How workable is Vista?

I have both a eZdsp F2812 with integrated parallel port JTAG emulator and a XDS510PP+ parallel port JTAG emulator from Spectrum Digital which work well with VMware contained Win2k.

SD has a new inexpensive USB emulator, for $249. I will probably get it for a spare that I can use with an XP laptop for in the field reprogramming (which for me means down the hall in one of the labs). I suspect it will not function with VMware.

However, I do have an old VMware. I'm not sure if newer ones implement more of the USB functionality.

Some instruments work under VMware, like I think my Agilent scope works. Some don't. It depends.

--
Good day!

____________________________________
CRC
crobcREMOVETHIS@BOGUSsbcglobal.net
NOTE, delete texts: "REMOVETHIS" and
"BOGUS" from email address to reply.

It's not the only thing that makes .doc format unsuitable for exchanging data. The file formats vary according to the version of Word used to create it, and the support for importing different formats varies by version. It's a read-write format, and therefore totally unsuitable for sending documents to others if you don't expect them to modify them. Printouts are inconsistent - things like page breaks and fonts will vary dramatically depending on the installed fonts and settings on each individual PC. And of course, .doc is not a standard and is not properly documented, and therefore is unsuitable for long-term archiving.

If you are sending files to someone who is not expected to edit the files, you'd have to have a very good reason for using something other than pdf. If you are storing or sending editable files, the only standard format is open document. Soon MS Office will have decent support for open document, and there will no longer be any reason to use .doc files.

And if you are paranoid about what might be in your open document files (such as revisions), you can simple rename the file to ".zip", open it and view the xml text.

Windows handles printing using "device contexts" - you draw your text onto a canvas.

But why don't you just use a text editor that supports printing? Off-hand, I can't think of any text editor (except nano - but that hardly counts as native windows) I've used on Windows that does *not* support printing directly.

I only use it in situations where collaboration is required and thus the other parties must be allowed to edit. An unspoken rules is to store in '97-compatible format so no version issues either.

Anything else goes out as PDF.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

OK, I got home and did some testing... Not bad. Not bad at all. It works [maybe a little slowly] with the TI hardware, which was instant death to VMWare and Parallels. Works with the JTAG-ICE and AVRISP mkII. Jury's still out on a couple of my other pieces of hardware, I'm having administrative trouble moving some nodelocked licenses.

Thanks for the recommendation there, looks like a useful product.

Thanks for posting your results here (I haven't had time to try much hardware with Virtual Box, other than the dongle and debugger mentioned previously).

You can manually set the MAC address of the virtual NICs - perhaps setting them to the same address will let you run your nodelocked software?

e?

Mmm, it's not that. This particular software looks at several bits of the system, and I think one of them is the number of CPU cores; I've previously only installed it on single-core machines and my MacBook is a Core Duo. I've asked the vendor for a new installation key.

almost the moment it boots up;

get responses to anything I do.

starting up,

ahead and

The first question, why on earth does the computer have to be booted ? Why not just let the computer run through the night ?

I have been managing big VAX/VMS systems in the 1980/90s, in which the question was which _year_ the next boot should be performed. I assume that the situation was similar for any Unix system.

The Microsoft 9x family was quite useless for any serious applications, but for instance NT 3.51 did not crash even if you looked at it with the angry eye :-).

The problem with any Microsoft version is that it needs daily (or at least weekly) security updates, which strangely also require a reboot. For this reason, I do not recommend to my customers to use any Windows based operating systems, unless a double/triple redundant system is used (in which case you can boot one PC at a time for security updates).

Paul

almost the moment it boots up;

get responses to anything I do.

starting up,

ahead and

The computer should be on when you need it. Why on earth do you need the computer to be on when you are not using it?

Do you keep the water taps in your bathroom open at all time?

Fire hazard, noisy fans, energy waste, hardware wear?

Like what?

Most of the problems attributed to Microsoft are actually caused by the lousy application programmers and unskilled operators.

There is no practical need to do updates to the original versions. Well, with the exception for the few special cases when you really need never components. It is Microsoft who wants you to be addicted on the unnecessary clutter.

This is not strange. It is quite difficult to unninstall the loaded component correctly, with all associations and dependencies. They ask for reboot to make sure everything is done all right. In the most of cases you can continue safely without reboot even if they required it.

