I will program in ASM in 64-bit OS's, heck I still code Z80 to test my CPU emulator, I get kicks out of programming any machine I can get my hands on, thats why I'm actively looking for a Flash Cart for my Gameboy Advance and maybe dip into programming my Dreamcast (that Hitachi SH-4 processor has a MAtrix Math Engine @ 200Mhz does 1.6GFlops, not bad if u ask me :D)
Posted on 2003-11-23 19:15:23 by x86asm
Originally posted by donkey
... I won't be doing much programming at all anymore.

:( Sorry to hear that. I've abandoned assembly programming a long time ago and I'm having a hard time to start again.

I hope I will keep coding assembly until at least the double of Hutch--'s age :grin:
Posted on 2003-11-24 02:37:43 by pelaillo
Hi pelaillo,

You know, I program for a hobby and I like it but I don't really think I will invest the time to learn all of this stuff again. First of all my wife probably won't put up with it twice and second it is alot of work for something that provides no real-life advantages. Alot of people here program for a living and I understand that they will have to adapt or die, for myself I can always just find another hobby ;), maybe get back to electronics, I dabbled in that for years.
Posted on 2003-11-24 02:45:31 by donkey
maybe you should pick up something like python for linux :)
Posted on 2003-11-24 02:52:52 by Hiroshimator
I suggest its very hardware dependent and so far Itanium look like a flop commercially as there is better 64 bit hardware out there. If the market goes the AMD route which is the more likely path with Intel having similar hardware in the pipeline, you will probably get some follow on from existing programming.

What I doubt you will ever see is Microsoft EVER abandon the platform that makes it the most money and at the moment the market is locked into 32 bit Windows and has a very high resistence to shelling out a LOT more bux for later hardware.

Apart from the hoo hah, XP does little more than win3.11 and most users can see that. The main justification for new OS version is MONEY 4 MICROSOFT, not giving you better or more powerful software.

Where do you wanna be today ?

Not shelling out more bux to Microsoft.

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-11-24 06:38:03 by hutch--

Apart from the hoo hah, XP does little more than win3.11 and most users can see that.

Wrong... XP doesn't do much more than 2k (NT5.1 vs NT5.0, go figure), but 2k does a lot more than NT4, which was a lot better than win9x which, while being a horrible piece of junk, was a lot better than win3.11.
Posted on 2003-11-24 06:41:36 by f0dder
Of course, if you just want to run a word or excel... maybe you could stick to 3.11.

But hey, I dont think its useless to have gained all those customizable user interfaces, buttons, properties sheets, and all. imo you gain in ease of use. call it hooh hah if you want.

And what about support for new hardware/soft technologies, better-designed config panel, the wonderful taskbar(!), the magical start button (:) )and of course the directx api (what would games be without it?)?

you could say "you could get all this on top of a 3.11... but it would become XP.

Should I be forced to use a 486+3.11 for everyday use, I would realize what evolution has brought.
Posted on 2003-11-24 11:42:43 by HeLLoWorld

And what about support for new hardware/soft technologies, better-designed config panel, the wonderful taskbar(!), the magical start button (:) )and of course the directx api (what would games be without it?)?

Have you heard of OpenGL, Mesa?

As for the start button -- may it carsh and burn, looks terrible IMO.


Wrong... XP doesn't do much more than 2k (NT5.1 vs NT5.0, go figure)

Nop, It waists CPU time anyoing the user with a flashy GUI and a "friendly" assistant.


M$ would abandon 32-bit universe if there were lot's of more money to make on forcing the lusers to buy M$ WinDoze 64 and force them to uppgrade to Mu$ic Playa 64 and M$ Backdoor Office 64, and pay $100 a month for the newest pacthes to be sewed on.
Posted on 2003-11-24 12:12:05 by scientica

Have you heard of OpenGL, Mesa?

*giggle* - as if those could replace DirectX. Requiring vendor-specific extensions to do anything interesting, leading to different codepaths for different cards. Shaders are getting standardized in the new ogl - but oops, only 2.0 shaders, not the widespread 1.x. Querying for device capabilities (oh sure, you can get a list of supported extensions, but that really doesn't tell you much). Facilities for setting screen resolution? Decent support for anything but nvidia cards?


Nop, It waists CPU time anyoing the user with a flashy GUI and a "friendly" assistant.

Neither of which are very hard to disable. That aside, there's some optimizations in XP, like using syscall instead of interrupt for calling the kernel, not initializing devices during boot phase until they're needed, etc. Oh, and funny that you never see linux users criticize some of the extremely bloated and flashy window managers out there. XP isn't really bad once you tune it, but there's still not much reason to go 2k->xp for me - though some of the added high-performance APIs would be interesting to toy with, and the ability to attach/detach debugging to a process without terminating it on detach does have uses.

