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.
..

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,466180,00.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 .... <shrug> <G>.
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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!
..... ;^)
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Todd wrote:

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.
--
Remove my extraneous mandibular appendages to reply via e-mail.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,466180,00.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On the contrary, by concentrating on the software we need and not the OS we might have a better developed one.
e
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Cliff Huprich

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Point well made
a
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Cliff Huprich) wrote in

Or else the effort of porting a UNIX app to Windows promises a better return on the dollar than the reverse. You can't tell me that an app written to run in UNIX isn't riddled with UNIX-specific code.
But whatever the reason, yes, I agree Microsoft is smiling all the way to the bank.
Joel Moore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joel Moore quipped:

I was talking to some of the pro-e guys, and they said it was easy to port back to Linux because they never used any windows specific code. (or at least not enough to make a difference.)
and as far as return on investment goes, if i don't buy windows (or mac), I can afford photoshop. And stop using my pirated copy. :)
--nick e.
(not that I use photoshop, tho. The GIMP does all I need it to do, really. which granted isn't much.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
of course they don't have much Windows specific code--ProE was originally a Unix-only application
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael quipped:

I realize that.
Point is, when they ported to windoze, they apparently never fell into the trap of using too much windows specific code.
Which allowed them go back to a unix-like OS without too much trouble.
Now, their _other_ apps may be a problem. they may have been written for windos.
-nick e.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, if PTC had decided to fully adopt the Windows philosophy then there would be TONS of Windows-specific code in there despite its origins. That's the point being made here. Because PTC stuck to their conviction that cross-platform consistency was more important than melding smoothly with the world's most popular desktop OS, they were able to transition to Linux with relative ease.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To bad for Ford they never figured out how to convince the government to build highways that were "enhanced" for Model-T usage.
"Consarnit! I can't get there from here! This damn on ramp isn't compatible with my Oldsmobile!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There is a Piping News Group which should help http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks_piping /
JJ

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

very funny! :~)> what makes things more funny is the truth behind it. the above statement reminds bob z. of the webpages that won't show up on his computer (at home) unless he sets opera to identify as M$/IE.
--
bob z.

"people with less brain power than you are doing more difficult things
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.