If someone is a lamer, he will have problems regardless of OS.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

Like any :-). Come on, you will not call this joke an OS? XP is a lot stabler and might be called "a vastly bloated and inefficient - but sort of working - OS", I suppose.

Didi

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

I Drink to THAT!

--

Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

A computer is not more of a fire hazard at night than during the day - less so if it is not doing much work. The fan noise is not a problem unless it is in your bedroom, and the hardware wear is not a big issue (hard disk wear is much more significant when they are in use), though it is not negligible. Good quality hardware is designed to work at 100% uptime.

The only serious issue is energy usage. Modern systems are quite good at running at lower power when there is not much demand for processing power. It's still a waste, unless you use electric heating anyway. How relevant that waste is depends on your circumstances.

Most of the problems people encounter are application problems, or driver problems. But MS is not blameless - both applications and drivers can cause far more problems than should be possible if the OS had proper separation of programs. The main reason NT 3.51 was more reliable and stable than any windows version before or since is that the gui and drivers were in user space, not kernel space.

I agree entirely. The only people that really need regular updates and service packs are those with unsafe web habits. Use a proper browser (anything but i.e.), a decent email client (anything but o.e. or o.), proper virus scanning on email (on the email server, not the PC), and a real firewall (not software "firewall" on the windows machine). And apply a touch of common sense. These basic rules are far more relevant than windows upgrades or fixes.

It's difficult, but far from impossible. On *nix, it is perfectly possible to replace and update the executables and libraries for programs that are in use. The new version will not be used until it is restarted, but that alone avoids a lot of reboots for equivalent updates.

For a more advanced solution, there is work under way to allow live patching of the Linux kernel without rebooting, as long as the change does not require changes to existing data structures. It's already perfectly possible to unload, update, and reload kernel modules without a reboot.

On windows, many of the "required reboots" are not required at all - it's just developers don't spend the time and effort required to figure out how to avoid it. A reboot is simple to request, and avoids many potential complications.

If you need close to 100% uptime, you need redundant systems. With windows, you need more to achieve high uptime figures than with *nix. I can't remember where I read it, but I saw a report for getting five nines uptime for a cluster running a web server. With Red Hat, you needed two machines (obviously with appropriately spec'ed hardware - redundant power supplies, fans, and RAID). With Windows (probably W2K or W2K3 server), you needed five machines.

Linuxopathia: cursing Bill Gates and M$ at all occasions, and preaching the greatness of Linux :)

If Linux is so good, and free, and Windows is so bad, and it is 2008 already, then why the vast majority of developers and users prefer M$? :)

I consider Win95 to be the excellent work for what it was intended to. M$ did a significant leap forward while maintaining the 100% compatibility with DOS/Win3.x legacy and keeping the performance.

The NT/Win2k/XP was a path of small useful improvements. Unfortunately, Vista seems to be away from this path.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

It doesn't have to. There are hybernation and standby modes.

At night, the computers are unattended. Long while ago I had to extinguish a burning TV set with water. Since then, the techology was improved etc. etc. but nevertheless.

And the fan speed is adaptive also, but fans still suck the dust :)

Mainly because of the high rate of the moral depreciacion. However the progress seems to slow down despite of the evil efforts of M$ and Intel :)

I heard the opinion that the hard disk wear is the most significant at startup and shutdown. Don't now how much truth is in it.

I forgot what good quality means. You can buy a cheap part or an expensive part, and there is about the equal likelihood of failure. Only the things which were produced for many years and in the big quantities can be polished to perfection. This is the opposite to the current demands of the market.

Wasting is wrong in the phylosophical sense :)

A typical bashing of M$ without any reason :) As if it could help any :)

BTW, this is the valid argument for change to Vista.

But there are the performance and the compatibility tradeoffs associated with that.

The unsafe habbits can't be helped. The non-technical problems can't be solved by technical means.

We can like it or not, but IE is the standard. If you don't want to have strange problems with some of the web pages, you have to keep IE.

a decent email client (anything but o.e. or o.),

The common sense is the main component. With common sense, the IE and OE are OK. Without common sense, nothing will help.

Exactly.

This is what Windows does, too.

Yes. It is difficult to blame the developers for attempting to make their lifes easier. BTW, what is so wrong with rebooting? It only takes a minite or two, if the PC is not cluttered.

I'd say it depends mainly on the qualification of the personnel and the way they take on the things. There are the numerous examples of the system crashes at the internet providers and web hosters; regardless of what software and hardware they were using.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

So where did I mention linux...?

