MP4

[KenDown]

What is confusing is that I could play mp4s using Windows Media Player, so presumably the necessary codec was already on my computer? Indeed, I had ShotCut, which edits mp4s, so again, I presume the necessary codec was in place. So how come I couldn't play mp4s from BASIC? Very confusing for a bear of little brain.

[RichardRussell]

What is confusing is that I could play mp4s using Windows Media Player, so presumably the necessary codec was already on my computer?

It's not as simple as that. There are various different Windows subsystems that are capable of playing media files: there is the old MCI (Media Control Interface) which includes Video for Windows (VfW), there is DirectShow, there's the MediaPlayer class of .NET and possibly more. They each tend to have their own, quite separate, codecs. So, for example, having an MP4 DirectShow codec doesn't mean that you will have an MP4 VfW codec.

You have to remember that Windows is old, really old, and that (unlike some other OSes) hardly anything is ever removed, things just get added! So that almost inevitably means that there will be several ways of achieving any particular functionality.

[KenDown]

Ichabod! Wasn't one of the selling points of Risc-OS the fact that its printing interface was universal? You didn't need to install new drivers for every application or program?

[RichardRussell]

Wasn't one of the selling points of Risc-OS the fact that its printing interface was universal?

I don't know anything about RISC OS, but it's certainly one of the features that distinguishes Windows from Linux. In Windows the printing interface is indeed 'universal', an application program (like BBC BASIC for Windows) can output graphics and text to a printer - whether local or via a network - without knowing anything about what make or type of printer it is. But in Linux there seems to be no comparable facility, which is the main reason why BBC BASIC for SDL 2.0 doesn't support hardcopy output at all.

[KenDown]

Hmmm. I was under the impression - but of course, I could be wrong - that each application in Windows needed its own driver or set of drivers. Maybe that was just early versions of Windows?

[RichardRussell]

Hmmm. I was under the impression - but of course, I could be wrong - that each application in Windows needed its own driver or set of drivers. Maybe that was just early versions of Windows?

I can't believe that was ever the case in Windows, since it's so contrary to the Windows 'philosophy' that all hardware etc. variability is dealt with in drivers, so application programs all see the same interface. Are you sure you're not thinking about MS-DOS, when that probably was true?

I was fortunate to encounter Windows (from a programming aspect) only after the transition to 32-bit Windows 95, when everything became so well organised. I know very little about earlier versions (3.11 and before) other than how complicated the 16-bit segmented memory model and cooperative multitasking made things.

[KenDown]

Whereas I, for my sins, first ran Windows 3.1 (I may still have it on an old computer) and was duly chastened by my son who declared that the future was Linux and installed that on his computer. Actually, thinking even more about it, wasn't the Risc-OS version of Bill Gates' masterpiece Win 3.1? The emulator was so clunky and slow that it was virtually unusable, but it made one feel terribly smug to be running the far superior Risc-OS.

[RichardRussell]

it made one feel terribly smug to be running the far superior Risc-OS.

RISC OS had the advantage of a 32-bit CPU with the theoretical capability of pre-emptive multitasking, but that was squandered by a terrible design that hobbled it to cooperative multitasking. Fortunately I've never had to suffer it myself, but I've acquired a feel for the awfulness of RISC OS when porting WIMP-based BASIC programs to Windows. "Superior" (in any respect other than the CPU)? Sorry, no.

[KenDown]

Well, you would know about the details of the programming. From my point of view there are many things I found useful or even valuable. Here are a couple:

Right-click to select but keep the menu open
Drag to save (Windows only drags to load)
Menus using the middle mouse button
Ovation Pro
Rapid start-up

[RichardRussell]

Well, you would know about the details of the programming. From my point of view there are many things I found useful or even valuable.

Yes, I was talking about the internal design (and the impact that has on the poor programmer), not the UI. You could, in principle, create a RISC OS-like shell for Windows (or other OS) to provide a similar UI, if there are features you particularly like.