Tursi Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 .. and EVERYTHING Old CS1 said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Just about every damn package on Windows comes with some kind of a startup tool to "speed startup" or "check for updates", or some other stupid task, usually completely unnecessary. The first thing I do after installing Windows is to disable the fluff services (same with a KDE desktop, for that matter ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RXB Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 So Linux and Unix handles files is somewhat different this link shows the main things. The example of UNIX desktop here is the worst they could find I think. (of course this site is a Linux distributor) http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-linux-and-unix/ My Mac OS X desktop and a Free BSD Unix build do not look that much different on the desktop, so Linux has an ax to grind on honesty. The best way to speed up Linux or Unix is dump the old library and reset it to an earlier time. This is like using REGEDIT in Windows to clean up the Registry. i.e. PC Clean Dumping unused files also helps also. I use all of them but mostly OS X and Windows, and still like Linux but it is the most user hostile of the bunch for new users. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 License and costLinux is Free (as in beer [freedom]). You can download it from the Internet or redistribute That should read 'free (as in speech)' - see the GNU website . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMole Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 No, this statement is not true. There is very little software on Windows that depends on services. I'm not saying you can't give five examples, but I am saying it's not anywhere near a majority. I am not exaggerating when I talk about old software compatibility with Modern Windows, nor am I just supposing. I actually run tests to see what works. Likewise, I am forced to do similar on Linux. /Drivers/ are a different case, and Windows DOES change the underlying architecture to make the new ones run better. I'm not talking about not working. I think it's beyond discussion that Windows provides much better backwards compatibility than Linux distributions typically do, so of course I'm not going to contest that this compatibility exists. But it's also clear (to me) that running programs from "different generations" will contribute to your computer slowing down over time. I mean, there's no way that offering MFC, Winforms, WPF, ... will not lead to multiple libraries offering same-ish functionality being loaded in memory and thus more memory trashing and swapping. Simply dropping support for older libraries will help force developers of active projects to migrate to the newer versions, which imho is a good thing. Of course, it is also more common on Linux to have the many competing implementations of a certain library installed at the same time, but at least that's a choice (I only use GTK-based applications, for example, so I don't have Qt installed). I /personally/ prefer this early deprecation approach as in my experience and for my workflow the backwards compatibility is not worth the price. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Ksarul Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 A big reason for the requirement for backward compatibility is business. Big customers get very attached to old applications as part of their business process--and they don't like to pay for a questionable upgrade when the old application works perfectly as far as they are concerned. Even with all of the efforts Microsoft takes to provide that backward compatibility, new versions break a LOT of old programs. I've had systems that we had to keep on Windows 2000 until about a year or so ago because the old application wouldn't run on anything newer, and it took the data owner forever to decide to port all of the necessary customizations to the application to software that ran on a new OS. It is all about Return On Investment. The old app worked fine and they didn't want to pay huge sums to upgrade it until there was literally no choice in the matter. This is why Windows XP is still hanging on all over the place in the business universe--and why some organizations are contunuing to PAY for XP support. It is still cheaper to do that than it is to migrate, although it is a very short-sighted strategy, as the pay plans from Microsoft get significantly more expensive for each year you move beyond their normal end-of-support date. I still have to support some applications where all major development stopped in the 1960s, and finally got rid of one where all but one of the original team of programmers was dead before we shut the system down five years ago (its major development phase was between 1955 and 1962). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tursi Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Of course, it is also more common on Linux to have the many competing implementations of a certain library installed at the same time, but at least that's a choice (I only use GTK-based applications, for example, so I don't have Qt installed). There's more choice than you seem to think. You aren't required to install old versions of MFC, for instance, if you don't want to run them. And if you don't run old software, even the old DLLs that /are/ on the hard drive don't magically load into memory and consume RAM. I /personally/ prefer this early deprecation approach as in my experience and for my workflow the backwards compatibility is not worth the price. It's a great philosophy if you can get away with it. Personally /I/ believe computers exist to make MY life and my job easier and not keep me in a constant loop of keeping up with the whims of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mizapf Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Tursi, as you master both worlds, why do you prefer Windows for your private projects? I am just curious, not trying to argue pro or con. I admit I never tried to get deeper into Windows than for using applications. