OT Win7 updates

Page 6 of 8  
On 05/19/2016 09:56 PM, Don Y wrote:

We have tech writers but they have a tendency to cut'n'paste the programmer's notes from the work order. I suppose it's improved my writing skills since I know where the notes will wind up. I have worked with good tech writers in the past.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/19/2016 9:58 PM, rbowman wrote:

I don't spend much time "documenting the code". Rather, I have to spend time documenting the algorithms and the underlying technology.
For example, I use speech output in one of my interfaces (the interfaces are varied -- depending on the capabilities of the user). So, I first have to present an overview of speech synthesis (from text). This lets me present the problems that will be encountered without muddying up the discussion of a particular implementation. It lets me introduce a lexicon that I can later use as a shorthand to provide "back references" in the ensuing design discussions.
I can then address the individual pieces of a synthesizer -- text normalization, grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, stress assignment, prosody, waveform generation, etc. I can break a huge project down into more understandable components -- with this "front-end roadmap".
[In school, I was exposed to the concept of "complexity" with the understanding that anything that doesn't fit in a single braincase is "complex". So, I want to make sure I present issues in small enough pieces that the developer can "see the whole picture" -- even if he doesn't have all the details at his immediate grasp]
So, I can make a statement like "The parts-of-speech tagger helps disambiguate between homographs" -- and the reader understands WHY this is necessary (without a digression into that material). Later, when a pronunciation rule is qualified by a PoS tag, the developer shouldn't be puzzled over its purpose.
Then (in another document), I can present the different approaches to speech synthesis -- and the pros and cons of each. Otherwise, a future developer (maintainer?) wouldn't understand why a particular approach was chosen.
Then, for the particular implementation technology selected, I have to explain the various issues that pertain to the design of the actual implementation. E.g., why a particular data structure was chosen over another "better" (?) structure ("Here are the metrics for each approach...") This lets the developer know what he will be encountering when he starts digging through the sources.
Then, in the sources, I can make abbreviated references that remind the developer of what I'm trying to achieve -- without re-justifying the design choice: "Implement affix rules as CART tree".
My hope is that this anticipates the sorts of questions like: - why didn't you use a simple indexed/sorted list? - why didn't you use a b-tree representation? - couldn't you hash the input to expedite lookups? etc.
Then, if the developer decides he wants to change the implementation, he at least has an explanation that he can apply to his new proposal ("Why are you NOT using the original approach? What have you discovered that invalidates it?")
I.e., I'm trying to give a back-of-the-napkin tutorial that gives some perspective to a project that most folks would probably be ill-prepared to tackle, "cold". I do this for all of the technologies that I am using as I don't imagine any *one* developer would have a handle on all of them. :<
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 1:40:07 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

That sure wasn't true at the dawn or for a long time thereafter. The decentralization didn't start until the era of the minicomputer, ushered in by DEC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:03:57 AM UTC-4, David B. wrote:

In general, because "most up-to-date" does not always equate to "efficient".
I imagine that you have heard of "bugs"? The early releases of any software, be it an OS or an application, often contain software issues that do not become apparent until deployment to the masses. Many would prefer to wait until the issues have been found/resolved before using the new software.
In specific, many users are concerned with the privacy issues that are associated with Windows 10. It gets even more disturbing since MS is basically trying to shove Windows 10 onto our machines, as happened to me. Some think that they are doing it for reasons other than just being nice to us and trying to make us more "efficient".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Because the software you run won't work on it? | | Because it doesn't support your computer hardware? |
Good points. In the past few people would actually install an update. They'd get it when they bought a new computer. With Win10 Microsoft wants to introduce a "software as a service" approach. They want to turn your car into a taxi, providing them with income from some combination of ads, software rental and Microsoft Store purchases. So they're in a hurry to get people onboard. They're not making any more money on Win XP/7/8 users. If you have to leave behind your scanner or your favorite software.... Well, that's the cost of progress. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/18/2016 8:03 AM, David B. wrote:

