The former employer who contacted me had no idea that their files were no longer readable. They are not computer-literate. Also, when I worked there, MS-DOS upgrades did not cause files to become unreadable. Upgrades to MS-DOS did not change the file structure or whether or not a particular version of swoftware would run (except DBase II, which used trickery to copy-protect files that made copy-protected files look like folders to MS-DOS 3.0). Much scientific research was lost because their MS-DOS files could no longer be read.
Until about 5 months ago, I had a working Windows 3.1 machine. I thought I could repair anything on it. But the battery leaked and ate the copper from the circuit board. I have a version of Lotus that would have worked on that computer, but it failed before they contacted me.
I had no way to convert my music files to a more modern machine before the computer died, because the files were in a proprietary format. I have the files on floppy disks, but no software to read the contents.
I have actually started Windows 3.1 on an XP machine, but I can't run the software because the only kind of disk that works on both XP and Win 3.1 is a 1.44 MB floppy. I can't fit Win 3.1, the music program, and a song file onto the same disk at the same time. Win 3.1 doesn't know how to read a new CD-ROM, a new hard disk, or a ...
The only time I ever lost a hard drive is when some stupid DOS "anti-piracy" program on a CD rom wrote back to drive D to make sure the software (a flight simulator) was really on a CD-ROM. Unfortunately, the CD drive was drive E on that machine. It removed the entire root directory on the new larger hard disk in that machine. No software was lost (it was on the C drive), just data, and all of that had been backed up. So the only real loss was the time and trouble of formatting the drive and replacing the directory tree and all of the files.
I sent the CD to the company that made it, broken in half, along with a nasty letter telling them the damage their sleazy idea caused.
Here is the real truth about real-time hardware and operating systems:
A. The company that makes real-time hardware (real-time data collection, process control, or media capture/editing devices) needs the following to be able to produce and sell such a system:
Enough installed base of an operating system to be able to sell enough units to make development possible and worthwhile (This is why few products are developed for Linux).
Enough time to develop, perfect, and market such a system before that operating system is taken off the market (This is why no products exist for Vista or 8).
The OS must also support the other applications the customer needs to analyze or process the data the special device provides. Many times this includes Microsoft Excel using special procedures published in journals for the purpose.
This is why most real-time hardware was developed for DOS 5 and 6, Windows 3, and Windows XP. They stayed around long enough for the development cycle to complete and products to appear on the market.
B. The consumer does not understand that a change in the operating system causes most real-time hardware to malfunction:
Any change in the frequency the operating system can access the special hardware is a disaster for the design of the real-time hardware. Often it makes the hardware unusable or greatly reduces its performance (devices made for DOS 5 and 6 with 1/1000 second resolution were downgraded to a 1/9 second resolution under Windows 3.X and 95). ...
Demanding that XP be maintained until everyone is ready to stop using it would be like demanding that Ford motors install airbags in all of their antique vehicles.
It's more like they replaced the road with railroad track, so the old equipment can't use it.
All of that point-of sale equipment was built with a minimal 32 bit on-board dedicated computer that can run XP, but is too small for Vista, 7, 8, or 10. It might even be made with the OS in ROM, as some older equipment was made.
Another problem is that the normal development time for hardware and software for equipment run by a computer is longer than the time between successive Windows releases.
I have some software designed for Windows 3 (and a computer saved to run just this one piece of software). I actually got a letter from the company telling me why they were going out of business and why there would be no more updates and bug fixes.
They said that they were still developing the release to run on Windows 95 when Microsoft announced Windows 98 (then called Windows 97). The Windows 3 software would not run on Windows 95, and neither version would run on Windows 97. They each required entirely different hardware and software to work at the speed needed to make the application actually work in real time.
They said that they could not possibly develop updates to the hardware and software at the speed ...
I really do not care whose products I get, as long as I can get something that I can keep using for the length of a 20-year study.
We did not choose Microsoft because of its properties. We chose the system the lab equipment was originally designed to work with. In 1990, MS-DOS was quite compatible with the equipment, and they sold us computers to use with the equipment.
At that time, computing was not on its mad rush to changing everything every three years. And the company actually sold the equipment with the promise that it could be used for a 20-year study. The company that sold the equipment had no reason to expect that similar computers would not be available as replacements.