Oh, and don't they teach the kids to spell in sweden? Or is this just a general trait of ignorant linux zealots? ;)
Posted on 2003-11-24 12:22:55 by f0dder
Wow,

Has this thread taken a turn for the worst :grin:

I will be using Linux, but it is not for any political or anti-Microsoft reasons. It is because the company I work for is dumping all Microsoft products. You have to understand that we deal with very sensitive information and the .NET environment and the proposed changes to liscense verification techniques are not acceptable and I can gaurantee that many companies will follow. There is little or no chance that the company I work for is going to allow Microsoft or any other company to install TCPA or anything like it on our computers, no matter how much they may say they will not have access to private information they are not believed, they have lied before and it can only be assumed that they will continue to do so. The decision to go with Linux was completely security related, I use my desktop PC for some work and for the priveledge of being allowed to work at home I am not allowed to connect it to the internet because of corporate paranoia, even my work is transferred to and from the office on a zip disk.

In short, it is not whether the OS provides any real advantages, Microsoft is losing the trust of the corporate community and that is fatal. If they do not address this problem they will eventually die no matter how good or bad their products are.
Posted on 2003-11-24 12:37:48 by donkey
I don't like the idea of LongHorn, and I certainly don't like the TCPA - I think .net is interesting, though, and if done right could be a step in the right direction. But longhorn and TCPA annoys me intensely - I don't really want to change to another OS as windows suits me well, but I will probably have to sooner or later.

I just wish more people would turn their attention to interesting projects like ReactOS, instead of patching away on 70s technology and claiming it's secure and fine for desktop use.
Posted on 2003-11-24 12:45:27 by f0dder

I just wish more people would turn their attention to interesting projects like ReactOS, instead of patching away on 70s technology and claiming it's secure and fine for desktop use.


I agree but the nail is in the coffin for ReactOS. Most companies will never use it as it still enslaves them to Microsoft and it's new "policing" methods. Imagine that even if ReactOS after 10 years can actually boot and have a working GDI and User32, then MS shuts them down. You have still invested alot of your software dollars in MS technology or technology that needs MS to run. You still lose. Linux provides the answer to all of the requirements that our ISD department set out when searching for an alternative to Windows now as opposed to waiting for MS to drop the hammer of TCPA.
Posted on 2003-11-24 12:56:55 by donkey

*giggle* - as if those could replace DirectX. Requiring vendor-specific extensions to do anything interesting, leading to different codepaths for different cards.

What I ment was that there isn't only DX, sometimes it feels like people forget there is a world beyond the closed gates of windows.
btw, DX requires Windows (unless you count WineX and alike). OGL exist for more than windows.


Neither of which are very hard to disable. That aside, there's some optimizations in XP, like using syscall instead of interrupt for calling the kernel, not initializing devices during boot phase until they're needed, etc. Oh, and funny that you never see linux users criticize some of the extremely bloated and flashy window managers out there. XP isn't really bad once you tune it, but there's still not much reason to go 2k->xp for me - though some of the added high-performance APIs would be interesting to toy with, and the ability to attach/detach debugging to a process without terminating it on detach does have uses.

Oh, and don't they teach the kids to spell in sweden? Or is this just a general trait of ignorant linux zealots? ;)

With Linux you have a choise, GUI, flashy GUI or console -- windwos no choise, GUI or BSOD...
Can you disable the assitant? W00t!?! (even thougth I haven't used XP that much (limited to tech support to friends), but my attempts to assasinate it was partially successfull -- it reappeard in some wizzard after system reboot)

As for the spelling part, don't get me started...... (I can be really childish, or perhaps a nice flame war would make temperature reasonable for this part of the world?)
Posted on 2003-11-24 15:19:41 by scientica

What I ment was that there isn't only DX, sometimes it feels like people forget there is a world beyond the closed gates of windows.
btw, DX requires Windows (unless you count WineX and alike). OGL exist for more than windows.

There isn't really anything stopping anybody from writing a proper DirectX implementation on other platforms, except for silly pride. GL is an okay choice for CAD applications etc, but for games... well, everybody should embrace DX and make it cross-platform, really. I don't think there'd be any legal problems, as long as you stick to publicly available documentation and refrain from any Reverse Engineering.


With Linux you have a choise, GUI, flashy GUI or console -- windwos no choise, GUI or BSOD...