How do you rationalize "up-to-date" and "efficient" in the same sentence? "Efficiency" -- from the user's perspective -- is steadily DECREASING with each new OS release. More CPU cycles and memory are being spent to achieve the same overall effect (getting an application to RUN).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 May 2016 10:15:02 -0700, Don Y

Well, Windows 10 has Direct X 12 which actually cuts CPU cycles in half when playing Direct X 12 games. As a gamer that might be important to me. As I've said before, people should run whatever OS works for them. Getting rid of the Win 10 nag is trivial. I've had no issues with Windows 10. Made the desktop look like Win 7 after some tweaking. Which is the same pool table green as Win 3.1. It's rock solid and as fast as Win 7. Much faster booting. I didn't "like" changing what I was accustomed to, but I didn't "like" any OS change I've done. If my son hadn't convinced me it was the "right" thing to do (Direct X 12) I'd still be running Win 7. But I'm satisfied with Windows 10.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/18/2016 1:10 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

I don't play games on a computer. Nor do I watch TV on one! I have appliances that are *optimized* to play games and display television programs.
If I gave you a set of batteries and some respectible motors to attach to your PC and convert it into a "motorized device", would you give up your car/motorcycle/bicycle/ATV? (just think, you'd be able to play games and browse the internet while cruising around! Progress?)

So, if the nag was gone but the OS is still disclosing your usage habits to MS (and any other party to whom they care to SELL that information), you're fine with that?
Do you receive all your mail on postcards? (Or, don't you "trust" your letter carrier -- and everyone else up the chain of handling?)
Do you have a password on your email accounts -- and your computer, in general? (Why?)

I've found 7even to be slower than XP -- in terms of *use* (I only boot once every few weeks but start applications many times each day)

When you've got many tens of thousands of dollars of licensed software running on a machine -- plus an equivalent amount in peripherals -- you might have reservations about "upgrading" for the sake of upgrading.
[No one has told me anything that I *WANT* to do that I *can't* do in XP but *can* in 10. Having "new" just for the sake of having new isn't a valid reason to justify the expense and risk of loss (ignoring the spying aspect)]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 May 2016 13:39:21 -0700, Don Y

That's interesting - but not addressing the point, which is DX 12.

The Win 10 nag is a Win 7 "issue." "

I'm not buying the Win 10 "spying' scenario. Sorry.

Of course. But those are your issues. I don't have them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/18/2016 2:22 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

*My* point was that YOU choose to use your PC to play games. Would you ALSO choose to use it as a motorized carriage, given that option?
*I* choose to use games as games, TV's as TV's and automobiles as automobiles.
My TV cares little about DX12 -- nor any of the flaws that it might contain now or in the future. Similarly, my game consoles and automobile.
If you tell me W10 is going to let me play games better, I'll point out that I can play games just fine, thankyouverymuch.

Yes. And if your "windows 7" computer was "suddenly" running windows 10 (yet still CLAIMING to be 7even) would you know?

Then you're ignoring what MS has publicly claimed and is present in the W10 EULA.
"I'm not buying the 'smoking causes cancer' scenario. Sorry."

They *become* my issues when enough lemmings deprive me of a choice.
If everyone moved over to PlayStations and MS dropped support for DirectX (because it lost that market), would you buy a PlayStation? Or, just resign yourself to the fact that when your current computer died, all of your games would be useless to you (cuz MS wouldn't be supporting DX on W11)?
Have a copy of "Bob" running anywhere?
Betamax was a far superior technology to VHS. Yet, died because folks opted for VHS technology based solely on cost issues.
The 8086 is a dog of a processor. But, has lived on for 40 years because it fell into the right "application" (the IBM PC) despite the fact that better processors were available at the time. Users and developers have been "paying" for this for 35 years!
[You could run a true multitasking OS with paged memory management on processors that were contemporary with the 8086 -- instead of having to wait until the 386 came along (the 286's VM capabilities were poorly implemented; the 386's only slightly LESS so)]
The PC set computing back a LONG time -- but, made it available to the unwashed masses (for far more money than it could have cost).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 May 2016 14:52:04 -0700, Don Y

Uh, when I play a game on my PC, I am playing a game. When I watch TV, I am watching TV. My automobile is an automobile. Nothing you say can change those perceptions of mine.

