Posted on 06/16/2008 8:35:11 PM PDT by twntaipan
You know, like calculating heating loads and CFM to pump into a room, all that stuff your computer shouldn't do anyway. Not buying new software because the old software is paid for is just wrong.
Go ask the software vendor why their lousy software doesn’t work and when it’ll be fixed. Since the OS has been out more than a year, I suspect that you’d rather bitch than demand accountability from the actual makers of your software.
You know, for years I've been hearing that because hardware manufacturers won't release drivers for Linux somehow this makes Linux "not ready," and somehow it becomes the fault of Linux.
So by that definition, since software vendors won't release updates to run on Vista, does this make Vista "not ready?" And is it Microsoft's fault?
They probably don't care what I'm doing on the pot, either, but I'm not taking the door off the bathroom. Private means private.
I found it irritating to have to relearn where everything is on the apps.
So you're saying all XP software is known to have been written prior to XP's release?? Rather, I think we can more safely say his software is AT MOST 6 years old, and in fact could have been written as recently as 2006 and still been for the latest Windows at the time. Sounds like more of an argument why it should still work than an argument why he should upgrade.
Depends. A lot of hardware vendors use the release of a new OS version to enforce planned obsolescence to get users to update hardware. If a component is, say, ten years old then no it doesn’t make business sense to maintain support for it. In other cases, is a bald-faced attempt to export money out of unsuspecting users.
In the case of hardware drivers and to a greater extent software, backward compatability is broken to close an attack vector. It happens with every OS, but it seems that some get a pass (OS9 to OSX, or Linux 2.x to 3.x), while others don’t.
Those of you who prefer Linux didn’t seem to care about backward compatibility when Windows wasn’t secure. But now that it is, for some reason it’s a priority. Curious, but not at all surprising.
Eh? What is this Linux 3.x thing? The most current Linux kernel is 2.6.
But besides that, I can easily boot Linux kernel 0.99 on just about any commodity hardware. Support can be had and new drivers can be written although you may have to pony up and hire someone to do it. Try that with Windows 3.11.
Those of you who prefer Linux didn’t seem to care about backward compatibility when Windows wasn’t secure.
Those of us who prefer Linux haven't had to care about backward compatibility. My code from 1999 works just as well today on a 2.6 kernel and new hardware as it did then. Code written for Linux on a Sun Sparcstation 5 will compile on an AMD64. Backward compatibility is always possible with Linux. It may require some work, but it's possible. Contrast that with the proprietary world where backward compatibility is a joke and often induced simply to sell new software.
Curious, but not at all surprising.
What? That Linux detractors make stuff up to try and prove a point?
Well, I agree.
I just found that upgrading various components of my PC every year or so to keep up with the games was getting more expensive than just buying a console every five years. And as opposed to one PC configuration the games just get better over a console’s lifetime as the developers better learn how to take advantage of the hardware (this is especially true for the PS3, and previouly the Nintendo 64). Now the only things my family plays on the Mac or PC are the little Popcap-type games or old games for nostalgia (the last Populous was great). Serious gaming gets done on the consoles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.