Do you claim that the vast majority of users are intelligent enough to be able to make such a choice? :-)

BTW, I am not using linux either.

So do you claim this 9x joke can be called an OS?

(I am not disputing the fact that it did what was intended).

Far from small. In a very bloated and clumsy way they made something resembling an OS with a reentrant filesystem; now they can(?) work based on that towards a real multitask OS.

If it indeed takes 10x RAM it is bound to remain useless. Just like silicon is hitting the physical boundaries which are around 25-35 nm, bloating software is reaching its limits of acceptance as well. Once software seems to be ahead of hardware for a change.... :-).

Didi

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

------------------------------------------------------

Original message:

That is what I am using with modern laptops. However, this is not an option to get away with all the clutter accumulating into the memory or for installing updates.

With older hardware, such as W2000 on a dual processor system, hibernate/standby was not a real option, so I had to run it all the time (while turning of the CRT monitor for the night).

I usually have 100-200 web pages open and also 5-10 PDF documents and few other files that I am working with.

After the reboot it takes several minutes with a 1 Mbit/s or half an hour on GPRS/dial-up internet connections to reload these pages (Firefox does it automatically), then it takes several minutes to find again the PDF documents (wherever I put them :-) and position the cursor to the original paragraph. The same applies for other files that I am working with. So in reality, a crash or a reboot means at lest 30-60 minutes of extra work.

For this reason, I think it is necessary that the OS and hardware is reliable. For this reason, I have avoided the W9x family as a plague.

Paul

Bill Gates and Microsoft have earned more than a little cursing, as they have repeatedly broken laws and abused their monopoly position to gain more power and money at the expense of everyone else (that's not opinion, it's easily verified fact). You can argue that they are a business, and thus making money should be their prime concern - not customer satisfaction, value for money, quality, or dealing fairly with other players in the industry. But people are going to curse them for that behaviour anyway.

Linux *is* great - both technically, and as a social and economic phenomenon. And even if you never use it (or *think* you never use it - in reality, it turns up all over the place, just as the bsd's and other

*nix do), you still benefit from it. The competition from Linux is forcing Microsoft's prices down, especially for big contracts, and it's keeping XP available!. Internet Explorer development stagnated until Firefox gave it serious competition (and ideas to copy). Open office has lead to a standardised document format that even Microsoft is in the process of adopting rather than closed and undocumented proprietary formats.

Windows is certainly not all bad, and the computer industry has a great deal to thank Microsoft for - but it also has a great deal to curse them for. Linux is great, but it's far from perfect - there are uses for which it is ideal, and uses for which it is not suitable.

If you are thinking of targeted PC platforms, things are changing:

The first Win95 was laughably slow and unstable - it made Wfw3.11 look like a rock. Win 95 OSR2 was not bad, however. It wasn't a patch on OS/2 Warp, but Microsoft's business brilliance combined with IBM's total incompetence to put an end to OS/2. An example of the difference is that Win95 ran every 16-bit program and driver, including the graphics system, in a single memory space. This ensured that when a 16-bit program (and virtually all PC software was 16-bit at the time) crashed, it took down the whole system. It also ensured that there were artificial limits to the number and sizes of programs (albeit larger than on Wfw3.11). OS/2, on the other hand, kept processes properly separated, and could give each 16-bit program access to a large memory area.

Most famously, Win95 has a bug that causes it to hang or crash after

49.7 days of uptime. This was only discovered after many years (at least 5 years, but I can't remember exactly) because no one had run Win95 for that long without it hanging or crashing earlier.

Agreed.

It's certainly possible to be unlucky. But the chances are that any overheating that could cause a fire risk will happen during use, not at night. Overheating has less chance of turning into a fire (because you turn the thing off when you first see the smoke, rather than after your smoke detector has seen the smoke). Still, the risks are minor.

I heard that too - I also don't know the truth of it.

One customer I knew had a hard disk that was fine when running, but had to be held at an angle of about 20 degrees to the horizontal to start up, and shaken slightly at specific parts of the boot up sequence. Fortunately it ran a dedicated program on DOS, and only needed booted if there was a power cut.

There's a lot of truth in that - there's a reason you can buy new servers equipped with, for example, 73GB SCSI disks - they are a few years behind modern SATA disks in space, but are tried and tested. But there are certainly differences in the care and attention to detail that come with better quality parts.