But my PC does. So there.

That's fine. But not games designed using DX 12.

Of course I would.

That's some "spying" that gets claimed in a EULA. Some spying indeed. Besides, I've turned most of it off.

That's been proven scientifically. Now show some scientific proof that Win 10 is "spying" on me. I'll join in the resulting class action suit against MS.
snip

That's too bad for you. Us lemmings are quite happy with OS advances. But I do miss the Swedish and German bakeries that once peppered my area.

Of course not. I'm a PC gamer.

You like making up highly improbable scenarios, but in any case I'd just adjust to the reality. Sadly, I'm not the boss of the world.

Rings a bell, but no.

Yeah, would have been fine to ignore the ability of many people to pay for the Betamax. JVC didn't think so.

This lemming is content with the outcome.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/18/2016 4:22 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

HOW? Would you examine the paging algorithm to notice that it was using a different pageout criteria than your previous OS? Or, that the network stack prioritized traffic differently? Or, that the caching policy was different?
Turn off the monitor. Here's a logic analyzer. There are 5 machines in front of you, each running a different version of Windows. Your job is to tell which version is running on which machine. Have at it.
[I.e., I can easily change the "look and feel" of an OS to make it PRETEND to be anything. But, the OS itself isn't changed.]

No, you *think* you've turned it off.
Have you got a packet sniffer on your internet connection? Can you explain each packet that leaves -- or enters -- your machine? Or, are you just assuming that because you tweaked some registry setting that you THINK the spying has been turned off?

You don't have any grounds to sue! You adopted the terms of the EULA by opting to install and use W10. Your rights were forfeit as of that moment.
"Privacy; Consent to Use of Data. Your privacy is important to us. Some of the software features send or receive information when using those features. Many [BUT NOT ALL!] of these features can be switched off in the user interface, or you can CHOOSE NOT TO USE THEM. By accepting this agreement and using the software YOU AGREE THAT MICROSOFT MAY COLLECT, USE AND DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION as described in the Microsoft Privacy Statement (aka.ms/privacy), and as may be described in the user interface associated with the software features."
(emphasis mine)
"Downgrade Rights. If you acquired a device from a manufacturer or installer with a Professional version of Windows preinstalled on it, you may use either a Windows 8.1 Pro or Windows 7 Professional version, but ONLY FOR SO LONG AS MICROSOFT PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR THAT EARLIER VERSION as set forth in (aka.ms/windowslifecycle). This agreement applies to your use of the earlier versions. If the earlier version includes different components, any terms for those components in the agreement that comes with the earlier version apply to your use of such components. Neither the manufacturer or installer, nor Microsoft, is obligated to supply earlier versions to you. You must obtain the earlier version separately, for which you may be charged a fee. At any time, you may replace an earlier version with the version you originally acquired."
I.e., you can't legally use 7 or 8 after MS stops supporting them!

I suspect you won't be, eventually. Then, *you* won't have a choice (whereas those of us who know better will have kept an option available for ourselves). Your employer won't care that you've lost some freedom or capability; and surely won't want to reeducate all of his employees to use that "other option".

Have you looked carefully at MS's track record with products? Seen how willing they are to abandon markets that don't pan out in their eyes?
"Improbable" is only so until it becomes *reality*. Then, you'll be scurrying to find some antique computer that can still run your games. Or, you'll discard them. And grumble about the lemmings that have rendered your old "system" unsupportable.

There is nothing inherently more expensive in the design of a betamax VCR than was the case for VHS. Sony just overplayed their hand by holding the technology close to their chest.
Motorola took the opposite approach with the introduction of the MC68000 (contemporary with the 8086) -- sharing the design with 6 "second source" vendors as a way to secure market. And, lost the IBM PC design to Intel.
Apple's old machines were closed systems. You want a Mac? You buy from Apple.
Amusingly, Apple also abandoned the MC68k with their move to OS/X. And, has lost their stranglehold on the hardware (google "Hackintosh")
I.e., there's no guarantee that a particular strategy will result in success.

