Author: Ted Roche
Posted: 2015-06-12 18:32:03 Link
Hey, start your own thread!
If you want to use software that will last for decades, maybe you
should find an OS where you can control what it does and doesn't run,
like Open Source DosBox and FreeDOS. They run well on Linux.
Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
not what necessarily what you want.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> At 12:23 2015-06-12, Stephen Russell <srussell705@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > At 12:01 2015-06-12, Alan Bourke <alanpbourke@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Guess what came on my laptop. And it was the Home edition so
>> >> > XP Mode would not run on it.
>> >>
>> >> Home users needing to run 16-bit software I would imagine is a fairly
>> >> tiny segment of the market. And there's always VirtualBox.
>
>
>> > 1) Who says that home users are the only ones using the Home Edition?
>> > "Home Edition" is only a name. The laptop that I purchased came with
>> > the
>> > Home Edition. It can run a lot of business software including Visual
>> > FoxPro.
>> >
>> > 2) Microsoft broke 16-bit software on 64-bit Windows 7. Why couldn't
>> > they have just kept the functionality?
>
>
>> It's all Gene's fault.
>>
>> 16 bit SW in use today is few and far between. Seems that 64 bit is the
>> leader today and yes you can still find a lot of 32 bit too.
>
>
> Ah, IT by popularity. Never mind whether the app meets the user's
> needs.
>
>> As a professional you should have considered the owners of the product
>> have
>> depreciated XP some time back.
>
>
> The word is "deprecated".
>
> Are you still using Visual FoxPro? As a professional you should
> consider the owners of the product deprecated Visual FoxPro some time back.
> Well, are you "professional" by the standard that you are trying to tie to
> me, or are you are a hypocrite?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirhenko
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4sgb0xoeTQcoieVrV8LR9evCuojMqXgymDLqfe-Ow2fXg@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Gene Wirchenko
Posted: 2015-06-16 13:50:34 Link
At 16:32 2015-06-12, Ted Roche <tedroche@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey, start your own thread!
>
>If you want to use software that will last for decades, maybe you
>should find an OS where you can control what it does and doesn't run,
>like Open Source DosBox and FreeDOS. They run well on Linux.
Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the
knees. Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
I do use DOSBox to run my 16-bit software, but it is a bit quirky.
>Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
>not what necessarily what you want.
Do you really think that I do not know this?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Ted Roche
Posted: 2015-06-16 14:26:11 Link
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
I really think we agree on this issue, but seem to be using different
ways to say it.
Microsoft as a vendor does not have my interests nor those of my
clients at heart. Their means of making money is by forcing me to
upgrade to products I don't need with features I don't want, and make
me update software which was meeting my customer's needs, often
breaking working software. For large and complex line-of-business
applications, this can be costly to the point of infeasible.
If a vendor so poorly meets my needs, I conclude I need to seek out
other vendors.
> Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
Yes, it could, although I did not advance that point. VFP is a
delightfully capable product that fits a unique niche. Unfortunately,
VFP's owner is not interesting in promoting it. Again, if the
interests of the two parties don't align...
I worked very closely with Microsoft as an MVP, an active beta tester,
a "partner" in various "Partner Networks" over the years, a speaker at
their conferences, and an attendee at various NDA functions, in hopes
of getting them to see that perspective. Overall, I think I helped
prolong FoxPro's life. While the product had a long run, I've
concluded I need to diversify the tools I can offer to my clients, for
their benefit and mine.
>> Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
>> not what necessarily what you want.
>
> Do you really think that I do not know this?
>
You complained that a 1990's 16-bit utility built to run on DOS won't
run in the latest 64-bit OS that includes a 32-bit emulator to run
Windows-on-Windows for 15-year-backward compatibility. The CMD shell
may look a lot like DOS, but it is not COMMAND.COM. DOS was built with
a lot of assumptions that it owned the entire machine (all 640k!) and
could do whatever it wanted, something you can't do in a
cooperatively-multitasking machine with gigabytes of RAM and 2,4,8 or
more CPUs/threads. If you want to run DOS, you ought to run DOS,
either in a VM or an emulator. Windows hasn't run under DOS since
Windows 98 (okay, WinME, but no one used that), so it's time to run
DOS differently.
