Re: OT: No one is safe

Oooooo.... wow, that is wild!

A - pay up M$! (***) B - re-write your security M$! (total loss!)

*** and the winners are,.. Sony Corp. of America and Royal Philips Electronics!

So, other OS's have a much better chance in the market, while this sh*t hits the fan. Which btw, may open things up in the next few years, could be very positive!

Yep, the thieves (the irony, security software) always get caught, eventually.

..

ouchies! looks like swx will have to find a new bedfellow. > shame... > >
formatting link
Reply to
Paul Salvador
Loading thread data ...

I think having multiple OS's could be a huge problem. You think you have problems converting files from another CAD system into SW!?!?!? Wait until you have to convert more types of files!

TT

formatting link

Reply to
TT

The major CAD/CAM systems have no problems running on multiple platforms, even networked. AFAIK most are producing exactly the same binary part files independent of the platform. Those that may not are, no doubt, using network on-the-fly translations, totally transparent to the users.

Now, if IBM's big blue iron catches on again .... .

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

You're talking apples and oranges.

I've worked with and I'm sure many here have worked on different OS's (besides windoze) so I do not understand you concern? It's not a significant issue at all, imho.

Solid modelers on the otherhand all have their own way of doing something and neither of them can really talk to eachother. CAD/CAM/CAE/CAI.. are all islands with crude make shift boats sharing data between eachother.

And with that in mind, the industry seems like a bunch of buoys with no clear direction or interest to communicate with eachother.

Fat buoys like Ade$k attract a lot of followers and they eventually sink and users move to the next buoy, like SW.

But, the most important thing is to watch out for those darn seagulls!

..... ;^)

Reply to
Paul Salvador

I guess my concern would be just sending a file saved in OS "A" which may do things differently then OS "B". Some of the problems associated with Windows has to do with bloated file sizes, so would these same files open ok in OS "B". Maybe I am blowing it out of proportion, but more OS's just sounds like another variable in the matrix.

Todd

Reply to
Todd

Just talk with any of the older developers that had to deal with the various "flavors" of Unix - it was a nightmare. They were more than happy to settle on one system, no matter what is was.

Gary

TT wrote:

Reply to
Gary Knutson

This has the potential to be a nightmare come true for many CAE developers and end users.

It takes too much time developing even for different windows flavours (9x/NT) let alone for complete different OS's. Different programming languages are needed, different layouts, different testing, variety of bugs, expense builds up and on and on. Basically anything will take longer to develop. Eventually, companies (like SW) will choose one platform and not develop for the others (which is already the case) as this would make the specific knowledge very shallow, and thus the resulting software features would be too.

From users point of view will be even worse.

Next time a company which has to choose between CAD systems will also have to choose between OS's. So if you've invested, say, on SW and 2000/XP (not just the software but above all training across the organisation, and all sorts of other office utilities and special third party applications, databases which have taken years to perfect / build up, MRP /ERP systems to talk to, and so on), would you be willing to switch over to a better CAD system on some totally different OS? No, I think you'll find your boss will shoot you in flames for even suggesting it.

A choice would almost tie you down for life. Quite frankly you would have much less choice then today.

I don't think it's only Microsoft's nature to be so monopolistic, I believe it's the human nature. If you shoot this one down there will be another one to take its place. If Linux was there earlier it would have probably developed the same taste for money as Microsoft has. At the end of the day who cares what the OS is, the only thing users care about is the applications they run in them and developers don't want to program in a million programming languages to support new and old OS's at different development stages.

Do you think this world would be better if everyone spoke one language? No doubt it would. Communication which has caused the biggest wars and problems on this planet's history would vanish. People would then concentrate on doing something with their life rather then waste half of it learning another language or two. Doesn't mean to say cultures would be lost, just look at the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc, they can be a world apart sometimes.

Just leave the OS alone.

ES

formatting link

Reply to
E

A good argument for everyone to just use Etch-A-Sketch Release 7.3 on the RED hardware.

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

A well-defined file format is OS independent. See any of a number of comon file formats. For example, a JPEG image file or mp3 music file will open fine on just about any OS you care to name.

They wouldn't. This has nothing to do with the OS. SW has consciously chosen to tie their *file format* to a particular OS.

Jim S.