The lab equipment we bought in 1990 still works quite well when manually controlled and visually read, but none of the computers it was designed to work with are still available. All of the computers that were originally bought for the purpose failed within 10 years, including the spares bought to ensure a 20 year study. The 20-year study the equipment was purchased for was ended after 10 years because no replacement computers could be found to do the job of operating the equipment.
What happened to that 20-year promise the vendor made? When Microsoft started changing the operating system every 3 years, the company could not keep up. It went out of business.
Now the real question is, how can anyone doing any long-term science ...
This is not a matter of how well the software is written or how well the hardware is designed.
It is a matter that Microsoft does not care that its changes to the OS will cause this equipment to malfunction. Microsoft does what Microsoft wants to do.
Often these problems have to do with changes in the timing of the operating system. When DOS was replaced by Windows, almost all of the old real-time hardware was rendered obsolete. Microsoft changed how the OS used the 55ms jiffy timer:
Under MS-DOS, the OS used maybe one millisecond of computer time, and then immediately handed the processor back to the one user application in use. This was the ideal for hardware data acquisition and control (the only better case was the one operating system I know that completely shut down while the application was running - it had no jiffy counter).
Under Windows 3, the OS took an entire 55ms time slice for its own use. This made all of the hardware designed for MS-DOS obsolete, because such hardware expected the application to have control most of the time. The hardware could be accessed only once every 110 ms under Windows, ruining its usefulness.
The developers of Windows told us to use hardware that puts time stamps on the data, recording in the data packet the exact time the event occurred, so it can be sorted out later. But how do you put a time stamp on an outgoing signal telling the ...
It is fixed for one display size. Computers with other monitor resolutions may not display it properly.
Everyone kept telling us to make table-less columns. I researched why. It is because readers for the blind give the table row and column coordinates.
The problem with using div tags for columns is that it falls apart when the screen resolution changes enough that the content is wider than the screen, or way narrower than the screen. With monitors ranging from widescreen high-res ones to the early LCD ones with 640 X 480 resolution.
There are two ways to get around this:
Go ahead. Use tables. The w3c didn't provide a reliable replacement for the table for this purpose. Their main call for not using tables was the use of tables to make margins and borders. They did provide reliable replacements for the table for that purpose.
Use the div tag with the display styles table-row and table-cell. It works in many (but not all) cases. But it does not work on some old browsers, and some reader programs call them tables.
Do you think you can still get parts to repair your old 8-track cassette deck? Or any cassette deck?
If I bought an 8-track tape and no newer verion of that recording is available, I want the ability to still hear that album. I paid for the royalty right to hear those songs in perpetuity when I bought the album. You want to take that album away from me.
And if I spent thousands of dollars on expensive lab or studio equipment that can easily last 20 or 30 years, it should not be prematurely lost because Microsoft wants to make money by changing the operating system all the time.
How long do you expect car manufacturers to keep supporting old vehicles? Do you expect to go into a parts store and get a carburator for a '59 ford sedan? Would you expect to find seatbelts and airbags on a 50 year old vintage auto? Or anti-lock brakes?
But what Microsoft is doing is changing the road so nobody can drive the old vehicle. They have effectively replaced the road with railroad tracks.
The old vehicle is the equivalent of the scientific or music studio equipment, not the computer.
Like it or not, Windows XP just does not support the advanced security that is built into modern operating systems and it is unreasonable to expect Microsoft to waste any more effort on shoehorning in patch after patch to try to keep Windows XP secure.
"but yea, MS redid the kernal entirely with Vista, and forwarded the improved upon failures to 7 with a new shell."
This means that any real-time software (software that controls and reads external equipment in real time) will NOT work. Every time the OS kernel is changed, the real-time part of the software must be rewritten to work with the new kernel.
I have worked with real-time software for over 30 years, amnd have had the same problem every time Microsoft changed the operating system.
I was actually able to use the same software during all of the DOS years. It bypassed the operating system and accessed the ports directly. But you can't do that with a time-sharing OS.