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RXB Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I think the major reason for Windows being favored is standards exist in Windows on how things are supposed to work. In Linux it is like the wild west and not much of a standard exists unless you count them attempting to copy Windows versions. Unix is kind of like Linux except in OS X that is controlled by Apple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I think the major reason for Windows being favored is standards exist in Windows on how things are supposed to work. In Linux it is like the wild west and not much of a standard exists unless you count them attempting to copy Windows versions. Unix is kind of like Linux except in OS X that is controlled by Apple. OSX is also BSD-based, which has a heritage in Unix, but is a good bit different from System V. It does make it Apple's own distribution, in essence. Windows does have standards, and Ksarul is accurate in his assessment of backward compatibility. It is still possible to run programs written using the NT3.1 SDK in 32-bit Windows 7. 64-bit is a completely different story. In particular, Wow64 does not hook into 32-bit APIs (demonstrable using Peachtree or QuickBooks with a 64-bit installation of Office -- it just don't work) and it is largely incompatible with older 32-bit memory allocation routines. As well, in 32-bit Windows 7 you can capture the LPT output of a DOS program and direct to a Windows printer (thankfully.) This, again, has to do with businesses losing software vendors and building entire business procedures around the workflow of a particular program. You cannot really blame a business for doing so. It is easy to have standards with an army of programmers and managers in place. Linux seems an interesting paradox to me: while you do have a lot of volunteers working part-time, you also have the muscle of corporate programmers contributing, and yet there is still a flux as you said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Vorticon Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I feel old... http://youtu.be/PF7EpEnglgk 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I feel old... http://youtu.be/PF7EpEnglgk Some of those facts are questionable - it said the apple lisa had the first GUI, which is simply not true . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mizapf Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 I think the major reason for Windows being favored is standards exist in Windows on how things are supposed to work. In Linux it is like the wild west and not much of a standard exists unless you count them attempting to copy Windows versions. You mean like GUI experience or so? Or from a programmer's point of view? I wouldn't say that there are no standards. You can run programs compiled for various kinds of Linux distributions, as long as you find the required libraries. And these libraries establish some standard, albeit on a very fine-granular base. One argument I often encounter is: Who's there to help me out of trouble? Many people seem to decide on their computing environment almost completely in terms of nearest help. Certainly, there are more Windows users, thus the best choice would be Windows. Just in case something breaks. Also, the advantage of having a choice between different distributions, all with their particular focus, is not really honored by people. In contrast, they say there'll be no chance for Linux as long as there is such a diversity. As for information technology, in my view the market concept has already failed completely, and I don't think it can really be reanimated. With the consequence of having a choice, there just a lack of interest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrospect Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Here's something I find interesting. I am using a low end and ancient laptop these days. I am dual booting, using Lubuntu for most of my computing but using Windows XP for TI development work. Everyone knows what bloatware Windows is, so why is it that the horribly bloated and inefficient Windows XP can load and be ready to use in noticeably less time (around 40 seconds) than the lightweight, efficient and speedy Lubuntu system? (Around 46 seconds). Of course there is nothing on Windows except a text editor, Win994a and Classic 99, but still..... Well .... I had a different experience when I performed a test of my own. I sat, side by side, my two laptops that still work. MSI Wind U180 with 1Gb Ram running on Lubuntu 14.04, 1.8Ghz dual core Cedar Trail cpu Acer Expire 5315 with 2Gb Ram running on Windows XP Pro, 2.1Ghz single core celeron cpu I booted both machines up from cold. In the time it took the XP laptop to be operable at all, I had gone onto the MSI, logged onto the internet, gone to Harmless Lion website, got classic99, downloaded it and booted it in WINE. This was an eye opener. There's not much on the XP machine, just a few emulators ... ?