"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4722aa00$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>> that's one reason why cameras use USB and not LAN or WLAN
>
> USB *is* a LAN. You mean memory chips? I've seen cameras that do wireless 
> LAN too, for (for example) places that take your ID photo and print it out 
> for you.
>
>> too hard/impossible to get a network stack on DOS?
>
> Errrr, nope!  You could get network stacks pretty easily, really. That's 
> what the whole NETBIOS was.  Back in the DOS 3.x days, if I recall. Why 
> would it be difficult to put a network stack on a DOS machine?

Oh gawd, suddenly I remember it all:
The long boot sequence
The 3C509 drivers;
IPConfig;
The ReDiRector

<has a Jason-Bourne-finding-out-he is-really-David-Webb episode>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/27 05:55:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
>>> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
>>
>> Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old 
>> OSes, even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's 
>> because the new OSes provide more services and functionality that the 
>> programmers like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?
> 
> More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency, 
> but anyway...
No API rearrengement at all, NEW APIs! Some older APIs where also upgraded, but 
they are still called the same way as before and return the same thing. After 
all, they have to make sure that existing softwares designed for win 2K and XP 
continue to run. Whitch in turn, impose that programms made for the win 9x to 
still be able to run on XP and Vista.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Al Gore is proof that Tennessee has a sense of humor.

Post a reply to this message

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:47235a6a$1@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/27 05:55:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> >>> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
> >>> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
> >>
> >> Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old
> >> OSes, even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's
> >> because the new OSes provide more services and functionality that the
> >> programmers like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?
> >
> > More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency,
> > but anyway...

> No API rearrengement at all, NEW APIs! Some older APIs where also
upgraded, but
> they are still called the same way as before and return the same thing.

And some of those new APIs are quicker and easier to use. Hence the lazy
programmers (*) who develop apps for windows will use those over the older
APIs. Hence stuff works on XP that won't work on 98

(*) It has been said that laziness is a desirable trait in programmers. I'm
not making a judgement on everyone who develops

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Why is that relevant?  There are no programming languages which can handle
> the entire set of integers.

Again:
But yes, what happens when you exceed what the machine can handle is 
*exactly* what we're talking about here. C does a well-defined but 
surprising-to-the-naive method for dealing with integers too large.

Programming languages that natively handle unbounded integers don't 
distinguish between signed and unsigned integers, because people don't 
program down to the last bit of an integer. Hence, there's no need to 
define what happens when you combine an unsigned integer that won't fit 
in a signed integer's value range with a signed integer.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency, 
> but anyway...

Then NT code wouldn't run on XP, which is generally not the case unless 
you go out of your way to make that happen.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

> And some of those new APIs are quicker and easier to use. Hence the lazy
> programmers (*) who develop apps for windows will use those over the older
> APIs. Hence stuff works on XP that won't work on 98

DirectX is a prime example, since V5 it has got easier and easier to use 
with each revision.  In V6 IIRC you needed a huge amount of code to query 
the graphics card for screen modes and types, driver capabilities etc.  Even 
the change from V9 to V10 has simplified a lot of the functions for checking 
driver capabilities, you no longer have to query every function you are 
using to see if it is supported or not...  You'd be silly to use V6 when 
V9/V10 is much easier to use, supports many more features and 99% of people 
can use it.

Post a reply to this message

> That was now about 10 years ago (doesn't seem possible it was that long
> ago).  But desktop lockdown and software installation policies are very
> common in corporate IT policies these days, especially with all the
> crapware/malware/spyware that's in the Windows world.

Yep, and the policy works too.  Where I used to work everyone was using 
Win95 (to start with, they slowly changed to XP when I was leaving) and I 
don't think we ever saw a blue-screen.  This was because we were only 
allowed to use approved software, and IT had tested to death anything that 
was to be used on the system to make sure it was compatible with everything. 
Add to that the fact that they routinely wiped the HDs, it meant a very 
stable computing environment virtually transparent to the user (unless you 
wanted to install some application that was not in the list).

Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to an 
unstable environment and many many IT support calls.

Post a reply to this message

> 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...)

Because it keeps 100 levels of undo data, has code for doing 400 different 
brush types and colour gradients, functions for adjusting colour balance and 
histogram equalisation, red-eye removal, perspective correction, much higher 
resolution and colour depth icons for all the tool-bars, critical parts of 
the code have been optimised for speed (at the expense of RAM usage) now 
that everyone has more RAM, it has loaded lots of stuff to RAM that it 
thinks you *might* use so that it appears to run quicker, etc.

Personally, I like having all that stuff at the expense of it using 1% of my 
RAM instead of 0.1%.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> 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...)
> 
> Because it keeps 100 levels of undo data, has code for doing 400 
> different brush types and colour gradients, functions for adjusting 
> colour balance and histogram equalisation, red-eye removal, perspective 
> correction, much higher resolution and colour depth icons for all the 
> tool-bars, critical parts of the code have been optimised for speed (at 
> the expense of RAM usage) now that everyone has more RAM, it has loaded 
> lots of stuff to RAM that it thinks you *might* use so that it appears 
> to run quicker, etc.
> 
> Personally, I like having all that stuff at the expense of it using 1% 
> of my RAM instead of 0.1%.

Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I 
can say... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to 
> an unstable environment and many many IT support calls.

Finally, something we can agree on...

Post a reply to this message