Just plain fucked...
in [Design]
|
Prev: Freq. Independent Phase Shifter
Next: Please, DO NOT forget the only thing that matters on this planet........................……..
From: MooseFET on 14 May 2010 22:02 On May 14, 9:15 am, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "MooseFET" <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > > news:3f65e065-7db4-4c31-bbc6-24169bfff4e8(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... > > > We are porting our software over to Windows-7. This means that effort > > that could be making new product is being burned up. > > Microsoft has been working that angle for a long time -- they're so huge they > need people on something of a perpetual upgrade treadmill in order to survive. > As others have pointed out, it's not like Win 7 is really that much better > than XP, or Office 2007 much better than 2003 (or 2002 or 2000 or even Office > '97...), C# much better than C++, etc. > > I think I read somewhere that the largest single chunk of Microsoft's income > actually comes from sales of Office these days? At least Office 2010 still > runs on XP -- I'm willing to be the next version won't. Someone I work with has given up on MS Offics and is installing Open Office. The problem is that he can get the thing to reinstall correctly. He complains that Open Office is slow but will us it because slow is better than not at all.
From: FatBytestard on 15 May 2010 04:53 On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:49:44 -0400, Rich Webb <bbew.ar(a)mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:53:01 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:10:05 -0700, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:22:51 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Windows is such a little-understood mess, hundreds of millions of >>>>lines of tangled, hacked, inter-dependent code, >>> >>> >>> Not any more, idiot. >> >>Of course it is. It took them 20 years to build that mess; it would >>take 1000 to clean it up. >> >>I've read interviews with senior Windows developers who admit that DLL >>dependencies are out of control. > >As one who has tried to build a minimal image for a product using >XP-Embedded, "out of control" doesn't quite convey the hair-on-fire >nature of the problem. The volume and type of modules that get dragged >into the build is truly insane. > >To give MS their due, once I got it tweaked it runs reliably from a >read-only CF card. No fun getting to that point, though. So post the slipstreamed image up in abse. :-)
From: FatBytestard on 15 May 2010 04:58 On Fri, 14 May 2010 18:10:38 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote: >That said, I very (repeat: very) occasionally run into a situation >where I need more than 65k rows. http://www.hometheaterinfo.com/download/dvdlist.zip Excel spreadsheet in '97 2k3 format that really needs to be in 2k7 format. There are well over 180k DVDs listed. Each requires one row.
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 12:36 On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:22:15 +0100, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 14/05/2010 10:10, Archimedes' Lever wrote: >> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:22:51 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> Windows is such a little-understood mess, hundreds of millions of >>> lines of tangled, hacked, inter-dependent code, >> >> Not any more, idiot. > >It is too early to tell whether Win7 will be considered a decent vintage >or not. Though it is certainly moving in the right direction. > >Vista was without doubt a total dog and is condemned to obscurity long >before XP which is still in wide industrial use. Many big corporates >ignored Vista completely - no benefit changing the OS and much hassle. > >For all its annoyances XP was good enough. And the last good major >version of Doze, just as Office 2003 was the last good version of that >product. It remains to be seen if Win7 will win out completely or >whether XP will hold onto a niche in the ultra compact portable arena >and certain industrial applications. My money is on the latter. > >Too many pieces of big kit will not work under Win7 compatibility mode >for the want of dedicated device drivers the instrument makers are not >willing to develop or supply for old kit. In the consumer market HP >scanners epitomise the lack of support for old gear on new OS's. > >Regards, >Martin Brown I think you are onto something here. The W7 lack of legacy support may kill it entirely. Same with MSOrifice2007.
From: JosephKK on 16 May 2010 12:42
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:15:37 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >news:3f65e065-7db4-4c31-bbc6-24169bfff4e8(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... >> We are porting our software over to Windows-7. This means that effort >> that could be making new product is being burned up. > >Microsoft has been working that angle for a long time -- they're so huge they >need people on something of a perpetual upgrade treadmill in order to survive. >As others have pointed out, it's not like Win 7 is really that much better >than XP, or Office 2007 much better than 2003 (or 2002 or 2000 or even Office >'97...), C# much better than C++, etc. > >I think I read somewhere that the largest single chunk of Microsoft's income >actually comes from sales of Office these days? At least Office 2010 still >runs on XP -- I'm willing to be the next version won't. > >---Joel > I'll bet you a virtual doughnut on that. MSO2010/2011 may come out that way, but if it does it will be backported to XP post haste. |