And that amount of choice costs dearly... even though linux has come a far way, there's still way too many problems across distros and desktop environments - and still ugly-looking non-conformist apps. Furthermore, it's not true you don't have a choice on windows... nothing stops you from replacing explorer.exe with another shell, and as far as I know XP's skinning support is 'flexible enough'. And BSOD? For the last couple of years, I think I can count my number of BSODs with two hands - a single if I don't include my dabblings with KMDs. The rest have been due to borked hardware or bad drivers.


Can you disable the assitant? W00t!?! (even thougth I haven't used XP that much (limited to tech support to friends), but my attempts to assasinate it was partially successfull -- it reappeard in some wizzard after system reboot)

If you're talking about the little annoying dog/whatever on filesearches, sure. Iirc, it's a single registry setting. After a bit of tweaking, XP is an okay system - I still prefer win2k though.

Oh, and as for the spelling, I was referring to your "M$", "windoze", etc - most of us, whether we like ms or not, stopped such silly namecalling at the age of 15 or whatever.
Posted on 2003-11-24 15:42:16 by f0dder
There are a number of things here to address. OpenGL was originally developed on Silicon Graphics hardware which in the graphics area is some powers more powerful than x86 pc architecture. Cross platform code is very hardware dependent and while DX may look good on x86 hardware, translate it to another hardware platform and it will have to compete with far superior image manipulation software.

From a user point of view, win3.11 or wfw has barely been improved on in over 10 years. From a programmers point of view its a different matter but programmers are such a small part of the market that they don't matter. Pre Win95 you had well written commercial apps written in C, not C++ like Word Processors, Spreadsheets, databases, graphics programs and many others that worked fine on 16 bit Windows and while it was a pig to write, there was a lot available written on average by far better programmers that was very reliable.

16 bit Windows boots far faster than the later versions and is generally a lot easier to fix if something goes wrong with it. When someone who is a non-technical user has a well set up win98se or similar, XP has even less to offer them except the cost of buying new hardware to support it and the cost of buying software that may be able to do the same as their existing software.

Cuddly new interface components may feel nice to the affictionadous but to most non-technical users it just another nuisance they have to learn just to be able to do what they could already do in their old box.

Some have laughed at me still using a 1992 version of Word but it was the last written in C, it loads instantly, writes correct RTF and does more than later versions and it does NOT have an idiot paper clip thats hard to get rid of. Much the same comment on the version of Excel I still use occasionally, loads instantaneously, runs like a rocket, does more than i ever needed inclding graphs, pie charts etc ...

In usefulness terms, the newer version don't do these things better but you must buy late enough hardware to run them and pay the inflated prices necessary to buy them.

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-11-24 20:44:29 by hutch--

... and it does NOT have an idiot paper clip thats hard to get rid of...


:grin:
Posted on 2003-11-24 21:11:35 by donkey
For me the main question of the thread is like asking if I will still breath air once it all goes stale. I program in ASM for reasons that have nothing to do with MS or Intel or AMD.

Hutch--, the new version of Office has features only dreamed of in 1992. :) I especially like Outlook 2003. I also have noticed an improvement in grammar and spell checking in Word 2003. The integrated help is also better - I have submitted almost a dozen suggestions.

I have had software problems since CPM and they have grown exponentially. So, my current theory is the larger the OS, the more problems.
Posted on 2003-11-24 21:18:55 by bitRAKE

There isn't really anything stopping anybody from writing a proper DirectX implementation on other platforms, except for silly pride. GL is an okay choice for CAD applications etc, but for games... well, everybody should embrace DX and make it cross-platform, really. I don't think there'd be any legal problems, as long as you stick to publicly available documentation and refrain from any Reverse Engineering.

Sure, how long would you get with out RE? Esp, if you want bug-for-bug compaillity. I don't like DX becuase it's COM, and COM is slow. (And gives me an head ace)


After a bit of tweaking, XP is an okay system - I still prefer win2k though.
Sure after "some" tweaking you make make XP descent, but IMo they should have made a guide for removing the guids and wizzards while they made the other wizzards.


Oh, and as for the spelling, I was referring to your "M$", "windoze", etc - most of us, whether we like ms or not, stopped such silly namecalling at the age of 15 or whatever.

I'm not adult yet ('bout a year left ;)).
Posted on 2003-11-24 23:42:45 by scientica

There are a number of things here to address. OpenGL was originally developed on Silicon Graphics hardware which in the graphics area is some powers more powerful than x86 pc architecture. Cross platform code is very hardware dependent and while DX may look good on x86 hardware, translate it to another hardware platform and it will have to compete with far superior image manipulation software.