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senior_falcon Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) That might be because it's XP Pro. Mine is XP Home Premium, and there's nothing on it - no antivirus, no internet, just two emulators and a text editor. As I mentioned earlier, I was shocked when our IT guy "upgraded" my old computer from XP home premium to XP Pro and turned a useful computer into a real turkey. (edit) Oops, it is XP Home Edition. It's my Windows 7 that is Home Premium Edited May 27, 2014 by senior_falcon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrospect Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) That might be because it's XP Pro. Mine is XP Home Premium, and there's nothing on it - no antivirus, no internet, just two emulators and a text editor. As I mentioned earlier, I was shocked when our IT guy "upgraded" my old computer from XP home premium to XP Pro and turned a useful computer into a real turkey. Yes it's the XP Pro .... I ended up getting Avast anti-virus and Malwarebytes because one or more of the drivers I downloaded got bundled with some crap that I didn't want. Edit: I've just run the Malwarebytes and defragged too. XP machine now running fine ... it takes a while to boot but when running it's not bad ... Classic99 sometimes starts with the initial BEEP a little choppy sounding, but I think that's the Realtek sound driver. Maybe there's another driver kicking around for Acer Aspires with XP. Edited May 28, 2014 by Retrospect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tursi Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Tursi, as you master both worlds, why do you prefer Windows for your private projects? I am just curious, not trying to argue pro or con. I admit I never tried to get deeper into Windows than for using applications. I just find it easier to get from point A to point B (remembering that in the programming world, it's NEVER a straight line ). I know where all the documentation is (not that it's necessarily better), and I greatly prefer the debugging environment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+acadiel Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Pppppth. We all know Windows 98 running on a modern piece of hardware will run rings around everything else, even this new fangled XP of which you speak. :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tursi Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Classic99 sometimes starts with the initial BEEP a little choppy sounding, but I think that's the Realtek sound driver Or Classic99. I found an interesting bug in the old timing code yesterday. Runs a bit nicer on my netbook now! (Will release soon). Pppppth. We all know Windows 98 running on a modern piece of hardware will run rings around everything else, even this new fangled XP of which you speak. :-) If you haven't done so for a while, try installing DOS+Windows 3.1 in a modern VM (even DOSBox). It makes all those long installs back in the day feel so much better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrospect Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Or Classic99. I found an interesting bug in the old timing code yesterday. Runs a bit nicer on my netbook now! (Will release soon). Excellent. Hey, (just an idea) ... if you do get the timing better, maybes putting in CS1 support through WAV files could be put on the TODO list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+hloberg Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Just FYI, Can't find this but someone recent ask if anyone has tired using a SD to CF card adapter in a CF7+ like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SDXCF-B-SDHC-SDXC-to-CF-Type-II-Adapter-Reader-for-8-16-32-64-128-GB-SD-eye-fi-/371072673524?pt=US_Memory_Card_Readers_Adapters&hash=item5665a7a6f4 Well, I tried it today and it don't work for me. got all kinds of errors and blue screen using the adapter with the CF7+. tried various SD cards to be sure and none worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmusr Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Just FYI, Can't find this but someone recent ask if anyone has tired using a SD to CF card adapter in a CF7+ like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SDXCF-B-SDHC-SDXC-to-CF-Type-II-Adapter-Reader-for-8-16-32-64-128-GB-SD-eye-fi-/371072673524?pt=US_Memory_Card_Readers_Adapters&hash=item5665a7a6f4 Well, I tried it today and it don't work for me. got all kinds of errors and blue screen using the adapter with the CF7+. tried various SD cards to be sure and none worked. It may have been me who asked. Thank you for testing, it's a shame it doesn't work. Have you tried to check what TI99Dir gets out of a SD card that has been in the CF7+? I just wonder if it has been formatted at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+hloberg Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) It may have been me who asked. Thank you for testing, it's a shame it doesn't work. Have you tried to check what TI99Dir gets out of a SD card that has been in the CF7+? I just wonder if it has been formatted at all. Actually tested it with formatting in TI-Dir. that looked like it went OK. But when you tried writing to the card in TI-Dir it would error most of the time. Didn't matter what kind of SD card or if I tried it with the card in the CF adapter or not. also tried different speed SD cards and different sizes. As for installing the card adapter in the CF7+ all I ever got was a blue screen. pity. After several attempts today I just returned the adapter to Frys. Edited May 31, 2014 by hloberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tursi Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Excellent. Hey, (just an idea) ... if you do get the timing better, maybes putting in CS1 support through WAV files could be put on the TODO list? It's actually already there (on the TODO list), but the real time interface isn't needed to read a WAV file, only to listen to a real cassette recorder. Edited June 1, 2014 by Tursi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+hloberg Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Totally impractical, but looks like be a fun project. RasberryPi cell phone. http://youtu.be/8eaiNsFhtI8 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.