 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> it's just too
> hard/impossible to get a network stack on DOS?
OTOH, why bother when you can instead install an OS which is specifically
designed for that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> it's just too
>> hard/impossible to get a network stack on DOS?
>
> OTOH, why bother when you can instead install an OS which is specifically
> designed for that?
Dunno, ask the people at Canon who make the digital cameras...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> it's just too
> >> hard/impossible to get a network stack on DOS?
> >
> > OTOH, why bother when you can instead install an OS which is specifically
> > designed for that?
> Dunno, ask the people at Canon who make the digital cameras...
Canon develops network stacks for DOS?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/26 06:08:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The C declaration of
>> unsigned int X;
>> does not allocate an integer variable.
>
>> You wouldn't need signed/unsigned conversion rules if you were working
>> with integers instead of int's.
>
> I may be unusually dense here, but I still can't understand.
>
For most of us, int == INTeger!
The coice of using "int", an abbreviation, instead of "integer" is a choice of
the conceptors of the language, probably to allows you to save a few keystrokes.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/25 17:29:
>> Do you even remember when WinXP first came out? And how everybody has
>> utterly horrified at the minimum hardware requirements to make it
>> function acceptably? It's been around so long now that everybody seems
>> to have forgotten that XP takes four times as much hardware to do the
>> same thing as older OSes managed to do quite happily...
>
> I wonder if you could even install XP in a 386, in any shape or form.
> Any modern linux distro should be installable in a 386. Even X might work
> if you use a superlight window manager, so you will not even be confined
> to the command prompt.
>
> (Why would anyone even want to install linux in a 386? Well, if you
> have one laying around, it makes a supercheap firewall or small-scale ftp
> server, for instance.)
>
During the Vista's beta testing, some foolhardy guy managed to install AND run
Vista on a 386 (or maybe even only a 286) with only 16Mb of RAM and a large HD.
Must have been slow as HELL, and trashing the drive non-stop, but it DID work,
if only "sort of"!
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you find yourself daydreaming for
hours on end what it would be like to go back in time and give Michealangelo a
decent raytracer.
Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/25 14:18:
> Do you even remember when WinXP first came out? And how everybody has
> utterly horrified at the minimum hardware requirements to make it
> function acceptably? It's been around so long now that everybody seems
> to have forgotten that XP takes four times as much hardware to do the
> same thing as older OSes managed to do quite happily...
>
Do you remember when windows 3 came out? Peoples complained that it took to much
space and could'nt run from floppys. A little after HDs started to become
afordable and to come preinstalled on every PCs. Many said that is was horribly
huge and bloated.
Do you remember when windows 95 came out? Peoples complained about how much RAM
it needed and that many video cards where not up to the task. Not just that, but
LOOK at all the disk space it needs!!! Many said that is was horribly huge and
bloated.
Similar comments where issued when windows 98 came out!
I saw this comment: "Windows Vista is like Windows 95, 12 years later."
Take a look at Apple's products. They to, received similar comments with each
new OS releases. Try runing MacOS 5 on the latest G5! Or MacOS X on a PowerPC
(prior to G2)!
The same can be sayd about Unix/Linux.
The thing is that as the hardware evolve, OS and softwares do the same, and
backware compatibility can't be maintained/guaranted for more that 1 or 2
hardware generations.
As the hardware can do more, the OS follows suit and DO more. As rhe RAM become
cheaper, softwares grow to use that RAM to do more.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Bet my floppy's bigger than yours.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:08:57 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The C declaration of
>> unsigned int X;
>> does not allocate an integer variable.
>
>> You wouldn't need signed/unsigned conversion rules if you were working
>> with integers instead of int's.
>
> I may be unusually dense here, but I still can't understand.
I am fairly certain he simply means that the range of 'int' in C++ is only
a subset of Z (the set of integers). Similarly, the range of 'unsigned
int' is only a subset of N. The data types in C++ do not model Z or N,
even though they are superficially similar in some respects.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> Do you remember when windows 3 came out?
No. That was back before I started using PCs.
> Do you remember when windows 95 came out? Peoples complained about how
> much RAM it needed and that many video cards where not up to the task.
> Not just that, but LOOK at all the disk space it needs!!! Many said that
> is was horribly huge and bloated.
Can't help feeling they'd be right...