Every time MS changed Windows, the system timing changed enough that the software vendor had to issue a new version so we could continue using the same hardware. We had to buy the new version each time. There was no9 "update" because the main system of the software had to be totally redone.
Now the new computers will not take the hardware we have.
Most real-time vendors do not offer versions that work with any kind of Unix-based OS, because there are not enough customers to justify writing yet another version for that.
Several vendors of real-time software have gone out of business because they could not keep up with Microsoft's changes.
I am "hanging on" because of the enormous expense to replace the hardware and software of my real-time system and the loss of my current data if I change.
Replacing the OS means replacing the computer. Replacing the computer means replacing the interface cards, because the new computers don't take these cards. The software will have to be replaced too. And my existing files becone useless, because the new software uses a different file format.
And if a security issue develops because I am still running XP on the internet, it is greedy Microsoft's fault.
Microsoft is greedy, because they want us to spend the money to upgrade, so they discontinue support to force that. But they are thinking of business users, not science or studio users with lots of real-time hardware and software that must be replaced if the OS changes.
This is the problem with intellectual property. Too many judges favor the owners of intellectual property over others who come up with similar products or names. This is giving too many entities monopoly powers.
Nobody should be able to own any word that is in the dictionary.
"In the Start screen (the one with all the icons) the icon in the lower-left corner is named "Desktop". when you click that your computer will look just like Windows 7, but without the Start menu in the taskbar. In that window you can easily switch between applications just like you do now with XP, and you can do the same thing with windows 7."
It did not do that for me.
And I can't use ny legacy software with 7. They took out support for the devices I need.
"If I bought a new Car, but I forgot how to unlock and open the Door, I cannot drive the Car to work. If Billions of commercial Users have to be 'retrained' in order to keep on doing today what they have been doing 'til yesterday, all Those Employers have a great big problem, a time problem as well as a huge financial problem."
If they keep moving the door locks to weird positions on the car (such as under the headlights) each time you have the car serviced, the idiot who desgined the car should be fired.
The way Microsoft keeps changing the software, it is like having to change to a different kind of vehicle to be able to travel, the way our application soiftware and peripheral devices are left behind by Microsoft.
The next upgrade will require us to replace our cars with trolleys. The following one will require us to replace those with speedboats. ...
I will tell you why XP is still my operating system. I have used 7 at work, and it is much worse:
I love the XP paint program. I hate the one that comes with 7. I want pure physics colors, not artist colors. And I want straight lines without dithering. It won't let me have the color palette I want. I want line art, not a photo painter.
I would have to buy a new computer to upgrade, so there is a much larger upgrade cost. My RAM max is 1 GB. Vista and 7 use most of that for the OS. It's a scam between Intel and Microsoft to sell more computers and operating system copies than are needed.
The windows look awful in 7. I like the sharp windows of XP, not the ghostly 7 ones.
The search tool will not search the entire computer for a mismoused file. I have to search by top level folder.
I hate the tab grouping on the taskbar.
At times, Windows 7 takes hours for updates. If I boot needing the computer in a hurry, I can't have it.
I have legacy real-time software that needs the XP driver setup. It won't run on a newer OS.
I do not want touch screen capabilities I never would use.
The only way to completely remove vocals from a recording without damaging other parts is to have the original multitrack recording the recording studio had when it recorded the song. But they aren't going to let you have access to that (If it's your song, that's different).
Or you can buy a karaoke version of the song, if it is offered.
What those vocal-removing machines or programs do is phase-cancel anything panned to where the vocals in the song are. But this has some serious drawbacks:
Anything else panned to the same location is also removed. Since the vocals are usually panned to center, and the kick and snare drums are also usually panned to center, the vocal remover removes them too.
If there is any distortion in the recording, the vocal (and the snare and kick) will leak through, especially in the higher frequencies, as a buzzing or tinny sound.
If the reverb of the vocal is panned elsewhere, it won't be removed.
Parts that are panned near to the vocal in the original recording will be diminished, compared to the parts that are panned farther away from the vocal. So the instrument balance shifts, favoring the harmony instruments usually panned wide over the melody instruments usually panned close to the vocal.
The resulting recording is always mono.
The data compression techniques used to make small mp3 files may prevent such devices or software from working correctly.