I really think your question above, "2) Microsoft broke 16-bit
software on 64-bit Windows 7. Why couldn't
they have just kept the functionality?" has a pretty clear answer: it
was not in their interests. Maintaining a 16-bit interface means a lot
of very old and questionable code would need to be brought along and
re-compiled in a new OS, introducing maintenance costs and security
liabilities. Turning the question around, "why should they have kept
the functionality?" I don't see that there was a downside to them to
drop it.
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4vRejRZfD873N-42PcvuOognT4PDNx4d3xWciCK4PVJcQ@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Kurt Wendt
Posted: 2015-06-16 14:44:45 Link
Ted - a very interesting response. This whole discussion has me thinking about my work at my previous, previous F/T job. IT was SW for the Fashion Industry. Although even as of early 2013 - much of the codebase was actually based upon FP for DOS. And, when the system would run - they had the system tweaked to run within "Windows" in Windows - but, most of the system essentially STILL Looked like FP for DOS. White letters on Blue background. And, I believe you could even do a thing with the Window so that it would go Full Screen - and essentially - then - it DID look like you were running a True DOS Program on a Windows PC. Scary indeed.
But - long story short...
Each year my Boss insisted on coming up with a list of New Features - and adding that into the Package. Although - a Large part of their business was making Custom changes to the App for the various clients. As such - the clients with highly modified systems did Not generally get the updates. Even though - in many instances - some of those updates were Made in the Custom systems - then applied to the "Vanilla" package versions.
But - it was at the end of each year that my boss would make up this New Features list - then have us RUSH to make the changes - in order to have them implemented (or almost ready to install) by the early Jan. each year!
What was a TOTAL PITA - was that we had clients on current as well as Older versions. When I was there - there were like TWO Clients still running the original DOS Versions of the Apps - on DOS Machines NOT running Windows. I Know - that's a Scary thought for the years 2013! So - each year we had to KEEP Supporting OLDER Versions of the App - going back to as far as a DOS version of the App - and that SUCKED BIG TIME! Many times it was a Convoluted Mess to make these changes. And, each year - Clients were Constantly freaking out when newest changes were crashing their systems - that they needed to Use to Run their business!
So - in the End - trying to keep things backwards compatible - from the Programmers perspective - can be a Nightmare - which you Touched on in the end of your last response below.
Been there - done that...
:-)
-K-
-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ted Roche
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:26 PM
To: profoxtech@leafe.com
Subject: Re: 16-bit ancient software on Win NT 64-bit, was: Re: Hacker's Guide still lives
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
I really think we agree on this issue, but seem to be using different ways to say it.
Microsoft as a vendor does not have my interests nor those of my clients at heart. Their means of making money is by forcing me to upgrade to products I don't need with features I don't want, and make me update software which was meeting my customer's needs, often breaking working software. For large and complex line-of-business applications, this can be costly to the point of infeasible.
If a vendor so poorly meets my needs, I conclude I need to seek out other vendors.
> Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
Yes, it could, although I did not advance that point. VFP is a delightfully capable product that fits a unique niche. Unfortunately, VFP's owner is not interesting in promoting it. Again, if the interests of the two parties don't align...
I worked very closely with Microsoft as an MVP, an active beta tester, a "partner" in various "Partner Networks" over the years, a speaker at their conferences, and an attendee at various NDA functions, in hopes of getting them to see that perspective. Overall, I think I helped prolong FoxPro's life. While the product had a long run, I've concluded I need to diversify the tools I can offer to my clients, for their benefit and mine.
>> Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
>> not what necessarily what you want.
>
> Do you really think that I do not know this?
