101–110 of 153 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - The new Apple Silicon Macs are supported, including running x86-64 binaries under Rosetta 2. Depends which ARM :)
Not really though, it's just another layer which isn't wine. They might put effort in to help Rosetta translate, but wine is not an emulator.
Isn't linux still falling farther behind? If I want to use my linux desktop to run some of the gazillion inexpensive apps written for the computerphones or any of the bazillion high-prestige apps written for the Apple desktops, what are my chances?
Android: Apps that work on x86 smartphones run easily on x86 desktops; apps that only work on arm phones require emulation on x86 and it's substantially more complex to get working, but you can do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not officially, but "Clippy" is way more common https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant
It's amazing to think that the technology behind Clippy is the foundation for all of Microsoft's AI and ML work. I mean it probably isn't, but it's still amazing to think it.
I recently used Wine to run Office 97 on Debian, just for old time's sake. I ended up liking it so much that I now use it for my word processing and spreadsheet tasks. This classic version is feature complete to me. Wine ensures it lives on, long past its support date and on an alien operating system. And clippit says hello! Screenshot for the curious: https://imgur.com/a/GmVUAfC It shows Word 97 on Linux editing a l…
An interesting question: which Office version is the best assuming one does not want a modern version with the ribbon interface (so 2007+ is out)? Looking at wikipedia new feature list, most features following 97 aren't very compelling for a single user: "HTML support"? "Collaboration features"? "Customized XML schemas"? Meh. However, Office XP IMHO has a few minor improvements (minor UI refresh, print preview in Pow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, and it makes you wonder what other amazing things we're missing out on, but for some quirk of law or successful lobbying. A few simplified examples from off the top of my head: pre ww2 most employers didn't provide insurance. during ww2 healthcare was offered as a perk of the job back in the day because wage freezes caused by world war 2 inflation concerns. you can say that because of hitler that it is the way…
I find it interesting how large the maker movement is in China despite the very lax copyright. It simply has no or net positive effect, it would seem. I know I'm oversimplifying, but I think the general argument against relaxing copyright protections, at least the most common I've heard, is precisely that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the worst would be .doc extensions instead of .docx Other than that, give me WP5.1 baby
IMO, .doc might be the second worst format ever invented (second to PDF). It is a proprietary, binary only format for storing text documents. Who thought that was a good idea?
I use Wine to run Photoshop CC 2018 on Ubuntu LTS and my life would be very different if that were not possible. For those curious, no I don’t use a licensed version, but I would if that were possible. Maybe it is with Wine 7.0. I will give it a try. Both Photoshop CC 2018 and Illustrator CC 2019 run flawlessly with hires monitor support and all.
I dislike how Adobe forces you to have the latest version of their software, even if you don't care about not having their support, but I think some people could could sue them for not having that support and some other legal issues. I know this because I have to help a friend to update from Windows 7 to Windows 10 due to this. She know have a relative slower OS, a slower Photoshop version, and no benefit to the work…
There might be some deliberate breakage of very old versions, I dunno, but you can definitely keep on working with old versions for several years. Which is a good thing given that the .0 version of a new release has a 25% chance of being completely unusable due to either a killer bug or a feature change that breaks your workflow until enough people scream on the bug/feature request forum for them to add a fix/switch in the .1 version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never thought to try this. Now I have to try this.
Soon you'll write code under DOS Turbo Pascal 5.5
For the more adventurous, years ago there was a"special" version of Delphi 7 around called like "Delphi 7.2 second edition" which essentially was to plain Delphi what the "ultra lite" versions of the OS were to XP back then: the author removed all the cruft, applied lots of optimizations here and there making the compiler a lot faster and the entire package much smaller. If memory serves, the entire installation file was less than 50MB. It literally flied on old machines. Was it legal? Definitely not, but it was probably safe; when installed on Windows it didn't trigger any AV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an artifact of a time when RAM was extremely expensive and CPUs were slow. Dumping the in-memory binary representation to a disk was apparently the logical choice at the time.
Too bad SQLite didn't exist at the time. It would be a pretty good candidate for something like that without eating bogs of memory for large documents. To be fair to the Office team of the day, when your company also develops the compiler and can guarantee the safety of writing and loading raw structures under specific constraints (even in ways that violate programming language standards), it's not too bad of an idea…
DOC file format, combined with OLE containers, was designed at least partly to deal with common practice of keeping documents on floppies, and to make saving documents as speedy as possible.
This meant a combination of pseudo filesystem (OLE containers can be summarised as a variation of FAT filesystem) and blittable data structures. This way when you saved an updated version of the document, Word would only extend the file with new changes, minimizing amount of I/O necessary.
Another aspect to this was that DOC was not supposed to be interchange file format - that's a role that was supposed to belong to RTF. Which was much easier to parse and had formal, published specification instead of memory dumps of internal data structures. However it took a more resources to update such file, so RTF and DOC were kept in sync when it came to capabilities all the way to Office 2003 - everything you could do in DOC, you could do in RTF, and vice-versa.
Of course, practice quickly went in different direction and most people only think of RTF as the simpler sibling of DOC, because WordPad on Windows used it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an artifact of a time when RAM was extremely expensive and CPUs were slow. Dumping the in-memory binary representation to a disk was apparently the logical choice at the time.
Quick and easy for the devs too I bet.