dude, you really need to (1) read the whole post before replying and (2) think of a better comeback.

Really? Seemed a pretty good comeback to me, as you had nothing to counter it with   I guess you'll have to stop using evil closed-source proprietary ££ianoteq now

Sorry I can't type much more, I'm oppressed by the monthly free Windows updates and free Windows 10 upgrade.

Right, so Windows is terrible and Unix is amazing, even though you insist Windows is just some stolen Unix code   Yes I can certainly follow your logic there. 
And Unix is great even cos it hasn't needed to be rewritten since the 1960s. Apart from all the flavours that have been completely rewritten. But Windows is terrible because hasn't been rewritten and is just a reskinned DOS.

Have you been taking lessons in logic from Monty Python?

Nah, they both serve their intended purpose very well.

Open-source/GNU Unix systems:

* Give freedom to the user
* Create open, well-documented standards that everyone can freely use and improve
* Be free of charge
* Be free as in free speech
* Be easily adapted to new technologies

Microsoft products:

* Put a cage around the user
* Corrupt the IT market with closed, proprietary standards that are purposely designed to not work with anything non-microsoft
* Bring even more money to microsoft
* Bring even more power to microsoft over their user base, among other things forcing them in a perpetual "upgrade cycle"
* Clobber and destroy any technologies that go against microsoft's strangle grip of the IT market (fortunately a few technologies have escaped this fate)
* Use their existing monopolies to creep into other markets (gaming, cell phones, non-computer/broadcast/printed media...)
* Start the same cycle again in those markets

btw, do you always see thing so black-or-white, or are you joking? Windows wasn't originally based "only" on stolen unix code. As i mentioned before, it started out as a "pretty face" for DOS. DOS was first known as QDOS, which stood for Quick'n Dirty Operating System. This was heavily based on a system called CP/M which was popular in the 1970's for those early intel-based computers you plugged on a TV - CP/M in turn was a cheap imitation of the first Unix systems from the late 1960's. As for stolen unix code, around the 3.1x / NT times, windows also "acquired" networking functionality from BSD systems (a few other systems also did, but at least these credited and made the source code of these networking components available) I've said all this before, but here it is again with links to references.

Have you been taking lessons in logic from Monty Python?

delt wrote:

windows still lugs around with it TONS of issues from its "prehistoric" DOS days.

Like what, exactly? Windows has no connections to DOS since XP, really. It doesn't even have any connections to 16-bit code anymore, at all.

That's what they said with windows 95. Then with 98. Then with pretty much every version since then. It's true that since XP, the whole windows core + graphic shell isn't just a DOS application like it was before. Actually that was the case with NT as well even before XP, NT was proven to be heavily based on code stolen from IBM that was left over from MS dropping their half of the OS/2 project and deciding to dominate the world with windows - they just slapped the windows UI and the microsoft name on top of it. You can easily look this up on wikipedia or elsewhere on the web, before you point the finger at me and start your childish name-calling this time. (personally, i clearly remember this little incident from my high school / college days) Then they re-used that same "kernel" code in pretty much every windows since then. (a kernel in a DLL file, lmao)

The whole unix mentality is that you develop a tool that does one job, does that job reliably, and does it well. Then, for more complex tasks, you combine such tools. So if a tool or piece of code that was written, and written well, 60 years ago is still being used today, so what? We're still at the exact opposite of microsoft's failed jell-o of broken functionality attempt at the "swiss army knife" of computing that doesn't know if it's a browser, an OS, a word processor, or any or none or all of the above.

The Unix model was designed to be able to adapt to future technologies. That's why it's still used today, not because some greedy corporation is forcing it down everyone's throat. Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc. along with the GNU project are complete rewrites of this model, so they obviously don't have any common source code with the original Unix from Bell Labs / AT&T, even though of course much of the functionality is the same. I can't say about OS X or other commercial Unix-based systems, because most of their components are closed-sourced and therefore there's no easy way of knowing if they re-used/stole code from the original AT&T Unix.

delt wrote:

windows still lugs around with it TONS of issues from its "prehistoric" DOS days.

Like what, exactly? Windows has no connections to DOS since XP, really. It doesn't even have any connections to 16-bit code anymore, at all.

