On 12/02/2010 11:10, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:hl33en$2p6d$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 12/02/2010 03:36, Daniel Keep wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>   wrote in message
>>>> news:hl204m$m8g$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>> Starting with Vista, MS exposed the ability to have symlinks and
>>>>> hardlinks
>>>>> on windows, just run "help mklink" in a cmd.exe.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reality NTFS supported this for a long time now (IIRC, since circa
>>>>> 2000) but the problem is that the windows shell/cmd.exe is always late
>>>>> at
>>>>> providing access to new NTFS features - they're always late by at least
>>>>> one version of windows so this is why you can't do that on XP even
>>>>> though
>>>>> the NTFS version that comes with XP does support it.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so at least in theory, symlinks should still be possible on 2k/XP
>>>> given
>>>> a third-party tool to manage them and avoidance of using them on the
>>>> command-line and in batch files?
>>>
>>> Given that SysInternals had a tool for doing hard links on 2000+, but no
>>> tool for doing symlinks, I doubt it.
>>>
>>> I recall reading something about how symlinks were new to Vista
>>> specifically; not simply a tool to make them, but something changed in
>>> NTFS or the system's support for it.
>>
>> http://homepage1.nifty.com/emk/symlink.html
>>
>> I think this provides the ability to have symlinks on windows XP. I'm not
>> 100% sure since it's in Japanese.
>
> If you run it through google translater, and (attempt to) read through the
> "Symbolic misconception that Windows NT/2000/XP is available in" section, it
> sounds like he saying that pre-vista could only do hardlinks and junctions
> but that some people (maybe the author?) had been inaccurately calling them
> "symlinks" anyway, thus causing confusion. But of course, that's assuming
> that the translation is accurate and that I'm actually interpreting the
> translation correctly.
>
>
I can't say that I fully understand what that page says, but it seems that this utility does provide for some sort of symlinks for files.

Anyway, I'm not that interested in support for a decade old and deprecated OS - I've upgraded long time ago and currently use both Vista and Win7. I'll be upgrading my Vista to Win7 as soon as I get some free time.
My 4 y/o laptop that I already upgraded runs faster with Win7 compared to XP tablet edition it had before.

"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hl3j9e$nlm$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 12/02/2010 11:10, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
> My 4 y/o laptop that I already upgraded runs faster with Win7 compared to XP tablet edition it had before.
>

Really? You know, I've heard a *lot* about Win7 being better than Vista, with one of those improvements being speed, but this is the first I've seen *any* direct comparison of Win7 to XP. And I have to say I'm very surprised to hear that it runs faster...Although...What kind of hardware do you have in that laptop? Probably 64-bit multi-core, I'm guessing, right? I wouldn't be totally surprised if something like that does runs faster on Win7, but with hardware like that it still would have been super-fast anyway - like getting an extra 10 horsepower out of a porche (And if all the car dealerships stop selling everything except porches...well, they'd still be porches, period). And I think I heard somewhere that Win7 required a minimum of 4GB ram (or was that just Vista?). If so, anythng less than that would certainly make Win7 run vastly slower than XP, if even at all.

Tango is my standard library of choice, a true and beautiful effort by volunteers. Thanks Lars + Co.
- Clay

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> Dear D community
> 
> A new version of Tango is now available for download, named after Kai for his several contributions in this cycle. The main focus of this release has been final cleanup and a lot of bugfixing for the upcoming v1.0 package.
> 
> This release has seen 356 tickets resolved, 932 commits, and is current with the latest DMD compiler (v1.056). Some new features include:
> 
>  * Safe weak references
>  * Arguments module
>  * RIPE-MD128, RIPE-MD160 and Whirlpool digests by Kai
>  * Vector and Stack containers can now be grown
>  * !HomeFolder module
> 
> 
> For a complete list of changes please see http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/0_99_9_Changelog . We welcome all feedback and are always looking for new participants, so feel free to contact us via the page linked below. 
> 
> Downloads and their install instructions are found at http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TopicInstallTangoDmd for DMD or http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/TopicInstallTangoLdc for LDC. 
> 
> Contact:
> Need support, or wish to help? Please see http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/wiki/Contact .
> 
> Home: The Tango homepage is at http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> The Tango Team

On 12/02/2010 22:20, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Yigal Chripun"<yigal100@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:hl3j9e$nlm$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 12/02/2010 11:10, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>> My 4 y/o laptop that I already upgraded runs faster with Win7 compared to
>> XP tablet edition it had before.
>>
>
> Really? You know, I've heard a *lot* about Win7 being better than Vista,
> with one of those improvements being speed, but this is the first I've seen
> *any* direct comparison of Win7 to XP. And I have to say I'm very surprised
> to hear that it runs faster...Although...What kind of hardware do you have
> in that laptop? Probably 64-bit multi-core, I'm guessing, right? I wouldn't
> be totally surprised if something like that does runs faster on Win7, but
> with hardware like that it still would have been super-fast anyway - like
> getting an extra 10 horsepower out of a porche (And if all the car
> dealerships stop selling everything except porches...well, they'd still be
> porches, period). And I think I heard somewhere that Win7 required a minimum
> of 4GB ram (or was that just Vista?). If so, anythng less than that would
> certainly make Win7 run vastly slower than XP, if even at all.
>
>

I have no idea what you're talking about.
I have a ThinkPad x41-tablet (almost 4 years old) which came with win XP tablet edition which I hated to reboot since it took 10 minutes or so. I kept putting it in hibernate instead. I wouldn't even consider putting Vista on it cause it won't boot at all with that.

