WRONG. The reason they do this is for performance. By bypassing the Windows audio layer, latency is greatly improved and has higher fidelity as ASIO output is bit identical. Your program also supports non-ASIO functionality, I know because I use Cubase. The only difference is, your latency is much worse.
Nice try though.
No, Vista got slapped with the reputation for being a worthless piece of shite by, hmm, let's see, being a worthless piece of shite.
No, it got a bad start by breaking the driver model. Third party drivers were still immature and unstable. That has obviously changed, and since Windows 7 uses the same driver model, launch will be much smoother.
Vista SP3 PLUS Marketing hype PLUS Lipstick on a Pig... doesn't make it much faster.
You're absolutely right. The thing is though, Vista is a good operating system that is plagued by a stigma that is largely persisted by technology sites that, by default and in some sort of nerd conformance insist that all Microsoft products are garbage, an opinion formed with disregard to objectivity. By rebranding Windows Vista as Windows 7 and getting some tech sites to view it in a positive light, the layperson who holds any nerds technology opinion as inherent truth will be more apt to try and view it in a positive light as well.
Shouldn't it be expected that Vista/7 would run slower than XP which was initially developed during a time when hardware was much slower? It's not bloat, it's taking advantage of current hardware to implement new technologies. Go throw Ubuntu on a computer from 2001 and then go cry about how Linux has gotten slower. What the hell is the difference? Get off my lawn?
Now that's what I call a sticky situation.
does this mean that console browsers[1] can't be standards compliant?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
I'm no web developer; what's the exact significance of the Acid test?
To make sure things render consistently across browsers, to make sure js behaves consistently across browsers.
Surely you can offer the same ecmascript feature as everyone else, and ignore the css and have something that works?
I can't even begin to wonder how this would work. Why would you even want this? A text browser is a text browser, as the web evolves it is becoming more irrelevant as the web becomes more interactive.
Gecko has more baggage than Madonna.
Must suck, really, that the @gnu.org in your email address forces you to use inferior software in the name of religion.
It amazes me what passes for funny around here.
Heck I can't explain why they're so excited, but they are.
I used to have a deep burning hatred for Microsoft, but that has since changed because the quality of their products has improved dramatically, to the point where I am excited to see what they are going to do next. One example I like to cite is when I made the switch from developing Java to .NET, C# specifically. I initially thought that C# was a cheap copy of Java with some minor syntactic differences, but after just 6 months I have come to love it, and loathe the idea of having to develop in Java again. I've also been impressed with the Xbox 360 and their online service, and despite the stigma Vista has been a great OS for me, actually crashing for the first time on me in a year last night.
I've developed in java longer than I have C#. And yourself?
The Oracle acquisition is like a big second chance for Java
Agreed. It would be nice to see Java evolve. Instead it's remained stagnant and is likely to become the next COBOL, something people will dread writing in for the next 30 years while other languages continue to evolve. C# started where Java left off, and is now leaps and bounds beyond Java in nearly every aspect. I think it was pretty negligent on Sun's part to let it get to this point.
Granted. If they're targeting the netbook market, then I would say it is time not wasted.