|
Good to be warned, and looking forward to it 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: OS2/warp
Must... not... ACTIVATE FLASHBACK. WARNING: Old fart war story ahead.
A far time ago, in a galaxy long, long away...
I developed an OS/2 device driver for a piece of custom hardware in one of our products. Over four years of feature-metastasis and much refactoring(*) later, it was 18,000+ lines of assembly language. This piece of hardware controlled the signals we use to measure position in our commercial inkjet printing systems[^]. Debugging this driver often involved unrolling hundreds of feet of paper down the manufacturing area aisle and crawling on hands and knees from one end to the other, verifying that things printed properly.
Fortunately I now do the UI's on our products, and can work in an upright and locked position most of the time.
(*) Yes Virginia, you can refactor assembly language code. It's just like juggling razor blades, only messier.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: I developed an OS/2 device driver
Not something many people can claim 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
We have a support group that meets on alternate Tuesdays.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft may be the software company everybody loves to hate, but most of the PCs in the world run their O/S. If it were that terrible, it never would have become the success it is.
In the '80s and early '90s, there were a few competing O/Ses out there. I particularly liked OS/2 3.0 aka Warp; it was rock-stable, and really did run DOS/16-bit Windows software better than DOS/Windows. It even ran some 32-bit Windows software via Win32s. Unfortunately, it failed in the marketplace.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Really, windows' success is pure momentum.
It exists so the software's built and people get used to it all. So if it upgrades and they don't like it, they still will continue with it because they have the software and so on. A version of windows, 'recently' (i.e. Vista) tried to not support the old software. Just one toke over the line in terms of customer acceptance - so it failed. Not just a quality decisions, but having to buy all that new stuff.
The same model is relied upon by many businesses. Once you're "in", it's a good chance you'll stay in rather than (1) cancel when the trial period is over, or (2) have to renew or re-appply elsewhere (such as auto insurance).
Well calculated bites on the eggs will just be scratched - but most people won't change their underwear just because of an itch. (some opening I left you with that comment!).
It's big because it's big. For new platforms (like cell phones) - not such a winner.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: It's big because it's big. For new platforms (like cell phones) - not such a winner.
I mostly agree.
The Windows interface, with its emphasis on the Desktop model, is IMO unsuited for (relatively) small devices such as mobile phones or tablets. Microsoft's marketing department really fell down on the job trying to promote Windows CE and its sequels. They also failed with every one their "Windows everywhere" initiatives (Win8 with Metro/Modern/...) for that reason.
Microsoft developed a winning (albeit inferior) technology in the '90s, and should stick with their strong points - Software for PCs of various stripes, servers, and now the Cloud (whatever that is ).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
VHS dominated the marketplace over Betamax but it was, by all accounts, the inferior product. It didn't take long for it to get to the point where if you wanted to watch a film, you were only likely to find it on VHS.
I'd be hugely surprised if no-one's ever come up with a better (non-Apple) 'phone/tablet OS, but I use Android - even though I dislike it massively - simply because it has gained that kind of dominance.
I don't really feel the same way about Windows. It may have its annoyances but it does its job quite nicely on the whole and can't be seen in that same kind of "it's barely adequate but we'll have to live with it because that's what's out there" way as VHS and Android.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: VHS dominated the marketplace over Betamax but it was, by all accounts, the inferior product.
Betamax failed mostly because of poor marketing decisions by Sony (no licensing of the format, short recording times, etc.). VHS succeeded because JVC did not make those mistakes. By he time Sony realized its errors, it was too late. Videotape format war - Wikipedia
A similar thing happened in the OS/2 vs Windows wars of the '90s.
PeejayAdams wrote: I'd be hugely surprised if no-one's ever come up with a better (non-Apple) 'phone/tablet OS
I'd be hugely surprised if someone did.
Google's masterstroke of providing an entire phone/tablet O/S for free - just write your own hardware drivers - enabled them to do what they planned all along, which was to collect data they could sell on practically everyone. It also made it uneconomical for almost anyone (unless you have Apple's or Microsoft's deep pockets) to write a phone/tablet O/S.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Highness took an entirely new meaning.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the queen is not at all related to this person. And you cannot blame Ms Markle for the behaviour (in fact quite legal) of some distant(ish) relative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No she won't - she's not related to either of the people getting married.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Shh, dont say that, it's treason!
|
|
|
|
|
Car crash? The guy's just been gifted a gilt-edged marketing opportunity.
"Pennies from Heaven" would be a more apt description.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Car crash for the Queen.
Good god she must be wondering what happened to that protected world of elite people, people whose lives were private, whose affairs were discreet, who married into the same club of people who understood those rules, generation after generation.
Diana changed those rules, and now her son has married someone of mixed race with some very colourful relatives!
|
|
|
|
|
Surely to God, pretty well every person on the planet is of mixed race. It's the healthy alternative to inbreeding.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I'm half Scottish and half English and probably some other stuff (Viking, etc.) further back so I am of "mixed race" just like nearly everybody else. People only mention it (wrongly) as a "bad thing" when the skin colour is a bit different - bah!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Car crash?
Not unless she has an affair and then divorces him
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the topless pics of her yesterday - I can see what Harry sees in her.
|
|
|
|
|
She has been kissed by some famous actor too, when they were acting together. She has certainly got around.
I applauded William for marrying a commoner, Middleton is about as common as you get, but Harry looks to have stretched the limits of who and what a royal can marry to completely new limits! 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
