[Ardour-Users] OSX vs Linu

[m.eik michalke]

am Montag, 24. August 2009 (01:09) schrieb John Emmas:
> No, Windows doesn't run on Amiga, Atari, Sparc etc but they are not its
> target platform.  That's why I described Microsoft's problems as
> being *almost* on almost the same scale as Linux.

my point was that windows has its explicit target platform, where linux has 
many, so the possible issues are many. if this is of interest for mac vs. 
linux, i think it is for windows vs. linux as well. but this is perhaps not 
that relevant here, as windows isn't even an option. [and a little off-topic]

> Furthermore, your comments about Windows lack of backwards compatibility
> are just ill-informed.

i admit i can only speak for my experiences until XP came, since then i am 
just a passive observer. actually some of our working groups (in my institute) 
had to buy new printers and scanners because there were really no XP drivers 
for these models, and the 2000 drivers weren't working properly. that was some 
time ago (not as much as 20 years though), and just my personal experience 
from that work environment. i didn't mean to say windows is all messed up, 
this is just what i observed first hand. i can't change that ;-)

maybe this is more accurate and up-to-date:
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_RTM_Hardware_Compatibility_List#Heavy_Problems.2C_currently_incompatible
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Software_Compatibility_List#Heavy_Problems.2C_Currently_Incompatible

> In fact, under XP I am still running programs that I first bought for
> Windows 3.1 - and even a very old DOS app!! Contrast that with Mac, where
> any major OS upgrade has traditionally required you to upgrade all your
> favourite apps, at enormous expense.

we had actually huge problems with older dos apps (lab software for quite old, 
but very expensive measurement hardware you cannot simply replace) when 2000 
came, as it wasn't full dos compatible. sometimes freedos helped out, but i 
guess there's still some win98 machines left. that too is not that big an 
issue here, and i really don't expect full dos compatibility in nt.

however, i was comparing windows to linux, so it doesn't count if it beats a 
mac ;-)

> > my windows experiences were always if update mechanisms were
> > implemented at all, each program did it differently, and automation was
> > impossible).
>
> I can only surmise that your experiences were a very long time ago.  Why is
> it that Windows critics insist on lambasting Windows because of how it used
> to be 20 years ago??  Like all other OS's, Windows has come a long way
> since its early beginnings.  It is grossly unfair to be still criticising
> it for problems that were solved decades ago.

hm, as stated before it's not 20 years ago, but maybe i really missed that in 
the meantime. i'll ask my collegues tomorrow to show me how a general software 
update under windows works. there's a market for stuff like UpdateStar, so i'm 
keen to learn how microsoft solves this.

after all, i am only talking about my experiences. i would like them to be 
read like that, and not being called irksome or the like.


best regards :: m.eik

-- 
::: http://OpenMusicContest.org   :: music wants to be free
  :                                :
 .:                                : http://reaktanz.de/blog
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/attachments/20090824/74f03da9/attachment-0002.pgp>