OpenGL was written for "business-style rendering", not games, and it shows - if you've actually had a look at the API. It's fine for that, but clearly not designed games. The only real reasons to use OGL vs. DX is platform independence (which I could care less about for games), that it's more "idiot-proof" than DX (easier to start with, driver tries holding your hand and optimize moronic calls instead of requiring sound programming practice), etc. There just isn't anything *standardized* that offers the same level of hardware control and capability querying that DX does.


From a user point of view, win3.11 or wfw has barely been improved on in over 10 years. From a programmers point of view its a different matter but programmers are such a small part of the market that they don't matter. Pre Win95 you had well written commercial apps written in C, not C++ like Word Processors, Spreadsheets, databases, graphics programs and many others that worked fine on 16 bit Windows and while it was a pig to write, there was a lot available written on average by far better programmers that was very reliable.

That's wrong. Today, the average joe can pop in a winxp home edition CD and manage to install it without any major problem - that wasn't exactly the case with the mix of dos+win3.11. The increased system stability has also benefited users massively (oh boy have I heard people curse win9x to death because of BSODs, hardware conflicts, etc). The many small improvements to the GUI has made every-day life easier, and while I personally don't like the extra-fluffyness of winxp, it makes the UI look more appealing and friendlier to Mr. John Doe.


16 bit Windows boots far faster than the later versions and is generally a lot easier to fix if something goes wrong with it. When someone who is a non-technical user has a well set up win98se or similar, XP has even less to offer them except the cost of buying new hardware to support it and the cost of buying software that may be able to do the same as their existing software.

Thing is, NT genereally doesn't break on normal systems, and "a well set up win98se" takes a lot more than just popping in a CD and hitting 'install'. Furthermore, by today's standards, neither 2k nor XP requires that much of the machine, really, as long as you have a decent amount of RAM. And why are people so obsessed with boottime? On NT, you boot the machine and don't have to reboot or turn off until you leave the office.


Cuddly new interface components may feel nice to the affictionadous but to most non-technical users it just another nuisance they have to learn just to be able to do what they could already do in their old box.

Rather, it seems to be a nuisance to the oh-so-hardcore low-level programmers - regular users like it.


Some have laughed at me still using a 1992 version of Word but it was the last written in C, it loads instantly, writes correct RTF and does more than later versions and it does NOT have an idiot paper clip thats hard to get rid of. Much the same comment on the version of Excel I still use occasionally, loads instantaneously, runs like a rocket, does more than i ever needed inclding graphs, pie charts etc ...

Paperclip: right click, settings, turn off - and poof it's gone. Word2000 happens to load instantly too, even on my old mmx200 with a dead slow harddrive and a meager 64megs of ram. And yes, that's after removing the "fastload" application. Got a much better spell/grammar checker too, and that actually matters a lot to a fair amount of people.


Sure, how long would you get with out RE? Esp, if you want bug-for-bug compaillity. I don't like DX becuase it's COM, and COM is slow. (And gives me an head ace)

You'd get quite a far way without RE, as stuff is finely documented. Bug-for-bug compatibility... start by implementing it by the specs, and most stuff should run just fine. Then you can always start work on compatibility testing, which won't necessarily have to include RE. COM is slow? That's plain silly, for the type of calls you use in DX, that little overhead doesn't matter. Might do if you COM-wrapped OpenGL and still used ogl->glVertex3f() calls - but that would be plain suicide performance-wise even with the normal OGL API.
Posted on 2003-11-25 01:10:09 by f0dder
There seems to be something you have missed here, where the reference was about porting DX to other hardware, the comparison was not dedicated PC gaming but a capacity difference that DX has yet to match.

Other far more powerful hardware has manipulated graphics at speeds that current PC graphics cards don't come near. Commercial arcade games are one instance, dedicated hardware like silicon graphics boxes are another and military flight simulators handle data and image information beyond a PC and has done so for years.

DX seems to work fine on PC games apart from some of the absolute limitations, fogging for distance being only one of them but run hardware that is some powers faster and you will understand the difference.

OpenGL may be knobbled on a PC but it has some to do with the limitations of current hardware, use it with powerful enough hardware and the limitations disappear. Flight simulators from the 70s for military purposes had capacity that a modern PC would struggle to handle and it has a lot to do with the sheer difference in power between mainframes and PCs.

Not that it matters that much in relation to porting DX to other platforms as no-one is going to give Microsoft a chance to do what they have done to the PC market. Too much is at stake in commerce, security and a number of other important issues to let them in.

Regards,

hutch at movsd dot com
Posted on 2003-11-25 07:20:30 by hutch--