Slashdot Mirror

This whole article is summarizing Microsoft Launching it's Open Value Subscription in the US and in Canada.

According to some of my own research, in which I went to the following websites:

http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2008/01/01/6933535.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/open/openvalue.mspx (note, this site is confusing.)
http://www.sellsoft.ie/microsoft_osl.html (much better description, but third party site)

I found out that the whole Open Value Subscription program is essentially a third option for those seeking to purchase site licenses for Microsoft Software. This option would allow you to run Microsoft software for a three year period, after which you have three options:

1) Discontinue use of the software
2) Renew the subscription for three more years
3) Purchase the license outright (a.k.a. buy the right to run the software on a permanent basis on your computers.)

At first glance, this looks all fine to me. However, the only thing I'm worried about is what conditions might come with the license... will Microsoft attempt to force organizations to upgrade in order to renew their subscriptions? (This would be a great way to force businesses to switch to Office 2007/Vista...)

I've got an observation that I dont see covered. I work for a medium sized company with 250 people and 50 mil in sales. I can't see our company ever letting our product information out into the "cloud". Our customer databases our product specs our shipping lists.....it goes on and on. Data security goes out the window if you entrust your data to a third party, i dont care what kind of contract you have with the company. Who in their right mind puts engineering data from new or even current products up on servers they dont control. This is mind blowing that somebody would think a high tech company (or any engineering company) would do this. Anyone remember how well Microsoft did with Hailstorm http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/mar01/03-19hailstorm.mspx ???? Zero

Is he really stepping down? The link in the article asks me to install Silverlight and I can't read it as such.... The other links don't say anything like it. (My mistake: this one does) A Google search yields this, though.

Anyway, if I'd been him, I'd have retired years ago ;-)

"The Tablet takes cutting-edge PC technology and makes it available wherever you want it, which is why I'm already using a Tablet as my everyday computer. It's a PC that is virtually without limits -- and within five years I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America." - Gates at COMDEX 2001

And unlike the 640K story, there's an actual source for this quote.

Note that Windows supports 64 CPU machines now, so 100+ CPUs within 6 years seems like a feasible target.

MS Word 5.5 for DOS (with Y2K patch) is available for free. http://download.microsoft.com/download/word97win/Wd55_be/97/WIN98/EN-US/Wd55_ben.exe Simple enough for me.

Also don't forget that it is not MS's responsibility to fix 'badly' coded software by every donkey and their brother. If they wrote software that is crap and works like crap or does crap it shouldn't, MS can only do so much, and even in this regard the Application Compatibility system in Vista 'corrects' 1000s of software titles in realtime that are 3rd party problems, not Vista nor MS's.

Let's have a look at some of that software that is crap and works like crap or does crap it shouldn't as you so eloquently put it. It appears that the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 SP2 has something called Visual Studio for Applications - the scripts for which are not compatible with Vista.

5.5.1 Scripting Incompatible with Microsoft Windows Vista In this release, Microsoft Visual Studio for Applications (VSA)--the scripting development environment and run-time engine that the Script task and Script component in Integration Services use--is incompatible with the final version of Windows Vista. If a computer is running the final version of Windows Vista, you cannot use that computer to edit or debug scripts in Integration Services, nor run Integration Services packages that contain scripts.

Can we forgive Microsoft for not supporting a development tool that was updated last August and still isn't compatible?

What else might use Visual Studio for Applications? Apparently it was an early version of .NET. Microsoft seems to be in the process of memwiping it from their webservers. This is not the web development platform of the future you were looking for. Google remembers though. If it weren't for Google and archive.org the only thing we'd have to remember this aborted plot is all the applications that won't run any more.

I know I'm preaching to the deaf and blind here - that you're trying not to hear me. Compare all of the apps that will run on Vista with the apps that will run on Ubuntu using a virtual machine with XP and you see where the problem lies. We don't need to buy new Windows any more. Since Vista lacks any compelling feature, isn't better looking, is less secure and comes inseparable from a metric ton of WTFWYThinking? using it is pointless. We can keep all our expensive software and use it on all-new shiny hardware and we don't have pay Suckage Assurance for the continuing right to do so.

And no, I don't have any sympathy for people who throw their money away on DRM infested iTunes videos, nor whether they play on vista with any sort of hard drive or chipset, unless they're paying me to care. They care, though. More than they care for Vista, I'll tell you.

