Digital Art Zone

Skiriki - 20 June 2012 01:47 PM

Erdehel - 20 June 2012 12:18 PM

Quote: “Norse Graphics” ... it’s useless for productive work..

In your opinion

There are some serious problems and flaws with the devkits available for Windows 8. Free development for desktop is going to be hobbled. This is not a good thing.

More.

Uh-oh. I wonder what will happen for DS plugin development, the SDK - I believe - is optimised for use with VS. Hmm, perhaps I should download the non-limited version if I can find it, just to be safe. Edit: ah, I see version 10 will continue to be available.

Yeah. And then time will run past VS 10. :( This is a really, really, really baa-aa-aa-aaad decision; it is also going to smack development of open source software for Windows as well. Because while Metro will be nice and dandy for mobile devices with touchscreens, user reports of desktop usage are less than stellar.

Richard Haseltine - 20 June 2012 05:12 AM

Jaderail - 20 June 2012 01:48 AM

History repeats at MS. Win 95 stable, next? flop, Win 98 stable, ect ect ect… about every three years they get it okay. Never upgrade untill they stop making patches for the OS that works for you.

98 was the release after 95 (there was an SR2, but that was never released as a separate upgrade as I recall). 95, 98 and 98SE were all pretty good, though there were complaints that they didn’t add enough new stuff to justify upgrading. ME was the first of that series to be actively panned. Then Xp was good, Vista took heavy flak, 7 was good, 8 looks iffy (I have this machine set to dual-boot, but I’ve rarely used 8CP and haven’t upgraded it to RP yet).

I could have swore 1000 or Mil or such name came after 95, it was so bad it was pulled. I could be wrong. The old mind isn’t what it used to be. Never mind I think I’m thinking of 2000 which did come later.

I contacted HP and they said they are doing that deal.

I just have to wait till my school gets the info into their database to see if i have enough for school and a notebook for school.  (of course the notebook is for school.)

Jaderail - 20 June 2012 08:16 PM

Richard Haseltine - 20 June 2012 05:12 AM

Jaderail - 20 June 2012 01:48 AM

History repeats at MS. Win 95 stable, next? flop, Win 98 stable, ect ect ect… about every three years they get it okay. Never upgrade untill they stop making patches for the OS that works for you.

98 was the release after 95 (there was an SR2, but that was never released as a separate upgrade as I recall). 95, 98 and 98SE were all pretty good, though there were complaints that they didn’t add enough new stuff to justify upgrading. ME was the first of that series to be actively panned. Then Xp was good, Vista took heavy flak, 7 was good, 8 looks iffy (I have this machine set to dual-boot, but I’ve rarely used 8CP and haven’t upgraded it to RP yet).

I could have swore 1000 or Mil or such name came after 95, it was so bad it was pulled. I could be wrong. The old mind isn’t what it used to be. Never mind I think I’m thinking of 2000 which did come later.

2000 came between NT4.something and XP - as I recall XP used much of the 2000 core, but with added consumer-friendliness (I seem to recall that although 2000 had a version of DirectX it wasn’t updated, or something like that). Anyway, 2000 was fairly well regarded as I recall.

Yes.  THere were 2 versions came out very close together., one called Win Me (Millennium-edition)  was hopeless, still based on win98.  but Win2k was a great operationg system imo,  based on the windows NT system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows

I began with Windows for Workgroups 3.1 at work, went on with 95, had ME at home for much too long a time,  was happy about XP and since one month have 7 at home.

All I’ve read about 8 in computer journals gives me the impression I am lucky I jumped to 7 as long as it exists.