Conversely I'm quite sure *nix platforms have no connections whatsoever to legacy 1960s code. /rollseyes/

If you have any doubts about this check out a US medical facility some time, many are still having to run XP.
.

...and none of them are running linux

The reason medical applications sometimes end up staying on legacy applications is because the regulatory industry (sic) has such onerous audit requirements for medical devices, the device manufacturers often simply cannot afford/don't have the resources to fully re-test things every time and upgrade is available.  That was certainly something I encountered when working in software engineering in that sector.

I've also worked in IT depts on NHS Trusts in the UK, however, and aside from these legacy applications, all the basic server and desktop infrastructure was generally well up to date (eg the one I worked at was doing its Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 roll-out in Q1/2 of 2010, which was pretty prompt.

windows still lugs around with it TONS of issues from its "prehistoric" DOS days.

Like what, exactly? Windows has no connections to DOS since XP, really. It doesn't even have any connections to 16-bit code anymore, at all.

I wonder if M$ has in its plans the development of a virtual piano so they can monopolize that market too?  One scenario I can envision is that M$ buys out Modartt, and calls it "M$piano," at which point they would pull the Linux version off the market.  This would be in line with their past practices.

THANK YOU for pointing that out to whoever thinks that

Incidentally, as i mentioned in another thread, windows still lugs around with it TONS of issues from its "prehistoric" DOS days. And M$ business practices haven't varied much over the last 30 years.

Has happened to many programs before. Is likely to happen to pianoteq sometime soon? Is something the OP of this thread would be interested in knowing? Apparently such points of interest are "off topic" and "mindless, unsubtantiated ranting" in this thread.....

Backward compatibility for anything not specifically M$ is always "undefined".
Ahhh, I forget what pretentious label they use these days - "M$ certified" or some such nonsense.

Anyway, I am still of the opinion that PTQ might work, or might APPEAR to work, for a while.
As soon as something crops up that M$ want to do for their other interests the backward compatibility will be dropped in favor of whatever it conflicts with.
If you have any doubts about this check out a US medical facility some time, many are still having to run XP.

Before the mud slinging the tone was largely; "Perhaps it will run, but why WOULD you stay with Windoze, it never gets better, it just gets more bloated and less private".

aandrmusic wrote:

The BIG thing I remember from later years of M$DOS was when they went head to head with Lotus.
Supposedly they went to great lengths to ensure backward compatibility for M$ code while deliberately changing things that Lotus was dependent on.
The motto for DOS releases being "It ain't done 'til Lotus doesn't run".

Exactly the kind of fact i've been pointing out all along this thread, and for which i've been called a "dick", a "linuxified microsoft-bashing imbecile", accused of mindless, unsubstantiated ranting, and so on.

But what do you want to hear guys, it's the truth.

Because this thread isn't about "can I run a bloated cumbersome email & office client called Lotus Notes on Windows 10?", it's about "can I run Pianoteq on Windows 10?", and the answer is simply "Yes you can, it works fine ".

Ranting about some prehistoric version of DOS would make about as much sense as if I started ranting about how can you live in Canada, evil European settlers who non-consensually annexed an entire continent and committed near genocide against the native Americans and are currently enacting ecological armageddon fracking tar sands for oil.  These are would also be controversial and interesting topics but they would have bugger all to do with whether you can run Pianoteq on Windows 10, and if I went on an on about them on this thread I would look like a mentalist.

@delt
That took me back...
I had joined DEC (digital equipment corporation) in 1968 - 47 years ago, - - time flies, I am STILL having fun.

I "put in some time" at Bell labs in '69 and '70  by which time we were shipping PDP-9s to them, same basic 18 bit instruction set.
In those days "programmers"  would complain that their code didn't work because the hardware was designed "wrong" and the documentation of machine code level instructions was less than perfect, so we would investigate alleged design shortcomings.
I don't remember the gentleman in that video, he appears quite youthful for what I guess to be his age, but time changes our appearance

Really?? That's awesome!!!

Exactly the kind of fact i've been pointing out all along this thread, and for which i've been called a "dick", a "linuxified microsoft-bashing imbecile", accused of mindless, unsubstantiated ranting, and so on.

But what do you want to hear guys, it's the truth.