Also don't forget that it is not MS's responsibility to fix 'badly' coded software by every donkey and their brother. If they wrote software that is crap and works like crap or does crap it shouldn't, MS can only do so much, and even in this regard the Application Compatibility system in Vista 'corrects' 1000s of software titles in realtime that are 3rd party problems, not Vista nor MS's.

Let's have a look at some of that software that is crap and works like crap or does crap it shouldn't as you so eloquently put it. It appears that the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 SP2 has something called Visual Studio for Applications - the scripts for which are not compatible with Vista.

5.5.1 Scripting Incompatible with Microsoft Windows Vista In this release, Microsoft Visual Studio for Applications (VSA)--the scripting development environment and run-time engine that the Script task and Script component in Integration Services use--is incompatible with the final version of Windows Vista. If a computer is running the final version of Windows Vista, you cannot use that computer to edit or debug scripts in Integration Services, nor run Integration Services packages that contain scripts.

Can we forgive Microsoft for not supporting a development tool that was updated last August and still isn't compatible?

What else might use Visual Studio for Applications? Apparently it was an early version of .NET. Microsoft seems to be in the process of memwiping it from their webservers. This is not the web development platform of the future you were looking for. Google remembers though. If it weren't for Google and archive.org the only thing we'd have to remember this aborted plot is all the applications that won't run any more.

I know I'm preaching to the deaf and blind here - that you're trying not to hear me. Compare all of the apps that will run on Vista with the apps that will run on Ubuntu using a virtual machine with XP and you see where the problem lies. We don't need to buy new Windows any more. Since Vista lacks any compelling feature, isn't better looking, is less secure and comes inseparable from a metric ton of WTFWYThinking? using it is pointless. We can keep all our expensive software and use it on all-new shiny hardware and we don't have pay Suckage Assurance for the continuing right to do so.

And no, I don't have any sympathy for people who throw their money away on DRM infested iTunes videos, nor whether they play on vista with any sort of hard drive or chipset, unless they're paying me to care. They care, though. More than they care for Vista, I'll tell you.

Also don't forget that it is not MS's responsibility to fix 'badly' coded software by every donkey and their brother. If they wrote software that is crap and works like crap or does crap it shouldn't, MS can only do so much, and even in this regard the Application Compatibility system in Vista 'corrects' 1000s of software titles in realtime that are 3rd party problems, not Vista nor MS's.

Let's have a look at some of that software that is crap and works like crap or does crap it shouldn't as you so eloquently put it. It appears that the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 SP2 has something called Visual Studio for Applications - the scripts for which are not compatible with Vista.

5.5.1 Scripting Incompatible with Microsoft Windows Vista In this release, Microsoft Visual Studio for Applications (VSA)--the scripting development environment and run-time engine that the Script task and Script component in Integration Services use--is incompatible with the final version of Windows Vista. If a computer is running the final version of Windows Vista, you cannot use that computer to edit or debug scripts in Integration Services, nor run Integration Services packages that contain scripts.

Can we forgive Microsoft for not supporting a development tool that was updated last August and still isn't compatible?

What else might use Visual Studio for Applications? Apparently it was an early version of .NET. Microsoft seems to be in the process of memwiping it from their webservers. This is not the web development platform of the future you were looking for. Google remembers though. If it weren't for Google and archive.org the only thing we'd have to remember this aborted plot is all the applications that won't run any more.

I know I'm preaching to the deaf and blind here - that you're trying not to hear me. Compare all of the apps that will run on Vista with the apps that will run on Ubuntu using a virtual machine with XP and you see where the problem lies. We don't need to buy new Windows any more. Since Vista lacks any compelling feature, isn't better looking, is less secure and comes inseparable from a metric ton of WTFWYThinking? using it is pointless. We can keep all our expensive software and use it on all-new shiny hardware and we don't have pay Suckage Assurance for the continuing right to do so.

And no, I don't have any sympathy for people who throw their money away on DRM infested iTunes videos, nor whether they play on vista with any sort of hard drive or chipset, unless they're paying me to care. They care, though. More than they care for Vista, I'll tell you.

That page leads to a link, Readme for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 SP2 which says:

5.5.1 Scripting Incompatible with Microsoft Windows Vista In this release, Microsoft Visual Studio for Applications (VSA)--the scripting development environment and run-time engine that the Script task and Script component in Integration Services use--is incompatible with the final version of Windows Vista. If a computer is running the final version of Windows Vista, you cannot use that computer to edit or debug scripts in Integration Services, nor run Integration Services packages that contain scripts.

