Poop Adobe Poop
-
Google Chrome. It can display every PDF I've tried
IME, Chrome displays most PDFs itself, but every once in a while it will hand one off to Reader, and I've never been able to figure out why.
-
Files do not contain applications. Applications contain files, which contain programs.
I always found the distinction between application and program very unclear. Is there some rule of thumb for this?
-
trying to make me look like an idiot ... Get a hobby.
That is his hobby.
(Not you, personally; everyone, including himself, sometimes.)
-
Microsoft Office Word is an application. WinWord.exe, EquEdit.exe, WordArt.exe, and the other one I'm forgetting, are programs that make up the Word application, with WinWord.exe being the main one.
-
Do you work in computers?
-
Do you work in computers?
I work in my house, though I have a cubicle in an office building, too.
-
Microsoft Office Word is an application. WinWord.exe, EquEdit.exe, WordArt.exe, and the other one I'm forgetting, are programs that make up the Word application, with WinWord.exe being the main one.
OK. And is Regedit an application or a program? It's part of Windows, after all. What about, say, map editors released together with some games?Also, I think it might be cultural thing. In Polish, "application" and "program" are completely interchangable. It doesn't help that in English, I don't see the word "program" used almost at all.
Do you work in computers?
If you're asking if I'm CPU, then no, I'm not. If you're asking if I have computer-related job, yes. How does it relate to my problem with telling the application from a program?
-
Or Firefox... if you don't mind waiting a couple seconds for every page to render.
Chrome's is usually OK, but I've had major issues with FF misrendering academic papers. Things get out of alignment, labels get rendered in the wrong font and 6 sizes too big, stuff like that. I don't know if it's still a problem -- I don't use FF much any more, but for it got to the point where it wasn't even worth trying FF and flipping through the pages to see if anything was good as opposed to always opening in another program.
-
I work in my house, though I have a cubicle in an office building, too.
Does the cubicle have a deep fryer for you to prepare your lunch?
-
3) Why does that error say a file needs to have a certain bit-ness?
Obviously the file is encoded in SuperExtendedASCII, which takes the ASCII code for each character, looks at each bit of the code, and encodes that bit as a full byte representing its ASCII value.
-
-
Does the cubicle have a deep dryer for you to prepare your lunch?
Of course not, otherwise I'd be more likely to show up at the office, assuming you accalia'd fryer there.
-
Auto correct strikes again.
-
Oh goad, we're stuck with this x86 / x64 nonsense forever. 32bit / 64bit is just too long to type, it's only 2 more characters. Hell, we could do 32b / 64b.
History
8086 => 16 bit
80x86 => 32 bit. If I were to venture a guess, x for extended. I mean, there's a pattern ea register => eax register.
80x86_64 => oh belgium us already.
-
If I were to venture a guess, x for extended.
Or as a placeholder for 2, 3, 4, then there was apparently 80586 named Pentium, 80686 stood for Pentium Pro's architecture, and then it seems Intel gave up with numbering.
-
ah, that makes sense.
I think the inherent problem is that when they come out with something that is not similar to the others, they want to change the numbering scheme.
-
There's also 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Itanium, 64-bit DEC Alpha AXP, 32-bit ARM, and 32-bit MIPS, all of which have had Windows run on them, all of which have had Linux run on them, and two of which have had OS X run on them. In addition to x86 and {EM64T | AMD64}.
-
Sometimes it shows a message saying that "the PDF document might not be displayed properly" and recommending you open it with another one, but it always seems fine. I'm guessing yours is configured to open it with Adobe automatically.
-
Oh goad, we're stuck with this x86 / x64 nonsense forever.
Did you mean x_86 and x_64?
Did you mean i386 and x64?
Did you mean i386 and i386_64?
-
Where does AMD64 fit into that?
-
-
Where does AMD64 fit into that?
I think that's x64 originally, actually.
Itanium being i686. Though there is also i586 at times which I think is AMD something and...
You know what, I don't even care at this point. I let the package manager fuck around with that shit.
-
Where does AMD64 fit into that?
In Visual Studio, it is x64.
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\vcvarsall.bat" ?
Error in script usage. The correct usage is:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\VC\vcvarsall.bat" [option]
where [option] is: x86 | amd64 | arm | x86_amd64 | x86_arm | amd64_x86 | amd64_arm
-
Intel gave up with numbering
Because numbers can't be trademarked. Other companies made 80386s, and Intel couldn't do anything about it. But no other company can make a Pentium® or an Intel® Core™ processor.
