Posts by Mage

Re: it wasn't created until 1996.

True, but why was it only in NT4.0 as a technet preview in 2000 approx? USB May 1996, and NT4.0 August 1996. USB was never publicly released for NT4.0, presumably so as to protect Windows 2000 sales. Yet Win2K was rushed out, buggy and unfinished. We continued installing NT 4.0 sp6 for customers until SP1 of XP was out. XP SP1 was the "completed" version of Windows 2000 (NT 5.1 vs 5.0).

Was the Itanium version of XP the shortest supported windows ever?

I did test the technet/MSDN preview of USB on NT4.0. The scanner wouldn't install because the programmer was checking OS Version. MS frequently told people NEVER check for OS version to decide to install but installed features! So I installed driver on a Win2K laptop and copied the files to the NT4.0 install with added MS USB stack. The scanner worked.

It's amazing though how many people assume Win95 did have it from the start.

Re: Originally, C++ compiled to C

To give fast access to the C++ language in the 1980s. Glockenspiel C++ used back-end C compilers, such as MS C. But it was only a stepping stone.

The other approach was used in UCSD p-system. An ideal instruction set for the language and then a Virtual Machine to execute the p-code. Later used for Visual Basic, Java, MS J++ which became C# and also Android's VM, which is using source like Java. Maybe some versions of Forth too.

GCC is a good idea. Having a Pre-processor that emits C, C++, Java or Javascript is fine to prototype and test a new language before porting it to either GCC or a compiler for a VM.

JAL and some BASIC for PIC micro use an intermediate code like the idea of p-code, but a final pass creates the machine code. A little like GCC.

Re: What about Assembly Language?

Yes, MS-DOS was a bought in reverse engineering of CP/M 86, which was assembler. Much of CP/M 86 and CP/M 86 or DOS Apps were auto translated from 8080 code to 8086 by an Intel tool. The 8088 / 8086 was really a superset of 8080, hence the awful 64K segments and no 16 bit flat addressing like all the true 16 bit cpus in early 1980s.

Early C was barely more than a Macro assembler and the most common C bugs where/are

Unexpected expansion of the macros

Array bound violation because no compile or runtime checking. purely null terminations. Both Modula-2 and VB6 had a far better way of doing strings. C++ also had a better way of doing strings from about 1988, but mostly ignored.

Libraries buggy or misunderstood.

No strong typing, issues with parameters, inappropriate casts (Solved and ignored in C++, solved better in Modula-2).

Inappropriate use of pointers (dereferencing pointer to unallocated RAM, arithmetic etc).

Big failing of C++ was AT&T's insistence on backward compatibility. Strustrupp didn't want it and it's been crippling since.

Re: Because hoarding data is their MO.

This isn't really new news.

I've been using Signal for SMS instead of the default Messages.

Also I use K-9 email as the Android email client is really using Google servers not at local email client at all, so if you use the default Android email Google gets all the credentials and messages.

I use a third party keyboard. Yes, an evil one could be a security risk, but there are companies doing free touch keyboards that are less evil than Google.

The Google Gallery is also a problem. I have an alternate to that.

To think that we used to worry about Microsoft!

Re: because MS-DOS was "heavily inspired" by 70s CP/M

In fact CP/M-86 was almost automatically built by DR using the 8080 to 8086 translator. A company made a sort of copy (somehow) of CP/M 86 and MS bought that company. They only edited/re-wote later versions. So originally no sub-directories. I forget if they came with 2.11 or 3.2. The MSDOS 3.3 was the first decent version. DOS 4 & 5 poor. Next useful upgrade was 6.22, which maybe was last standalone version.

MS did later sell Xenix for the 286 before they had MS version of OS/2 (1989 after IBM & MS split on OS/2). Maybe that's why NT version numbering starts at 3.1 in 1993?

The DOS 7.x only came with Win 9x, which unlike earlier NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 wasn't a true self contained 32 bit multitasking OS. Win9x ran DOS code natively on DOS and 16 bit Windows code natively. NT used WoW so 16 bit api calls used 32 bit API and all 16 bit code ran on the NTVDM.

IBM crippled desktop computing for a decade by choosing 8086/8088 cpu family simply because CP/M applications could be quickly ported instead of the many available true 16 bit CPUs with flat addressing instead of ghastly 64K segments to allow 8080 code porting. Partly they only wanted to compete with Apple 6502, CP/M etc and not innovate or compete with their own products. Zero innovation in the catalogue build 8088 based IBM-PC.

Re: Windows ME is 10x worse than Windows Vista

Win ME wasn't NT. Vista was NT.

Win ME was pointless garbage, Windows 98SE was better, if you needed stuff that didn't work on NT 4.0

We didn't upgrade NT 4.0 till after XP came out. Not sure if we waited for SP1. Win2K was the unfinished XP, as Vista was unfinished Win 7

Re: ST Transporter

See Clifford Simak's Way station which explicitly has the original body is killed and disposed of, so it really only transfers the non-physical meta-data.

In reality the Transporter was added to ST for budget reasons. The shuttle model too expensive. It's an impossible amount of data to transfer apart from the energy requirements which make the "replicator" also impossible.

The problem with Musk, Zuckerberg and others is that they miss that SF is mostly entertainment and occasionally a warning. It's never intended as a blueprint. Read Shockwave Rider.

Re: Yeah but...

There is big difference between a Zimbabwe Dollar and the US Dollar or the euro.

Crypto just replaces banks with dodgy server operators.

The main central banks are a manageable problem eased by the creation of the euro. There is not even a theoretical better alternative to fiat currency. Crypto certainly is not the solution and it's unworkable as a currency and not scaleable because of blockchain. Blockchain is not scaleable.

See Bruce Schneier on "trust".

Re: Something will come of it one day

First part 100% true.

But there is no blockchain application that can't be done far better in a "traditional" way. Blockchain really only exists to make cryptocurrencies look clever.

Re: NT 3.51 looks very similar

Ah, waiting for IBM HW isn't the same as waiting for IBM SW.