Let's just add that to the incompatibility list, shall we? Development tool and all the applications ever developed with it.

Thanks for the link. So the database runs, that's compatible, if the app that requires it installs and/or permits SP2. Yay. No SSIS scripts though. I've never used SSIS, but I bet somebody thinks that's important.

Let's see what Microsoft has to say about SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS), shall we?

This paper discusses the challenges that face businesses that rely on data integration technologies to provide meaningful, reliable information to maintain a competitive advantage in today's business world. It discusses how SQL Server 2005 Integration Services (SSIS) can help Information Technology departments meet data integration requirements in their companies. Real-world scenarios are included.

Hmmm. Reliable. I don't think that word means what they think it means. I should think if I relied on their reliable SSIS to maintain a competetive advantage and then discovered the very next year that it was incompatible with the OS that was in Beta when it came out, that would be the last time I relied on that particular vendor.

Y'know what? If you have any more corrections to this thread, why don't you go ahead and just post them to the wiki. It's a wiki, y'know. You can fix what's wrong with it if you disagree with it - but it seems to be more reliable than your information. Anyway, Mary Jo Foley seemed to like it. On a completely different note, she's blogging today about Microsoft relenting on the disabling older file formats issue. A reminder to those that don't know: Microsoft chose to disable access to some older file formats because it couldn't be bothered to clean up the code that opened those file types. They didn't do it because they wanted to render archived documents unreadable or to force people to buy newer versions of Office as some here have claimed.

That page leads to a link, Readme for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 SP2 which says:

5.5.1 Scripting Incompatible with Microsoft Windows Vista In this release, Microsoft Visual Studio for Applications (VSA)--the scripting development environment and run-time engine that the Script task and Script component in Integration Services use--is incompatible with the final version of Windows Vista. If a computer is running the final version of Windows Vista, you cannot use that computer to edit or debug scripts in Integration Services, nor run Integration Services packages that contain scripts.

Let's just add that to the incompatibility list, shall we? Development tool and all the applications ever developed with it.

Thanks for the link. So the database runs, that's compatible, if the app that requires it installs and/or permits SP2. Yay. No SSIS scripts though. I've never used SSIS, but I bet somebody thinks that's important.

Let's see what Microsoft has to say about SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS), shall we?

This paper discusses the challenges that face businesses that rely on data integration technologies to provide meaningful, reliable information to maintain a competitive advantage in today's business world. It discusses how SQL Server 2005 Integration Services (SSIS) can help Information Technology departments meet data integration requirements in their companies. Real-world scenarios are included.

Hmmm. Reliable. I don't think that word means what they think it means. I should think if I relied on their reliable SSIS to maintain a competetive advantage and then discovered the very next year that it was incompatible with the OS that was in Beta when it came out, that would be the last time I relied on that particular vendor.

Y'know what? If you have any more corrections to this thread, why don't you go ahead and just post them to the wiki. It's a wiki, y'know. You can fix what's wrong with it if you disagree with it - but it seems to be more reliable than your information. Anyway, Mary Jo Foley seemed to like it. On a completely different note, she's blogging today about Microsoft relenting on the disabling older file formats issue. A reminder to those that don't know: Microsoft chose to disable access to some older file formats because it couldn't be bothered to clean up the code that opened those file types. They didn't do it because they wanted to render archived documents unreadable or to force people to buy newer versions of Office as some here have claimed.

That's right, you heard it here first-- Air pirates.

You could have just used synctoy, and saved your coding efforts.

SyncToy
SyncToy: the smart way to copy files, at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/prophoto/synctoy.mspx

What Does SyncToy Do?
SyncToy synchronizes the files in folders of your choosing. It does so by copying, renaming, and deleting files.
What's So Special About SyncToy?
There are many ways to copy files in a Windows® environment. However, SyncToy is faster, easier to configure, more transparent, and easier to repeat than:
Using Drag and Drop from Windows Explorer,
Using Copy or XCopy from the command line,
Building batch files and/or scripts to automate file copy operations,
Using offline folders, or
Using Windows Briefcase.
How Does SyncToy Deliver These Benefits?
SyncToy helps you save time, minimize network usage, and save disk space by only copying when necessary.

