Yeah, and when someone *did* make that, you'd say "it's too expensive" and go right back to piracy. We all saw that exact thing happen with the iTunes Music Store when that was new.
I think pirates post things like this to make them feel vindicated when they know, deep down, they're doing something wrong.
Thanks for reporting back and being honest. Nobody is going to claim that IE8 is the best browser ever, but FUD is FUD and I think the Internet at large benefits if we all work to correct it.
I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5. I would much rather hear about how it will fully support HTML 4 and CSS 2. I'll even settle for its supporting 95% of HTML 4 and CSS 2.
Does any browser 100% support CSS2? I don't think so...
IE already supports HTML 4 Strict and CSS2.1.
Your gripes are a little out-of-date. Try actually using IE8 for awhile, then come back and post.
To use someone else's example of linked lists, I could work through a doubly-linked list insert routine immediately when the idea of a list made of Node objects was introduced to me. In pseudocode because I didn't actually know any programming language. And I came up with the idea of a doubly-linked list before the prof even introduced it. How do I put that kind of thing on my resume?
Yeah, but before that it was VBScript (or JScript if you prefer)... he's two entire scripting language generations behind at this point. VBScript was made for, what, NT4? Seriously.
Reading this post was like entering the Time Tunnel. It should read, "I learned one technology in 1988 and I'm completely incapable of learning anything new, so even though there are undoubtedly much better alternatives in 2010, I'm going to use my 1988 knowledge anyway. And I'm asking here as to not sound completely pig-headed."
This thing has gone much, much further then you ever will in all the cars you'll ever drive, under conditions that would destroy any car you've ever owned full stop.
Laugh if you want, but wait until your Boeing airliners need spare parts, and you want the latest video game console from Nintendo of America-- then who'll be laughing! (Me. Unless I'm dead from the quake.)
Please, here in Seattle, we can't even act on getting the Alaskan Way Viaduct replaced, and we know for a fact that it'll collapse in a 6.9 or higher. It's the exact same construction of this beauty you probably remember from 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:022srUSGSCyprusVia.jpg. Our slow-ass bureaucracy is going to cost lives.
I'm a photographer backing up MY OWN WORK. And still paying a copyright fee because I May have copied. Lame fucking shit. American lobbyists stay the fuck away from my parliament!
You blame the US for that? I hate to break this to you but... we don't have that law.
How about instead of wasting resources giving the world a streaming feed of them polluting the ocean they spend that time and money on actually stopping it.
Because obviously those two things are mutually-exclusive.
DOS applications don't "release the CPU". They have no concept of "releasing the CPU". There's no WaitNextEvent() API call in DOS (like there is in Mac Classic.) What happens is that the OS gloms on to interrupt handlers and forcibly takes the CPU from it. There's no cooperation involved, the DOS app isn't even aware that such cooperation could exist.
Me, I call that preemptive.
Anyway, congratulations, you've caught up to the debate.:)
As another reply said, I'm going by Raymond Chen's opinion on the matter. Also from the horse's mouth, and he is somehow of the opinion that the DOS multitasking was preemptive.
The real meat and potatos to me, being someone who wrote applications for Mac Classic (OMG I'M A DEVELOPER!? AND AN OLD-SCHOOL DEVELOPER FROM WHEN THIS WAS STILL RELEVANT?!), is that since the DOS applications have: 1) No knowledge of when they're yielding time 2) No control over when time is yielded 3) The ability to run in configurations where they are in sole control of the machine (a true cooperative program would not be able to do this) that those DOS applications are *not* cooperating with the OS. In fact, they're refusing to cooperate in a quite stubborn way.
There's no cooperation there, so it can't be cooperative. The application is preempted, so it must be preemptive. This is miles away from the cooperative Mac Classic "hey, why don't you give some time to other apps and get back to me in a few ticks?" system.
I'd actually much rather trust Raymond Chen's opinion on the matter, since he was so close to the developers and is an expert in all things Windows OS related. You are welcome to disagree with me/us.
But you're not welcome to be a condescending asshole: if your CS program taught you about preemptive vs. cooperative (and mine did not cover that material) (OMG I'VE BEEN IN A CS PROGRAM?!), they've just taught you with a position contrary to mine. That does not make me wrong, or you right. Hell, CS programs teach a lot of wrong things... mine was mostly useless by the time I hit the job market.
Oh, and FYI: Pointing out you're being a condescending asshole doesn't make you less of one. It just means you're a jerk as well, since now you're being a condescending asshole on purpose instead of on accident.
And you are welcome to believe whatever you like, but you are merely asserting what you want to believe. I am explaining how it works.
I'm not arguing that's not how it works, I'm saying that's still a preemptive multitasking system.