>
You complained that a 1990's 16-bit utility built to run on DOS won't run in the latest 64-bit OS that includes a 32-bit emulator to run Windows-on-Windows for 15-year-backward compatibility. The CMD shell may look a lot like DOS, but it is not COMMAND.COM. DOS was built with a lot of assumptions that it owned the entire machine (all 640k!) and could do whatever it wanted, something you can't do in a cooperatively-multitasking machine with gigabytes of RAM and 2,4,8 or more CPUs/threads. If you want to run DOS, you ought to run DOS, either in a VM or an emulator. Windows hasn't run under DOS since Windows 98 (okay, WinME, but no one used that), so it's time to run DOS differently.
I really think your question above, "2) Microsoft broke 16-bit software on 64-bit Windows 7. Why couldn't they have just kept the functionality?" has a pretty clear answer: it was not in their interests. Maintaining a 16-bit interface means a lot of very old and questionable code would need to be brought along and re-compiled in a new OS, introducing maintenance costs and security liabilities. Turning the question around, "why should they have kept the functionality?" I don't see that there was a downside to them to drop it.
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/80838F1CA795B14EA1AF48659F35166F1C1929@DREXCH02.corp.globetax.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Ted Roche
Posted: 2015-06-16 15:16:33 Link
Kurt:
A lot of the folks here in ProFox have commercial software packages
out there, and we all wrestle with the "customized for one customer"
versus "one size fits all" (heh, fashion industry term) version.
Successfully maintaining multiple versions of the app over multiple
clients has many solutions, some easy, some hard. One of the reasons I
got into SourceSafe heavily in the 90s was to support a commercial app
my employer had created that had many users on a core product, several
optional modules, and several custom configurations. It becomes quite
the automation challenge.
Sometimes, writing the code is the easiest part of this job. Managing
all the things around it is complex.
For Microsoft, I suspect they could not find a situation among their
very large clients where killing the 16-bit environment introduced too
great a hardship. For us little guys that might have a Delphi or a
Paradox or a DOS BASIC app we depended on, well, we were on our own.
Workarounds can be found, and our pain is not MS'
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Kurt Wendt <Kurt_Wendt@globetax.com> wrote:
> Ted - a very interesting response. This whole discussion has me thinking about my work at my previous, previous F/T job. IT was SW for the Fashion Industry. Although even as of early 2013 - much of the codebase was actually based upon FP for DOS. And, when the system would run - they had the system tweaked to run within "Windows" in Windows - but, most of the system essentially STILL Looked like FP for DOS. White letters on Blue background. And, I believe you could even do a thing with the Window so that it would go Full Screen - and essentially - then - it DID look like you were running a True DOS Program on a Windows PC. Scary indeed.
>
> But - long story short...
>
> Each year my Boss insisted on coming up with a list of New Features - and adding that into the Package. Although - a Large part of their business was making Custom changes to the App for the various clients. As such - the clients with highly modified systems did Not generally get the updates. Even though - in many instances - some of those updates were Made in the Custom systems - then applied to the "Vanilla" package versions.
>
> But - it was at the end of each year that my boss would make up this New Features list - then have us RUSH to make the changes - in order to have them implemented (or almost ready to install) by the early Jan. each year!
>
> What was a TOTAL PITA - was that we had clients on current as well as Older versions. When I was there - there were like TWO Clients still running the original DOS Versions of the Apps - on DOS Machines NOT running Windows. I Know - that's a Scary thought for the years 2013! So - each year we had to KEEP Supporting OLDER Versions of the App - going back to as far as a DOS version of the App - and that SUCKED BIG TIME! Many times it was a Convoluted Mess to make these changes. And, each year - Clients were Constantly freaking out when newest changes were crashing their systems - that they needed to Use to Run their business!
>
> So - in the End - trying to keep things backwards compatible - from the Programmers perspective - can be a Nightmare - which you Touched on in the end of your last response below.
>
> Been there - done that...
>
> :-)
> -K-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ted Roche
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 3:26 PM
> To: profoxtech@leafe.com
> Subject: Re: 16-bit ancient software on Win NT 64-bit, was: Re: Hacker's Guide still lives
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
>
> I really think we agree on this issue, but seem to be using different ways to say it.