> The thing is that as the hardware evolve, OS and softwares do the same,
> and backware compatibility can't be maintained/guaranted for more that 1
> or 2 hardware generations.
> As the hardware can do more, the OS follows suit and DO more. As rhe RAM
> become cheaper, softwares grow to use that RAM to do more.
The underlying assumption seems to be that to do more requires more
hardware.
Sure, manipulating an 8 megapixel photo takes a lot of RAM. But what
about while you're *not* manipulating an 8 megapixel photo? Why should
it require any more RAM then? (Not to mention CPU time...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
> I am fairly certain he simply means that the range of 'int' in C++ is only
> a subset of Z (the set of integers).
I would like to see the compiler which manages to handle the entire set
of integers.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Sadly, M$ has managed to convince the general population that it is
>> "normal" for computers to not work propperly. If you bought a washing
>> machine and it didn't work properly, you'd take it back and demand a
>> refund. But when people buy a computer and the software on it doesn't
>> quite work properly, people just think this is "normal" and
>> "acceptable". This, truely, is M$'s contribution to the field of
>> computer science.
>
> Yeh you keep going on about how bad MS are, but I just don't see this.
> Our whole company (as do many others) run on MS servers and MS run
> desktops. We really don't see the level of problems you describe. Last
> problem we had in the office was when IT installed a buggy print driver
> on the print server, it caused Word (well, any application that had
> print functionality) to crash randomly. Of course everyone blamed MS,
> but then IT fixed the print driver and everything has been fine since.
> I don't even remember the last time Word or any Office program crashed.
I don't know when Word last crashed either. This is because it happens
so frequently that our users don't even bother calling me any more.
(Because they know I can't do anything to make it stop crashing.)
Similarly, of the 50 PCs we have, every single week at least one of them
suffers a blue screen of death. (That's not counting the PC at my desk -
I think *that* one is actually faulty...)
Our servers, fortunately, *are* more or less reliable. (Except for that
one I have to reboot every 3 months... Every day it runs slightly
slower, until eventually I have to reboot it to make it service user
requests. Don't know what's up with that.)
Don't even get me started about printers...
(Yes, naff drivers are usually to blame. But I still maintain that it's
M$'s attitude of "quality isn't important" that makes people think they
can get away with selling hardware with naff drivers...)
>> I *was* going to sell my old CPU on ebay. I mean, it's a moderately
>> old now, but I paid about £250 for it when I got it.
>>
>> However, this was before I discovered that you can buy it new (exact
>> same model, clock speed, socket, everything) for £21.
>
> Well at least you checked the price. Some people just say "bought new
> for X, will sell for X/2", when in reality it's worth X/10 or 20.
As I understand it, AMD currently can't touch Intel for performance, so
they're going mental slashing prices instead...
>> Do you even remember when WinXP first came out? And how everybody has
>> utterly horrified at the minimum hardware requirements to make it
>> function acceptably? It's been around so long now that everybody seems
>> to have forgotten that XP takes four times as much hardware to do the
>> same thing as older OSes managed to do quite happily...
>
> If it does the same thing, why are you using it? Why does anyone use it
> if it does the same thing as previous versions?
Because almost no software will run on it any more.
Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
>> (And then there's the sad fact that M$ doesn't know the difference
>> between "operating system" and "entertainment system". Even in the
>> "pro" version of XP, you still get lots of silly toys like games and
>> video players and so forth that I have to spend ages uninstalling.
>> Surely what most businesses actually want is a tiny OS to run their
>> *real* applications on top of...)
>
> Gee, I'd hate to work at your company where the IT people don't even let
> you watch videos or play an odd game of Internet Reversi during a break.
> Actually some of our customers send us video clips of problems
> sometimes, it would be a bit embarrassing if we had to explain how we
> chose an IT system that didn't allow us to watch them...
Well, clearly you work in a different business sector than me then. ;-)
The purpose of our PCs is to run Outlook, Word and Excell, and also the
specialist lab software we use. If it weren't for these few things, we
wouldn't even need computers at all. (Would make my job a lot easier.
Oh, wait...)
> People also use WinXP Pro at home you know, I think everyone in my
> family and even my gf on her laptop has the Pro edition.
Yes, I think that's mainly due to the silly restrictions in XP Home.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with Vista. (I forget how many
versions of that there are...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