That's true. But if you do the maths, you'll probably find that you save more money, and reduce your "environmental footprint" more, by cycling to work one day a week instead of driving.

Bashing MS is fun and easy - is any other reason required?

Unless Vista has moved the gui and other large and unreliable parts out of the kernel, made all third party drivers non-kernel (or at least made it possible to run drivers in user mode), separated the gui from the file manager, and separated the web browser from the rest of the system, then I don't see a reasons to change.

I read somewhere that it's now possible (or will be "real soon now") to disable the gui altogether on server versions of windows - almost like on a real server operating system. I haven't used windows as a server since an old NT 4.0 machine (that is still going strong), so I haven't followed the details.

Certainly you can get more performance with the gui and graphics drivers in the kernel (compatibility should have been a minor concern, as there were no application level compatibility issues), and that's why they were moved to the kernel. But no one complained about the speed of NT

3.51 - they were astounded by its reliability.

There's no doubt that having X and the graphics system outside the kernel on Linux makes X slower than Windows for high speed graphics on the same hardware. There is also no doubt that it makes the system more reliable (if your Linux desktop dies, the average user will still think "my computer's crashed" - but it comes up again faster, and you don't have the risks of file system corruption and other serious failures from a complete crash). With more modern Linux systems, however, the graphics system gets a limited back-door to the hardware - enough to get a similar speed to Windows for graphic-intensive games, without the risks.

The unsafe habits can be cured in the office - threads with wire cutters and public humiliation have a marvellous effect on sinners. But as you say, it's a non-technical solution!

We don't like it, and it's not the standard. Usage varies widely according to geographic area and the sort of web site used for surveys, but the market is split roughly evenly between IE6, IE7, and Firefox. If you don't want to have strange problems with websites, you use Firefox. Apart from testing websites that I have made myself, I've

*never* (in over ten years) used IE seriously for more than a small handful of sites in total.

But if you *do* need to use IE for some sites (I know some bank web sites have the ridiculous idea of using ActiveX for "secure" logins), it's easy enough to lock IE to "high security" in general, and specify the required site as a "trusted" site. Use Firefox (or Opera) for everything else.

No, common sense is not enough (though it is necessary). The difference is when you do something accidentally - click on an advert, mistype a web address, or fall for a phishing link. With IE, when the adverts for casinos (or worse) start popping up, and the "helpful" search toolbar is installed before you can close the page, you are stuck with it until an expert can (perhaps) fix the machine. With Firefox, you just close the page, or perhaps the entire browser, and you're fine. Even if you manage to totally mess up Firefox with such junk (I've never heard of such a thing happening), you can just uninstall Firefox, delete the profiles, and re-install - it's just an application. With IE disasters, you have the joys of re-installing windows to look forward to.

No, windows will not allow you to update a file that is in use. When a program is running that uses a file (such as the program file itself, or its libraries), the file is locked. Any directories seen by running programs are also locked and can't be renamed or moved. That's why installation programs always advise you to close all other programs, and often complain that you have to close specific programs before proceeding (they are using shared libraries). The nearest Windows allows to replacing live files is to leave a note in the registry that specific files should be replaced (or deleted) during the next boot up.

I agree about not blaming the application developers, although in many cases they could have avoided a reboot with minimal effort.

But rebooting *is* time consuming for many users. I regularly have over twenty programs or windows open at a time. I have several text editors from work on different programs, or different parts of the same system. I have several Firefox windows, each with multiple tabs, with different reference pages conveniently on-hand. I have a bunch of command prompt boxes, ssh clients, explorer windows, and other stuff at hand. I don't reboot often - it's a waste of time and an inconvenience.

Incompetence trumps good hardware and good software every time!

There are also the numbers to consider - at five nines reliability, you have an expected average of five minutes downtime per year. But if you have a thousand systems at five nines, you can expect that for about 4 days of the year, at least one will be down. The probabilities get messy, and failures on single systems can lead to failures on others. All in all, it is not surprising that big players have total failures on occasion. *You* may have little chance of winning the lottery, but it's not surprising that week after week, *somebody* wins.

[snip]

What kind of formal standard exists for any MS product?

It would have to be excedinly urgent to need access to a particular Web page that you need to use a particular browser. The best reaction to a non-conforming Web site is to ignore it and go elsewhere.