>
> Microsoft as a vendor does not have my interests nor those of my clients at heart. Their means of making money is by forcing me to upgrade to products I don't need with features I don't want, and make me update software which was meeting my customer's needs, often breaking working software. For large and complex line-of-business applications, this can be costly to the point of infeasible.
>
> If a vendor so poorly meets my needs, I conclude I need to seek out other vendors.
>
>> Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
>
> Yes, it could, although I did not advance that point. VFP is a delightfully capable product that fits a unique niche. Unfortunately, VFP's owner is not interesting in promoting it. Again, if the interests of the two parties don't align...
>
> I worked very closely with Microsoft as an MVP, an active beta tester, a "partner" in various "Partner Networks" over the years, a speaker at their conferences, and an attendee at various NDA functions, in hopes of getting them to see that perspective. Overall, I think I helped prolong FoxPro's life. While the product had a long run, I've concluded I need to diversify the tools I can offer to my clients, for their benefit and mine.
>
>>> Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
>>> not what necessarily what you want.
>>
>> Do you really think that I do not know this?
>>
>
> You complained that a 1990's 16-bit utility built to run on DOS won't run in the latest 64-bit OS that includes a 32-bit emulator to run Windows-on-Windows for 15-year-backward compatibility. The CMD shell may look a lot like DOS, but it is not COMMAND.COM. DOS was built with a lot of assumptions that it owned the entire machine (all 640k!) and could do whatever it wanted, something you can't do in a cooperatively-multitasking machine with gigabytes of RAM and 2,4,8 or more CPUs/threads. If you want to run DOS, you ought to run DOS, either in a VM or an emulator. Windows hasn't run under DOS since Windows 98 (okay, WinME, but no one used that), so it's time to run DOS differently.
>
> I really think your question above, "2) Microsoft broke 16-bit software on 64-bit Windows 7. Why couldn't they have just kept the functionality?" has a pretty clear answer: it was not in their interests. Maintaining a 16-bit interface means a lot of very old and questionable code would need to be brought along and re-compiled in a new OS, introducing maintenance costs and security liabilities. Turning the question around, "why should they have kept the functionality?" I don't see that there was a downside to them to drop it.
>
> --
> Ted Roche
> Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4srJaCvF6mZwpd7s_rYY2_zAAD2wzEG6=nTM9ZXoOG2Mw@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Gene Wirchenko
Posted: 2015-06-16 17:06:55 Link
At 12:26 2015-06-16, Ted Roche <tedroche@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
>
>I really think we agree on this issue, but seem to be using different
>ways to say it.
Quite.
>Microsoft as a vendor does not have my interests nor those of my
>clients at heart. Their means of making money is by forcing me to
>upgrade to products I don't need with features I don't want, and make
>me update software which was meeting my customer's needs, often
>breaking working software. For large and complex line-of-business
>applications, this can be costly to the point of infeasible.
Quite.
>If a vendor so poorly meets my needs, I conclude I need to seek out
>other vendors.
It has gotten about to that point for me. The next time I buy
a system, I am *much* less likely to go Microsoft. I might have to
because of the VFP app I support, but apart from that, I do not have
really strong reasons to stay with them. Data conversion could be an
issue for a few programs, but it might not be after all. There is
the learning curve of a new system, but that is not that much for
someone like me; I am more concerned that a new system can do
everything that I want, not so much how.
> > Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
>
>Yes, it could, although I did not advance that point. VFP is a
>delightfully capable product that fits a unique niche. Unfortunately,
>VFP's owner is not interesting in promoting it. Again, if the
>interests of the two parties don't align...
Quite.
>I worked very closely with Microsoft as an MVP, an active beta tester,
>a "partner" in various "Partner Networks" over the years, a speaker at
>their conferences, and an attendee at various NDA functions, in hopes
>of getting them to see that perspective. Overall, I think I helped
>prolong FoxPro's life. While the product had a long run, I've
>concluded I need to diversify the tools I can offer to my clients, for
>their benefit and mine.