If you like paying *more* for less, more power to you! Some of us are a bit more concerned with "value" -- and take other actions to avoid the "Microsoft Tax".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

You're absolutely insane. One of the complaints from people is that the look and feel of Win 10 is different from Win 7. Even a moron that installed it accidentally would immediately notice that it's different.
You MSFT bashers really are something else.

Yes, what an abysmal track record of failure over 3 decades. Imagine that, a company dropping things that people don't want, that don't work out, and devoting their resources to the successful areas. What a radical business strategy!

More nonsense. I've moved up from the initial version of Windows on my PC to Win 7 today. Not a single program or game that I was using was ever an issue.

IDK about manufacturing cost advantage or disadvantage, but the sole sourced Sony Betamax machines cost more and consumers were reluctant to pay it when the picture on their simple TVs looked the same to them.

You have that wrong too. The original Apple machines were cloned and available from other sources. Apple even licensed other manufacturers to make the Mac, until they later changed strategy. It's today's Apple PCs that are only available from Apple. And you have a closed system confused with a sole sourced product.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/19/2016 08:04 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Like the Franklin Ace? It only took Apple two months to sue Franklin for copyright infringement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone
There were a couple of years when Apple needed cash and licensed clones, but that didn't last. I'm always amused how the Apple fanbois tend toward the progressive end of the spectrum and pay premiums for some of the most locked down electronics on the planet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 10:11:17 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:


No, like these. Life didn't begin with the Mac. He made the claim that Apple's old machines were only available from Apple. Well, these are old Apple machines. He also has closed system conflated with sole sourced product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_II_clones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following is an incomplete list of clones of Apple's Apple II home comp uter. More details on some models are in Apple II series#Clones. AES easy3 Agat Agat-4 Agat-7 Agat-8 Agat-9
Albert[1] AMI II Apco Arrow 1000 Asem AM 64e Aton II Ap II Base 48, Base 64, Base 64A Basis 108, Basis 208 Bee II BOSS-1 CCE Exato Pró Citron II CSC Euro Super Cubic 88 CB-777[2] Elppa II Formosa Microcomputer Formula II kit ("Fully compatible with Apple II+")[3] Franklin Ace Fugu Elite 5 Golden II IMKO 2 InterTek System IV ITT 2020 (Europlus) Ivel Z3 Laser 128 Laser 3000 Mackintosh MCP MC 4000 Mango II Medfly Microcraft Craft II Plus Microdigital TK-2000 Color (not 100% binary-compatible) Microdigital TK-2000 II Color (not 100% binary-compatible) Microdigital TK-3000 IIe - Page in Portuguese Microdigital TK-3000 //e Compact Microengenho Multitech Microprofessor II (MPF II) Microprofessor III (MPF III)
MicroSCI Havac Microcom IIe Mind II Multi-system computer O. S. Micro Systems Orange Panasia Peach Pearcom Pravetz series 8 Pravetz 8A Pravetz 8M Pravetz 8E Pravetz 8C
Precision Echo Phase II Pineapple[4] RX-8800 Sekon (computer) Shuttle (computer) Space 83 Spring Spectrum ED Syscom 2 TK 2000 TK 3000 TK 8000[2] UNITRON AP II Unitronics Sonic VECTORIO [5](Japan?) Wombat[2] Zeus 2001