Now, you might disagree that the scheme outlined above is, in fact, preemptive-- fine! We disagree on terminology. (Although I'd like to know exactly what you call it if not "preemptive"-- don't seem to have presented any alternate term.)
But don't just keep explaining it over and over and over and expect the debate to change somehow.
By "interrupt" he really meant the equivalent of a DOS call to the kernel, which was done with the "int21" instruction, not an async interrupt from a hardware device such as a clock.
Ok? And that makes it not preemptive... how?
You didn't get around to actually explaining how it isn't preemptive. It doesn't matter whether it gets preempted from a timer, or from a interrupt handler. Either way, the program is preempted, yes?
Look, DOS programs are barely aware of the OS, they don't have any API or instruction designed to yield time to other processes, there is literally *no way* to run two DOS programs without preemptive multitasking. It can not be done.
I find it hard to believe they made the DOS box preemptive but made Windows programs (where they had a lot more control over what the program was capable of doing) cooperative. Therefore I strongly believe you are wrong and the grandparent is correct.
"You're wrong. It's not preemptive because [describes preemptive scheduling scheme]"
I hate to break it to you, but since those DOS programs don't control when time slices come and go, it's preemptive. Like I freakin' said in the first place.
In fact, I have absolutely no idea why you even wrote that, except maybe you wanted to demonstrate that you don't really know what "preemptive multitasking" means?
I want to rewrite my old code at work... But only for one reason: I am a lot better programmer now than 5 years ago. And 5 years ago, I was a lot better than 10 years ago. And in 5 more years, I have no doubt I'll feel the same way.
Code I write today is cleaner, easier to read, more efficient, and easier to work with for new projects.
And what if your company started a re-write, and you left 2 weeks in? What would happen then?
(Or are you a one-man shop, in which case pretty much nothing in this thread applies to you.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and when someone *did* make that, you'd say "it's too expensive" and go right back to piracy. We all saw that exact thing happen with the iTunes Music Store when that was new.
I think pirates post things like this to make them feel vindicated when they know, deep down, they're doing something wrong.
Thanks for reporting back and being honest. Nobody is going to claim that IE8 is the best browser ever, but FUD is FUD and I think the Internet at large benefits if we all work to correct it.
I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5. I would much rather hear about how it will fully support HTML 4 and CSS 2. I'll even settle for its supporting 95% of HTML 4 and CSS 2.
Does any browser 100% support CSS2? I don't think so...
IE already supports HTML 4 Strict and CSS2.1.
Your gripes are a little out-of-date. Try actually using IE8 for awhile, then come back and post.
To use someone else's example of linked lists, I could work through a doubly-linked list insert routine immediately when the idea of a list made of Node objects was introduced to me. In pseudocode because I didn't actually know any programming language. And I came up with the idea of a doubly-linked list before the prof even introduced it. How do I put that kind of thing on my resume?
Just put a sentence at the bottom that reads:
"Complete braggart, and better than you."
You do realize this is the Games section, right?
How could you possibly have even a passing interest in games, and not be aware of Project Natal?
Object piping is not better, it is worse.
Because...?
(This got a +2 informative? Christ. There's zero information there, mods, just one opinion.)
Yeah, but before that it was VBScript (or JScript if you prefer)... he's two entire scripting language generations behind at this point. VBScript was made for, what, NT4? Seriously.
Reading this post was like entering the Time Tunnel. It should read, "I learned one technology in 1988 and I'm completely incapable of learning anything new, so even though there are undoubtedly much better alternatives in 2010, I'm going to use my 1988 knowledge anyway. And I'm asking here as to not sound completely pig-headed."
This thing has gone much, much further then you ever will in all the cars you'll ever drive, under conditions that would destroy any car you've ever owned full stop.
What about KITT from Knight Rider?
Wow. This is a marvel of unintelligible nonsense. You are to be congratulated, sir.
Laugh if you want, but wait until your Boeing airliners need spare parts, and you want the latest video game console from Nintendo of America-- then who'll be laughing! (Me. Unless I'm dead from the quake.)
Please, here in Seattle, we can't even act on getting the Alaskan Way Viaduct replaced, and we know for a fact that it'll collapse in a 6.9 or higher. It's the exact same construction of this beauty you probably remember from 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:022srUSGSCyprusVia.jpg. Our slow-ass bureaucracy is going to cost lives.
Well, hell. I could text you that right now. What's your number?
Good! I'm not the only one then. Max Von Sidow was awesome.
THAT MOVIE ALSO STARS BRIAN BLESSED!!!!!
They also charge a buck for the iPhone app. You'd think if they really cared about people adopting it, they'd make the app free.
I'm a photographer backing up MY OWN WORK. And still paying a copyright fee because I May have copied. Lame fucking shit. American lobbyists stay the fuck away from my parliament!