Since I installed a fresh Win7 copy on it it runs much better and boots almost immediately. I also read online similar reports by other owners of the X41-tablet.

you can find the spec online but in short it's a pentium-m with a 1.5gb ram (I added 1gb long time ago to make the XP work better). 32bit, no multi-core.

I don't like MS software in general (they do make wicked hardware though - best keyboards and mice) but this time they managed to do a decent job. Of course Ubuntu will run 5 times faster on similar hardware with only 256mb ram. Unfortunately that's not really the best option for a tablet PC.

downs wrote:
> On 10.02.2010 22:10, Richard Webb wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>
>>> "downs" <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:hkusr4$hob$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> </obscure nerd culture joke>
>>> Neon Genesis?
>> Higurashi?
> 
> Ayup ;)
> 
> (Recently watched it. It rules. )

Also going to have to recommend it.  So adorable and disturbing on multiple levels.  Just watched up through ep 11 in Kai.

"Yigal Chripun" <yigal100@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hl6g40$85d$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> I have a ThinkPad x41-tablet (almost 4 years old) which came with win XP
> tablet edition which I hated to reboot since it took 10 minutes or so. I
> kept putting it in hibernate instead. I wouldn't even consider putting
> Vista on it cause it won't boot at all with that.
>
> Since I installed a fresh Win7 copy on it it runs much better and boots almost immediately. I also read online similar reports by other owners of the X41-tablet.
>
> you can find the spec online but in short it's a pentium-m with a 1.5gb ram (I added 1gb long time ago to make the XP work better). 32bit, no multi-core.
>

Well, in that case, I admit I'm very surprised and quite impressed (Not totally unprecedented, though, I was quite surprised and impressed with XP back in the day). (Also from what I had been hearing from other people even as far back as four year ago, *allegedly* such "low-end" hardware couldn't be bought at the stores. Guess that was a load of hooey after all.)

I've heard that for Win7, MS put a lot of effort into customizability/configurability. Do you have any idea if it can be adjusted to the look & feel of XP (with Luna turned off, obviously)? For example, open/save dialogs without all the space-wasting junk they added in Vista, have "All Programs" as popups instead of being in-set, maybe a Win Explorer location bar that stays as a normal text entry field, and the old taskbar in case I end up not liking new one. I'm very set in my ways ;) If so, then I might actually switch after all. (Otherwise I'll wait for my sister's new laptop to arrive and play around with that, and see what I think.)

> I don't like MS software in general (they do make wicked hardware though - best keyboards and mice)

They do have great keyboards and mice (although I find their trackballs uncomfortable, I like my Logitech trackball much better), but I've had terrible experience with every other piece of MS hardware I've dealt with. The D-Pads on their game controllers have been garbage as far back as the old SideWinders (I think that was the name of them). My XBox 1 developed a broken trace on the motherboard that I had to fix, and some motor has been making far more noise than it should for the last few years, and a few units were known to catch fire because the power port was connected to the MB by nothing more than notably crappy solder joint. The 360's are notorious for being the #1 least reliable console in video game history (noticeable by anyone who isn't deluded by fanboyism). At one point the 360 failure rate was literally about 1 in 3, and most replacement systems were DOA ("360" may as well have referred to the support cycle). I had a Zune 1 (greatest UI on a portable music player by far, IMO, but only on the first-generation Zune, and obviously, connecting it to a computer is all kinds of hell, that's why I now use Rockbox on a Toshiba Gigabeat even though Rockbox is kinda screwy and ugly and the directional "buttons" are crap.) but as soon as I tried to use the TV-out, the IC that drives the analog-out port fried killing both the TV-out and right audio channel, and MS wouldn't do a thing about it.

Although to be perfectly fair, Apple seems to be no better with hardware reliability. My brother, sister and I have all had one Mac each, and my uncle has been using them exclusively since the beginning of time. Well, my brother's, sister's and my Macs have all had hardware problems. Mine, for example, had the IDE controller go bad and take the HDD with it - only HDD I've ever had go bad on me (knock on wood...)...and it still went downhill even from there: now it won't even power up, let alone initiate the start of the boot sequence (All those boot-time keyboard combos are useless because it never actually gets that far. And keep in mind, this Mac is the *newest* computer I own.)  And every time I talk to my uncle he's having a big battle with Apple about some major hardware component going bad and them not being able to get their act together about it (And yet he still swears by them, go figure). And my brother's first iPod died after two days.

> but this time they managed to do a decent job. Of course Ubuntu will run 5 times faster on similar hardware with only 256mb ram. Unfortunately that's not really the best option for a tablet PC.

Unless I end up going to Win7 and being happier with it than I always thought I would be, I could totally imagine myself switching to Ubuntu sometime in the next few years...Well...*IF* I could ever find a file manager I actually liked (I've tried them all, I don't like any of them)...and if they ever stop treating Kubuntu like the proverbial red-headded stepchild...and if they ever decide to actually *fix* the problem where it defaults to 640x480 (or was it 800x600?) when you boot with the monitor turned off instead of constantly passng the buck on that issue ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/12301 )...and if the KDE and Gnome people ever get their acts together enough to provide users with a *common* set of configuration settings.

On 10/02/2010 00:26, Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> * !HomeFolder module
>

What de heck is * !HomeFolder module

Thanks for enlightenment..

Like Bobef already said we need  D2 support de..s..pera..te......ly  I think we have a good idea against 3 times constness.. NO ?