-
ITYM an Intel® (dum dum dum dum) Pentium® processor.
-
- x86-64 (sometimes written as x86_64) has "x86" in name because it's essentially still the same architecture (I mean, not more different than original Athlon 64 is different from AMD FX-8300).
- It's called x64 sometimes in analogy to x86, because it saves 50% of keyboard strokes to write it.
- AMD64 is synonymous to x86-64.
- IA-64 is something entirely different.
- Some people are douchebags and use x64 as generic term for 64-bit architectures.
-
So hey, 32-bit Windows is still useful.
Another reason: your company is stuck using a 16-bit application for which the vendor has gone out of business.
-
But another suggestion: Google Chrome. It can display every PDF I've tried
Chrome's PDF support's gotten more feature-complete lately. A year or two ago, it didn't support JavaScript.
-
Firefox update suddenly [...] changed a bunch of default PDF-handling preferences
One of many, many, many reasons to avoid that POS, FF. Stomping on file associations without asking should be a :facepunch: offense.
-
I always found the distinction between application and program very unclear. Is there some rule of thumb for this?
pre-comment: I see you have other replies, but I CBA to read them.
Consider that an application may consist of multiple files, any number of which may contain a program, i.e., a file with executable code. Generally speaking, the relationship doesn't go the other way.
IOW you can think of Word as an application containing multiple programs. It's a bit meta, admittedly.
-
. And is Regedit an application or a program?
Both! It's an application consisting of one program (I'm ignoring DLLs for the sake of this post.)
You can generally think of them as interchangeable, but if you need to distinguish between one part of an application from the rest, or from another part, you have the separate word.
-
80x86 => 32 bit. If I were to venture a guess, x for extended.
No, it's a placeholder. 80x86 means "any one of 80186, 80286, 80386, etc, possibly including the 8086".
-
Did you mean i386 and x64?
There was no 64-bit 386, you young whippersnapper. Now get off @boomzilla's lawn.
-
AMD64 is synonymous to x86-64.
I believe technically it's the other way 'round, as (IIRC) AMD beat Intel to market with 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set, and then Intel essentially used the same set of instructions.
-
I believe technically it's the other way 'round
Yes, because synonymity is totally a one-way relation.
-
Yes, because synonymity is totally a one-way relation.
No, but the way it's written can imply an order of events. As far as I knew you might have been interested to know the order happened to be the other way.
-
AMD beat Intel to market with 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set, and then Intel essentially used the same set of instructions.
After trying unsuccessfully to persuade the market that x86 should never be 64-bit; applications that needed 64 bits should use Itanium®. The market, of course, said :fa-middle-finger: to that idea.
-
Yes I made that exact joke like 4 hours ago.
-
After trying unsuccessfully to persuade the market that x86 should never be 64-bit; applications that needed 64 bits should use Itanium®. The market, of course, said :fa-middle-finger: to that idea.
And then turned around and used the Intel based name for everything anyways. I guess it had a spare middle finger...
-
Yes I made that exact joke like 4 hours ago.
You did say something vaguely similar (which I didn't remember you saying, and which I didn't get at the time without context). Have a like.
-
Shit in one hand, "like" in the other. See which piles up first.
-
And then turned around and used the Intel based name for everything anyways.
Except, as we've seen, Visual Studio doesn't.
I went and checked VS 2005, which we have the full version of, on an old server, and it used amd64 too. I would've sworn at some point there was an x86_64 and/or x64 target that didn't have "amd" in it but I can't find that. Maybe it was an Express Edition.
-
Yes I made that exact joke like 4 hours ago.
And just like Real Life, we've all moved on to @HardwareGeek's.
Except, as we've seen, Visual Studio doesn't.
Did we? Actually, stuff like Debian packages use amd64 to list the architecture, but whenever someone talks about the architecture generically, AMD almost never seems comes out.
-
You have 16,000 of the damn things though.
-
-
-
-
VS doesn't use it everywhere, but it does use it there.
LOL...forgot about that. That list is pretty funny.
-
I would've sworn at some point there was an x86_64 and/or x64 target that didn't have "amd" in it but I can't find that. Maybe it was an Express Edition.
You're thinking of ia64, which was available for Visual Studio 2002-2010, but only if you installed Visual C++ and only if you selected to include it as an option. The Itanium option.
-
LOL...forgot about that. That list is pretty funny.
I'm sure there's a story about some idiot who absolutely insisted he had to have x86_amd64 as well as just amd64.