You blame the US for that? I hate to break this to you but... we don't have that law.
How about instead of wasting resources giving the world a streaming feed of them polluting the ocean they spend that time and money on actually stopping it.
Because obviously those two things are mutually-exclusive.
Someone want to explain to me what makes this "Interesting?" Or for that matter, what makes it at all relevant...
This is the disagreement.
DOS applications don't "release the CPU". They have no concept of "releasing the CPU". There's no WaitNextEvent() API call in DOS (like there is in Mac Classic.) What happens is that the OS gloms on to interrupt handlers and forcibly takes the CPU from it. There's no cooperation involved, the DOS app isn't even aware that such cooperation could exist.
Me, I call that preemptive.
Anyway, congratulations, you've caught up to the debate. :)
As another reply said, I'm going by Raymond Chen's opinion on the matter. Also from the horse's mouth, and he is somehow of the opinion that the DOS multitasking was preemptive.
The real meat and potatos to me, being someone who wrote applications for Mac Classic (OMG I'M A DEVELOPER!? AND AN OLD-SCHOOL DEVELOPER FROM WHEN THIS WAS STILL RELEVANT?!), is that since the DOS applications have:
1) No knowledge of when they're yielding time
2) No control over when time is yielded
3) The ability to run in configurations where they are in sole control of the machine (a true cooperative program would not be able to do this)
that those DOS applications are *not* cooperating with the OS. In fact, they're refusing to cooperate in a quite stubborn way.
There's no cooperation there, so it can't be cooperative. The application is preempted, so it must be preemptive. This is miles away from the cooperative Mac Classic "hey, why don't you give some time to other apps and get back to me in a few ticks?" system.
I'd actually much rather trust Raymond Chen's opinion on the matter, since he was so close to the developers and is an expert in all things Windows OS related. You are welcome to disagree with me/us.
But you're not welcome to be a condescending asshole: if your CS program taught you about preemptive vs. cooperative (and mine did not cover that material) (OMG I'VE BEEN IN A CS PROGRAM?!), they've just taught you with a position contrary to mine. That does not make me wrong, or you right. Hell, CS programs teach a lot of wrong things... mine was mostly useless by the time I hit the job market.
Oh, and FYI: Pointing out you're being a condescending asshole doesn't make you less of one. It just means you're a jerk as well, since now you're being a condescending asshole on purpose instead of on accident.
And you are welcome to believe whatever you like, but you are merely asserting what you want to believe. I am explaining how it works.
I'm not arguing that's not how it works, I'm saying that's still a preemptive multitasking system.
Now, you might disagree that the scheme outlined above is, in fact, preemptive-- fine! We disagree on terminology. (Although I'd like to know exactly what you call it if not "preemptive"-- don't seem to have presented any alternate term.)
But don't just keep explaining it over and over and over and expect the debate to change somehow.
He did not describe preemtive multitasking.
Yes, he did.
By "interrupt" he really meant the equivalent of a DOS call to the kernel, which was done with the "int21" instruction, not an async interrupt from a hardware device such as a clock.
Ok? And that makes it not preemptive... how?
You didn't get around to actually explaining how it isn't preemptive. It doesn't matter whether it gets preempted from a timer, or from a interrupt handler. Either way, the program is preempted, yes?
Look, DOS programs are barely aware of the OS, they don't have any API or instruction designed to yield time to other processes, there is literally *no way* to run two DOS programs without preemptive multitasking. It can not be done.
I find it hard to believe they made the DOS box preemptive but made Windows programs (where they had a lot more control over what the program was capable of doing) cooperative. Therefore I strongly believe you are wrong and the grandparent is correct.
You're welcome to believe whatever you like.
"You're wrong. It's not preemptive because [describes preemptive scheduling scheme]"
I hate to break it to you, but since those DOS programs don't control when time slices come and go, it's preemptive. Like I freakin' said in the first place.
In fact, I have absolutely no idea why you even wrote that, except maybe you wanted to demonstrate that you don't really know what "preemptive multitasking" means?
It's impossible for DOS apps to run preemptively, since they don't yield time to the OS.
The article is correct, the multitasking for DOS sessions was preemptive.
Is there a point to this story, other than "hur hur let's make fun of Microsoft! hur hur hur!"
Now if you found someone still using it today, that might be newsworthy.
I disagree.
I want to rewrite my old code at work... But only for one reason: I am a lot better programmer now than 5 years ago. And 5 years ago, I was a lot better than 10 years ago. And in 5 more years, I have no doubt I'll feel the same way.
Code I write today is cleaner, easier to read, more efficient, and easier to work with for new projects.
And what if your company started a re-write, and you left 2 weeks in? What would happen then?
(Or are you a one-man shop, in which case pretty much nothing in this thread applies to you.)