Reply to
Jim Sculley

Nick,

I appreciate your comments, but I'm afraid they come from an over enthusiastic Linux user, not a programmer or business analyst.

To be quite frank I don't know much about Longhorn and its underlying strategy. If it is as radical as you say it is (which is the part I'm doubtful) you might have a point.

As far as "ignorant arguments" go (put very mildly by you) you haven't done a bad job yourself.

Furthermore, you need to study your history better (it is a documented fact that communication is the cause of it all including religion)

Regards

e

Reply to
E

On the contrary, by concentrating on the software we need and not the OS we might have a better developed one.

e

Reply to
E

There are lots of vendors. Those developed on UNIX port to MS and those developed on MS don't port to anything else well AFAIK. Too much MS-specific code gets used ....

Don't think for a moment that MS does not well know this and smile a lot on their way to the bank.

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

Point well made

a
Reply to
E

I must say I never get bored reading in this SW newsgroup! Has anyone here actually visited Inventor's newsgroup or couple of others?? Totally DEAD compared to comp.cad.solidworks.

Anyways, it's always fun to listen to people that turn things into a religion and their way of live. To me, the fact still remains that the majority of current users and NEW users are sadly to say, Windows users. As long as you have this combination, you won't see a chang over any time soon. As a matter a fact, when MS is no longer providing an OS, and Linux or any other OS for that reason becomes 90% of all computers in use, revive this thread to remind me that I am full of sh*t. I have to believe, even by 2010, this type of thread will still be being preached by your super-tech power users which make up maybe, just maybe 2% of everyone that sits behind a box.

Oh, and by the way, let the SW guys know to just "recompile" their code to get it to work for linux, or Apple for that matter. Also, can I get this same "QT" prog as you put it so I can carry over all the macros & things I made to work with SW when they recompile. Am I glad I'm not a developer!

Nick, plz don't take this the wrong way, I guess I'm not a beleiver yet.....

Reply to
dvanzile

Perhaps you missed something in the translation?

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

man, it was so nice without him. everyone, please remember - Don't Feed The Trolls. :~)>

Reply to
bob zee

dvanzile quipped:

here we go again...

First of all, it is not "QT." It is "Qt."

Trolltech, makers of Qt:

formatting link
The WHOLE POINT of Qt is that it lets developers write code once that can then be compiled to run on multiple systems: [begin quote] Qt is a multiplatform, C++ application framework that lets developers write one application that will run -- natively -- on Windows, Linux/Unix, Mac OS X, and embedded Linux with a simple recompile. It is elegant, intuitive, completely object- oriented, and inspires true love among developers, project managers, and IT executives. [end quote]

macros should depend on how SW interprts them. isuppose it'd still be possible for SW to run MSVB macros even running on Mac? Or, they could switch to python for scripting.

and you can get Qt for free as long as you don't charge for the code you write.

believe.

--nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

I really don't want to continue this anymore.

I'm doing a lot of work with people who think otherwise and doing quite some research on it, on top of years of CADDS5, Proe, SW(since97),C, C++, VB, Java,...and to your surprise I have made various pluggins for UNIX (Solaris, HP, etc) over the years and am more familiar then you think with the Linux architecture.

Lets agree to disagree and reconvene this in a few years time. Maybe you're a future reader, maybe not.

I for one don't believe it, and realistically believe that there won't be any other OS systems as dominant as MS for the next decade at least. So I have resigned to the fact, and am getting on with my software development.

On a different matter, some advice to you, don't get personal with people as they switch off from your points, and will most likely insult you in the same way or worse, and don't try to cover as much ground as you can with you answers, as it probably shows you're in a rush to say the opposite of everything. Not many other people replied, has it occurred to you that they might also agree to my original post?

If my original post did insult you personally, I apologise.

Kind Regards

e

Reply to
E

this has become a sort of no-win thread guys-why beat each other up about your viewpoints? people should freely express contrary views here however IMO the line by line deconstruction of posts is bound to cause personal affronts to emerge and maybe should be avoided in preference to making a new independent statement.... : ) just trying to be helpful.

Reply to
neil

E quipped:

ok. we'll agree i'm right. (which i'm SURE you'll disagree with......)

no. I'm right. Everyone else is wrong. If you people would just accept this one point, everything else just falls into line.

s'ok. sorry if i got harsh near the end.

But you still owe me a where was *I* being ignorant. :)

--nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.