I agree allex.
There are people I know in enterprise companies
that simply don't update or secure their systems
as far as ms goes or with minimal security
because of the fact that any update has potentual
to stuff something and since time is cash they
only update the most critical and even then there is a problem.
I don't aggree with ms changing everything all the time though.
My idea was to have some sort of interface
program with older and newer interfaces but using more powerfull cores.
So you could use an ie6 or win xp or even lower interface.
You would loose some visual features and such
that that inteface would not have, etc.
I think that its time for the blind to have some
sort of over all os shell we can use that does
not matter what system at least in windows we have.
I know there is classic shell but I want something more than that.
I actually like the way linux does its uac, you
have your account and an admin account.
any real changes you need to login to that account to do the change.
at the same time the only time you need to bother with this is
is when you have to modify the system and since
most programs are loaded for the home user well.
I think a major benifit and major course with ms
is that a lot of windows apps rely on a lot of system files.
Thats ok because it means that you can really
have smaller programs but its not ok because if
something crashes or something well you are hosed with system stuff.
Also needing all those system files well who knows.
At 08:00 AM 12/20/2013, you wrote:
Hi,
Yes, I would definitely agree that Apple has always handled these
transitions very well, much better than Microsoft.
I think one reason for this is MS's large number of Enterprise
customers. Enterprises tend to migrate to newer technologies extremely
slowly, and I think this is holding MS back in many ways. There are
several bugs in the Windows API that MS has left in because fixing
them would break enterprise deployments of older software. I think
Apple's relatively lower success in the enterprise is a good thing, as
it allows them to evolve their products much more easily.
On 12/19/13, Draconis <i...@dracoent.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Just adding a bit to your comments.
>
> Apples aggressive strategy regarding software upgrades tends to keep their
> platforms more robust and stable, but comes at the cost of some backward
> compatibility.
>
> That said, though, Apple has also made it extremely easy for developers to
> keep their software current, regardless of platform. Indeed, migrating from
> PPC to Intel was a painless transition for the vast majority of developers.
> Far more trivial than trying to upgrade VB6 apps, even under the best of
> circumstances. Much has been written, in fact, on just how good Apple has
> gotten at these kinds of technological transitions, and they get smoother
> and smoother as the years go by. So far, the major transitions have been:
>
> OS Classic to OS X
> Carbon to Cocoa
> PPC to Intel
> 32 bit to 64 bit Intel
> 32 to 64 bit mobile
>
> Im hoping that Microsoft will learn from its mistakes and adopt some
> similar strategies going forward.
>
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Alex Kenny <alexkenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dark,
>>
>> I'd just like to point out some misinformation in this post, and some
>> misunderstandings about Mac and iOS.
>>
>> First, you said that iOS apps never have compatibility issues with iOS
>> upgrades. This is definitely not the case. Several apps, including
>> Solara (to bring this somewhat back to games) had some serious bugs
>> running on IOS 7, and some apps were completely unusable until the
>> developers released updates to fix compatibility.
>>
>> Second, if you're looking for an OS that places a high priority on
>> backward compatibility, you're not going to get it from OS X. Apple is
>> much more aggressive about discontinuing old API's and technologies
>> and removing them than even Microsoft is. Allow me to illustrate this.
>>
>> In 2005, Apple switched from using the Power PC processor architecture
>> to the Intel X86/X64 architecture used by Windows PC's. In order to
>> provide backward-compatibility for PowerPC applications, Apple
>> included a PpC emulator called Rosetta. The last PPC-compatible OS X
>> version was 10.5, released in 2007. Version 10.6, released in 2009,
>> was not compatible with PowerPC hardware, but stil supported Rosetta.
>> However, the next version, released in 2011, removed Rosetta support.
>>
>> Let's say that, for example, BSC Games had written their software for
>> Mac instead of Windows. If I'm not mistaken, Pipe 2 was last updated
>> in February 2005, a few months before Apple announced the Intel
>> transition. Within just six years, you would no longer be able to run
>> the game on newer versions of the OS. You could just refuse to update
>> to a newer OS, but once your machine broke, you'd have no choice but
>> to hunt down parts on eBay or be forced to stop using any incompatible
>> software.
>>
>>
>> On 12/19/13, dark <d...@xgam.org> wrote:
>>> Well tom I don't really believe there's much else to say since for me,
>>> security isn't an issue due to fhtird party software and I'd rather run
>>> avg
>>>
>>> than have the harrassment of running windows 8 and a virtual xp system.
>>> maybe that's different for you.
>>>
>>> if microsoft of course hadn't mucked up compatiblity with vb6
>>> applications
>>>
>>> and dos programs, well I'd be happy to upgrade even with relearning the
>>> interface, and indeed I imagine everyone else currently running xp would
>>> as
>>>
>>> well, so it's certain where the blaime for this situation belongs. This
>>> is
>>> actually one prime advantage Ios seems to have over windows since it
>>> doesn't break existing programs when upgrading, and is another reason
>>> I'd
>>> like to investigate the actual bennifits (if any), of mac as opposed to
>>> windows 7 since if I've got to run xp in a virtual machine anyway, well
>>> it
>>> doesn't make too much difference whether I use mac or windows.
>>>
>>> Beware the Grue!
>>>
>>> Dark.
>>
>> ---
>> Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
>> If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
>> gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
>> You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
>> http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
>> All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
>> If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the
>> list,
>> please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
>
>
> ---
> Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
> If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
> gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
> You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
> http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
> All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
> If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
> please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
>
---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
---
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/gamers@audyssey.org.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.