Quite possibly, but maybe they did not care enough for your
efforts to be relevant to them. Your efforts were/are appreciated by
many of us.
> >> Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
> >> not what necessarily what you want.
> >
> > Do you really think that I do not know this?
>You complained that a 1990's 16-bit utility built to run on DOS won't
>run in the latest 64-bit OS that includes a 32-bit emulator to run
>Windows-on-Windows for 15-year-backward compatibility. The CMD shell
>may look a lot like DOS, but it is not COMMAND.COM. DOS was built with
>a lot of assumptions that it owned the entire machine (all 640k!) and
>could do whatever it wanted, something you can't do in a
>cooperatively-multitasking machine with gigabytes of RAM and 2,4,8 or
>more CPUs/threads. If you want to run DOS, you ought to run DOS,
>either in a VM or an emulator. Windows hasn't run under DOS since
>Windows 98 (okay, WinME, but no one used that), so it's time to run
>DOS differently.
IBM has managed to have long-time compatibility on their
mainframes. Compatibility can be done if one has the will to do
so. Microsoft does not.
>I really think your question above, "2) Microsoft broke 16-bit
>software on 64-bit Windows 7. Why couldn't
>they have just kept the functionality?" has a pretty clear answer: it
>was not in their interests. Maintaining a 16-bit interface means a lot
>of very old and questionable code would need to be brought along and
>re-compiled in a new OS, introducing maintenance costs and security
>liabilities. Turning the question around, "why should they have kept
>the functionality?" I don't see that there was a downside to them to
>drop it.
I think there was a downside for them, but maybe/probably not a
big enough one. Microsoft has, over the years, trained me to expect
to be ill-treated. Now that there are viable alternatives, I need
approximately one more break to kick the Microsoft habit. Once gone,
I will likely be gone for good.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Peter Cushing
Posted: 2015-06-17 05:41:22 Link
On 16/06/2015 19:50, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
> Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
>
> I do use DOSBox to run my 16-bit software, but it is a bit quirky.
You need to accept responsibility for some of your problems. You could
have bought a 32-bit machine which would have run the 16-bit software
with no problems. We still run 16-bit software here so that is a
requirement for those people when buying a machine. The 16-bit software
is getting phased out and then, like everyone else we, will just move on.
Peter
This communication is intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. The contents are confidential and may be protected in law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or email.
www.whisperingsmith.com
Whispering Smith Ltd Head Office:61 Great Ducie Street, Manchester M3 1RR.
Tel:0161 831 3700
Fax:0161 831 3715
London Office:17-19 Foley Street, London W1W 6DW Tel:0207 299 7960
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/55814ED2.3060506@whisperingsmith.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Alan Bourke
Posted: 2015-06-17 05:50:13 Link
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, at 09:16 PM, Ted Roche wrote:
> For Microsoft, I suspect they could not find a situation among their
> very large clients where killing the 16-bit environment introduced too
> great a hardship. For us little guys that might have a Delphi or a
> Paradox or a DOS BASIC app we depended on, well, we were on our own.
> Workarounds can be found, and our pain is not MS'
Exactly this. It is not the same as IBM mainframes having backward
compatibility, because IBM get a stack of money from the banks and
airlines that run the legacy systems to keep that going. Microsoft get
zip on an ongoing basis from some guy still wanting to run WordPerfect
5.1 or some ancient MS-DOS video store rental manager application, and
the number of corporates with this requirement is either now tiny or can
be handled with virtualisation.
