Re: [OT] Re: Offshore Outsourcing
From: Edward G. Nilges (spinoza1111_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: Matthias Blume: "Re: SoA Vs OO"
- Previous message: Rahul Gandhi: "Printf implementation"
- In reply to: gswork: "Re: [OT] Re: Offshore Outsourcing"
- Next in thread: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: [OT] Re: Offshore Outsourcing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 4 Jun 2004 17:35:43 -0700
gswork@mailcity.com (gswork) wrote in message news:<81f33a98.0406030556.53c2fa39@posting.google.com>...
> "Mabden" <mabden@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<ZcBvc.78332$%q5.21791@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "gswork" <gswork@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > news:81f33a98.0406022323.2a0a54e8@posting.google.com...
> > > Mike <m.fee@nospam.irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.1b291de1c616c05c9896c1@newshost.comnet.co.nz>...
> > > > In article
> > > > <MPG.1b27965b3a973b6498983a@news.verizon.net>,
> > > > randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net says...
> > > > >...
> > > > > "The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry is its
> > > > > continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering gains made by the
> > > > > computer hardware industry..." - Henry Petroski
> > > > >
> > > > > What is clear is that I quoted someone, for making what is a rather
> > > > > patently obvious statement about software development.
> > > > >...
> > > > > The rather obvious proof is the staggering number of legacy PC systems
> > > > > which cannot even boot Windows XP due to resource limitations. The
> same
> > > > > can also be said for almost every "recent" OS available, including
> those
> > > > > which are open source, from Microsoft, Apple, etc. It seems to quite
> > > > > natural to always use up all available resources with feature creep,
> > > > > which is not a surprise to most people.
> > > > >
> > > > I have dabbled with the idea of loading up my old
> > > > Windows 3.1 disks (last used, and vaguely stable on an
> > > > old 486 DX4 100MHz machine with 32 MB of ram - fastest
> > > > machine in the street when I got it!) on a new 2.6+ GHz
> > > > machine; for the sole purpose of seeing how fast it
> > > > would boot.
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody tried such an experiment - can 3.1 even run
> > > > on a modern machine?
> > >
> > > Some folk seem to have DOS and sometimes Win 3.1 on up to date PC's),
> > > things still appear to work generally (from reading messages in other
> > > groups/websites about old computer stuff). I have DOS/Win3.1 on a P75
> > > with 16MB Ram and it's very fast (about the same as your machine i'd
> > > think), anything more powerful and for the OS itself there would be
> > > little incremental gain, once its fast its fast!
> >
> > I don't know about DOS itself (I do have a nice 486 12MHz machine that has
> > DOS 6 and Win 3.31) but I've found many programs that simply blow up because
> > when they ask for how much memory the system has, it blows past their
> > expectations. A lot of games do this, as well, and I assume it's because of
> > the video resolution or memory issues. What a shame.
>
> It is a shame, but that's the risk with old DOS software that makes
> direct access to [assumed] hardware, games do this more than other
> apps because of the way graphics and sound programming was done under
> DOS. It's usually graphical or sound code that cause an old DOS game
> to blow up under newer hardare (or Windows NT...or for that matter on
> an old PC under DOS itself sometimes!)
I think it's important not to "naturalise" DOS.
DOS itself was a parody of unix which by 1980 had existed for ten
years, and DOS encapsulated its own developers' limitations at a deep
level. For example, the "wild card" file identifier syntax of DOS is a
spoof of regular expressions.
Because DOS's developers had no idea that independent of code, one can
formalize the rules of an OS, today the fileid syntax of any DOS or
Windows system contains several gotchas and is not formalized.
Basically, Microsoft keeps on "improving" it by expanding the range of
valid file identifiers. There is SOME syntax to file identifiers but
it has never been, to my knowledge, formalized.
Having said this I was reasonably impressed in 1981 with my first DOS.
But part of my experience was the rugged IBM style engineering of the
IBM PC, which was something you could pound on.
Today, the V and the B key of my Vaio have been destroyed by similar
pounding, and at times I have to be careful when moving this laptop
lest it lose its connection to the disk, with a blue screen of death.
I need a laptop that has been ruggedized for military style
applications but these cost 4K.
As it is, I am typing on the base of the late lamented V and B keys
until I find a shop in Hong Kong which is actually able to fix these
damn keys.
I sense (from seeing other Vaios, which are always spanking clean and
have all their keys) that the Vaio is designed for a younger
generation of Yuppies who have unlike me been brought up, not any
longer to respect their elders, but instead to respect their
computers.
Thus when I take my Vaio out at Security at the airport, it goes
straight to the analyzer for chemical WMD based strictly on the fact
that it is usually covered in dust and nameless dirt, while the
younger generations sail through with Vaios in mint condition.
- Next message: Matthias Blume: "Re: SoA Vs OO"
- Previous message: Rahul Gandhi: "Printf implementation"
- In reply to: gswork: "Re: [OT] Re: Offshore Outsourcing"
- Next in thread: Edward G. Nilges: "Re: [OT] Re: Offshore Outsourcing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