I'm always amused how the Apple fanbois tend


That's one reason I've never bought one. Their cell phones are another example. IDK of any other manufacturer where the battery can't be replaced by the user. If any other manufacturer tried to pull that, they wouldn't sell very many. But Apple does it and people stand in line for hours to get one. I've used other people's iPhones enough to know that it's very similar to the Android OS. In fact, I like the Android OS better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/20/2016 07:58 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Franklin and VTech were sued over an Apple II clone.
https://books.google.com/books?id 4EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&flse
The InfoWorld article isn't specific but says Apple had brought criminal charges against companies around the world. I'm sure the Soviets, Chinese, Croats, and Bulgarians were trembling. Of that list, ITT may be the only one who actually had a license agreement. That lasted as long as it took Apple to develop a PAL interface, even though the ITT machines had a higher resolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation
Apple has a large and busy legal staff. I mean when you sue NYC, commonly known as 'The Big Apple' for using an apple in a logo, you're pushing the boundary of credibility. It's a wonder you can buy apples in the supermarket without paying a royalty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/18/2016 04:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
[snip]

Smoking doesn't NEED to cause cancer. It's still a stinking fire hazard that interferes with your breathing.
[snip]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 5:52:20 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

Far superior? Well, no. It was slightly better, but not enough to matter to most consumers given the price delta. Imagine that. Sony also kept it proprietary, while VHS was multi-sourced.

It wasn't a dog of a processor in it's day. And the IBM PC did not use the 8086, it was the 8 bit bus version, the 8088. The 8086 went into and was used in all kinds of other applications too, making it one of the most successful processors of all time.

Yeah, you could run a true multitasking OS with paged memory management on processors that were contemporary with the 8086, provided that you're talking about an IBM 360, DEC VAX or similar that cost $100K to $1 mil back then and filled a closet or room. There was no contemporary microprocessor that was capable of running a page memory management system, because they did not have memory management period. And the 386 memory management and protection was as elegant and every bit as robust as that on a mainframe. A considerable feat, given that it had to also be 100% backward compatible with 8086 code. It's the same memory management and protection that's in all of today's Intel processors.
The rest of your nonsensical rant against OS improvement is just as nuts too.

What total BS. No one was forced to buy a PC. They were free to continue to buy mainframes, minicomputers. Manufacturers continued to develop those and ignore the PC, to their ultimate peril not long after. They thought like you: We know what a computer is and how people must use it. You have to use it like we say, buy it from us. They probably eschewed OS advancement like you too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/19/2016 07:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0745713883900283
Unfortunately, IBM was in a pissing contest with Exxon and Exxon bought Zilog in 1980.
Even for the Intel world, the i86 was supposed to be a temporary measure while they developed the i432. Intel has come up with some gems like the Itanic. They couldn't even kill the i86 with that.
The 68000 was another strong player although the Sun 1 had a homegrown MMU.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/19/2016 7:01 PM, rbowman wrote:

Amusing how misinformed folks can be. But, I guess if you don't have buying clout, your view of the world is a lot more "vanilla" than folks "on the inside". (when they fly the chip designers out to talk to you, you know you've got clout! :> )

The Z8000 was contemporary with the 8086. The 68000 similarly so. And, if you have IBM's purchasing clout, you'd be amazed at what you could "acquire" ahead of formal release schedules (I was sporting an MC68000 die "tie tack" in that time frame; designed a 68K system for *release* in 1980 -- though 10MHz parts were still pricey).
DEC also had the T11 (or perhaps it was the F11?) but in a very expensive package (4 cavities on a large ceramic carrier -- made the ceramic 68K look *economical* by comparison!) OTOH, hard to imagine IBM and DEC crawling in bed together.
TI was pitching the 99000 to us but the "workspace" concept was too scarey, given memory prices (and speeds), at the time. Would have made for some interesting OS implementations, though!
The 16032 (later 32016) was the finest of the affordable devices in that time frame. When you considered the cost of adding floating point hardware support, it was a lead pipe cinch! But, NS has always had a lousy track record with CPU's (SC/MP anyone?)

The 432 was stillborn. Almost as wonky an idea as the 99000. Given how much faster CPUs have become compared to memory speed increases, the 99000 would have aged poorly in that regard.
Z280 would have been the best "bang for buck" processor but Zilog could never recreate the magic of the Z80. The 380 being a pipe dream alongside the Z80000!

The 68000 didn't really implement restartable instructions correctly. A double fault would crash the processor (that was later fixed in the 68010).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.