Are there many Linux or Apple applications of the same age that still
run on those platforms? No. It is a simple cost\benefit situation for
Microsoft, and as has been pointed out, 32-bit Windows 10 will almost
certainly still run all this stuff anyway.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1434538213.3039534.297853777.1D387C65@webmail.messagingengine.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Ted Roche
Posted: 2015-06-17 09:48:50 Link
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> You complained that a 1990's 16-bit utility built to run on DOS won't
>> run in the latest 64-bit OS that includes a 32-bit emulator to run
>> Windows-on-Windows for 15-year-backward compatibility. The CMD shell
>> may look a lot like DOS, but it is not COMMAND.COM. DOS was built with
>> a lot of assumptions that it owned the entire machine (all 640k!) and
>> could do whatever it wanted, something you can't do in a
>> cooperatively-multitasking machine with gigabytes of RAM and 2,4,8 or
>> more CPUs/threads. If you want to run DOS, you ought to run DOS,
>> either in a VM or an emulator. Windows hasn't run under DOS since
>> Windows 98 (okay, WinME, but no one used that), so it's time to run
>> DOS differently.
>
>
> IBM has managed to have long-time compatibility on their mainframes.
> Compatibility can be done if one has the will to do so. Microsoft does not.
>
Well, first off, OS/360 was a pretty good system, not their first. And
their customers have HUGE applications written in it and the follow-on
OSes that are nigh-on impossible to re-write/port: source is gone,
coders, too. So, the paying customers demand, and pay for, that
compatibility.
In contrast, Microsoft bought a bad CP/M clone from Sierra Systems,
ripped off Apple, Quarterdeck and GEM for a UI, and shipped a sloppy
single-user PC GUI who's first edition didn't even support networking.
(I coded some of my first Fox apps on a PS/2 50Z with Token Ring
networking that took a dozen-person IT department to keep running.) In
follow-on versions, they "innovated," supported, then obsoleted disk
space compression, EMS, EMM386.SYS, CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.BAT,
LANtastic, 10Base-T, 25-pin serial ports, PS/2 ports, parallel ports,
5 1/4" floppies, Bernoulli drives, NetBEUI, LAN Manager, OS/2 (RIP),
NTFS 1.0, FAT12, FAT16, FAT32,... man, the list is endless, but most
of it has a distinct smell of "throw it against the wall and see what
sticks."
> I think there was a downside for them, but maybe/probably not a big
> enough one. Microsoft has, over the years, trained me to expect to be
> ill-treated. Now that there are viable alternatives, I need approximately
> one more break to kick the Microsoft habit. Once gone, I will likely be
> gone for good.
That was pretty much my conclusion in the 1998-2002 era. I had two
issues with MS where a slipstreamed "update" or "security patch" blew
away working production code for major clients, costing me dearly.
Finally in 2002, I spent a week in Redmond previewing their upcoming
DotNet product line and I could clearly visualize the decade of
mistakes, mis-steps and turmoil they were going to put their customer
base through. Sadly, most of what I saw came to pass. My last major
VFP project was in 2003. My first major LAMP project started in 2005.
While we continue to support some legacy VFP apps a decade later, and
I've even released a new product partially based on VFP this year,
most of my efforts are spent in other pursuits.
It's not that VFP isn't up to the task, it is. It is that the sole
vendor of the product has restricted its use to one OS and stopped
providing updates to the product. There are worthy alternatives out
there for programming languages, database engines and GUI tools,
though none with the all-in-one package that VFP provides. So, we move
on...
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4sLF91PCp9E-Wws2E2wn2ufHPrUT4b-ugmBBGjW2Zee7A@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: Gene Wirchenko
Posted: 2015-06-17 12:40:08 Link
At 03:41 2015-06-17, Peter Cushing <pcushing@whisperingsmith.com> wrote:
>On 16/06/2015 19:50, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
>>Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
>>
>> I do use DOSBox to run my 16-bit software, but it is a bit quirky.
>You need to accept responsibility for some of your problems. You
>could have bought a 32-bit machine which would have run the 16-bit
>software with no problems. We still run 16-bit software here so
>that is a requirement for those people when buying a machine. The
>16-bit software is getting phased out and then, like everyone else
>we, will just move on.
Well, I think of it as being ambushed. I did not even know
about the issue. I found out after.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.