MQL4 on iphone

You should first ask apple to open their platform for usage of any non-apple technologies. Good luck with that. Meanwhile (the next 20 years) you should concentrate your company's efforts on platforms that are meant for and can be used as tools and not as toys or fashion accessories.

haha, 7bit, sounds like you dislike Apple very much

Are you implying that Microsoft Windows is an architecturally sound platform?

CB

www.getyourea.com

Oh, I'll bite <g>... define "architecturally sound". Using the underlying architecture metaphor, you don't, for example, solve a major public housing crisis after World War II by building everyone a Palladian villa. You do what you can with the resources available. The brilliance of Microsoft was to realise that people needed an operating system which was cheap more than they needed one which could run for 3 hours without crashing. Windows 3.x was "architecturally sound" because it made the right trade-off: it gave millions of people the IT equivalent of an affordable roof over their heads rather than reserving computing for a privileged and wealthy few. The standard complaint about architects is essentially that they don't build things which are practical...

These days, of course, Microsoft have all sorts of legacy problems. But it's possible to sympathise with their predicament. They could no more have jettisoned their history than you could, for example, tear down all the public housing in Britain and leave everyone homeless for a year while you rebuilt it.

(BTW, I'm perhaps unlucky but my Mac crashes more often than any of my Windows boxes. It seems relatively common for a vanilla userland app - mainly Safari - to lock the entire machine. It's years since I've seen that on Windows.)

Great. Some entertainment.

"The brilliance of Microsoft was to realise that people needed an operating system which was cheap more than they needed one which could run for 3 hours without crashing."
At the time of Windows v1, these were not the market dynamics. At that point, the market priority was multi-tasking; a graphic shell was a much less important issue. As an example, Honeywell Bull had just recognised this and their MicroSystem Executive ran 4 character cell programs concurrently with the screen split into 4 quadrants. It took (too much) time for people to realise that Microsoft's "Windows operating system" was not in fact an operating system at all, didn't provide multi-tasking and was nothing more than a graphical shell (and let's not forget v1 was greyscale only, and didn't support a mouse) - so to call it cheap, what are you benchmarking it against?

"The standard complaint about architects is essentially that they don't build things which are practical..."
Yes, I heard that said many times when I worked in a team of enterprise architects. I think I was the only one who actually built anything AT ALL whilst working as an architect... So point taken. I agree that architects are justifiably criticised for being ivory tower merchants.

"They could no more have jettisoned their history..."
Apple did, when they implemented the Darwin shell on FreeBSD.

"I'm perhaps unlucky but my Mac crashes more often than any of my Windows boxes"
I think you are unlucky. I run 3 Macs. One at home. One as a laptop on which I do all my development. And one at work. In 7 years, none of them have crashed. However, I'm CONSTANTLY attending to friends' Windows boxes which have slowed down, stopped, etc.

One only needs to inspect the "structure" of the Windows registry to get a feel for the rats nest of an operating system it is. Architecturally unsound...

... In my opinion :-)

CB

And, with tongue still largely in cheek...

Apple didn't have anything like the userbase to be inconvenienced. It was a bit like Lichtenstein rebuilding their stock of public housing.

Even if one were to agree that OS X is more reliable than Windows, it's yet to be proven that Apple can build an operating system which runs more reliably than Windows on hardware which isn't eye-wateringly expensive (and/because proprietary). They may well be able to do it, but that's currently hypothetical. It's a lot harder to maintain stability (and all other desirable attributes of an o/s) on Any Old Hardware than it is on hand-selected premium kit.

The only other possibility is that the market's spending power/desire will rise to meet Apple's price in the same sort of way that Microsoft undid Lotus. Famously, Lotus wasted endless energy on getting 1-2-3 to perform well on the current hardware. Microsoft built within the capabilities of the next generation of chips, and rapidly falling prices soon made the performance difference irrelevant.

Updated my post above with a bit of a rant about the early days of Windows. Am off to play in a gig tonight. Will get back to this soon. :-)

CB

Rare from CB

Ref hypothetical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8b6gL7OXVg


Ref expensive:
- Think TCO, not just purchase price (cost to manage, rebuild, licence anti-virus software etc)
- You get what you pay for

Ref proprietary:
Mac hardware has standards-based
- Ethernet
- USB
- WiFi
- Intel CPU
- Memory
etc etc.
And it runs Windows natively.

CB