The simple, fast, and familiar Windows interface lets you point and click to define your folders and the SyncToy actions you want performed on each folder pair. You choose the appropriate action when you create a folder pair, and the action determines how SyncToy handles file conflicts such as:

Files that have been renamed in both folders,
Files deleted from one folder and renamed in the other,
Files renamed in one folder and modified in the other, and
Many other file conflict situations.
SyncToy enables you to save how you want your folder pairs synced so you can sync again and again with a single click of a button.

SyncToy lets you sync a single pair of folders or all of your folder pairs with a single click. You can even set up SyncToy to run unattended .

The powerful preview feature in SyncToy shows you exactly what is going to happen before any files are touched. Preview even gives you a chance to unselect any proposed actions before you start.

Microsoft SQL Server(both 2005 and 2007)
To be fair sql server 2005 has been patched ( http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/windowsvistasupport.mspx ) and 2008 (it was renamed from 2007 at some point during 2007 hasn't been release yet).

I beg to differ.. OSX 10.4.10 (Which I'm running now..) Plays fine with Win2k3 - With SMB anyhow - I'm yet to try and/or need to setup an AD domain.

I beg to differ.. OSX 10.4.10 (Which I'm running now..) Plays fine with Win2k3 - With SMB anyhow - I'm yet to try and/or need to setup an AD domain.

Any Unix like, POSIX compliant* operating system is welcome as far as I'm concerned.

As soon as OSX is able to run on my non-Mac platform, has a proven track record of stability and performance in a production environment and is free I might just start using it myself.

You are wrong on the cost aspect. The ~$400 cost is for a retail version. For hosters they use a different license called the SPLA http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/licensing/default.mspx and the cost is $10 per proc per month. The hoster then resells that to their customers. Also the SMB limit has also been removed. All other back-end products you mention are also in the SPLA and are on a per proc per month cost basis.

The windows server 2008 core installation doesn't even include the binarys for the GUI all you get is the command line. Exchange and several other staple products have gone the same route. You can install the GUI on top of it if you so choose. See here http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx

really? Microsoft is helping the Mono folks port the entire MS .Net framework which is available to MS Silverlight on Windows? Don't answer because you are WRONG

Yes and no. According to Wikipedia, Microsoft is helping the Mono folks by providing:
- Microsoft test suites for silverlight.
- Silverlight specifications beyond those available on the web.
- Binary codecs for windows media audio and windows media video, only for use running within Moonlight within a webbrowser.

Further, Microsoft has offered this covenant to downstream recipients of Moonlight promising not to sue for patent infringement so long as they are only used within Moonlight to implement Silverlight compatibility.

It's a far stretch to say they're helping Mono to port the entire .NET library, or even that they're working ensure solid Silverlight compatibility, but I'm sure Microsoft's contributions and promises are appreciated by the Moonlight team.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Microsoft and I hope Silverlight adoption fails because I have a hard time imagining Microsoft not turning around and breaking compatibility with Moonlight every time Moonlight catches up. I would even agree that if Silverlight takes hold and becomes a de facto requirement for surfing the web, Microsoft ought to be hit with an anti-trust suit (unless Moonlight provides solid, consistent compatibility).

But I do favor accuracy, and the original poster's claim of "Only on IE on Windows" was horribly inaccurate. The parent's claim that I was "WRONG" about Microsoft's support for Moonlight was also inaccurate, though he at least seems to have a basis for his beliefs.

I'm no Microsoft fan, but I at least acknowledge they have one of the largest research departments in the software industry. Granted this particular piece of research is silly, but they mostly do decent work.

There's no shortage of legitimate complaints against Microsoft. No need to make shit up in the one area they do things right.

Actually, no..

Microsoft has taken yet another page from the *NIX play book and constructed a model called "Server Core" for 2008:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx

This is essentially an ultra-small footprint server installation to run server apps on top of it, it doesnt even have a window manager- you boot directly to the "cmd.exe" prompt.

Gee where have we seen this before- oh i know it started back in the 70s...

"Unfriendly to third party developer" also applies to Apple's developer support and API documentation, which is lousy compared to Microsoft.

Microsoft had no monopoly in browsers when they started. Microsoft had a desktop OS monopoly. They leveraged that to kill a company whose product might, someday, indirectly have hurt their desktop OS profits. The specific leverage they applied was to sink massive resources into developing a high-quality browser, and ... not only give it away free, but threaten to hurt other companies dependent on them for making products that worked with Netscape. They lost money hand over fist on the effort.

The assertions above are not rhetoric. They're fact. Hunt up the words "malevolent" and "obsessive" in that link. When the Netscape threat was gone, Microsoft virtually abandoned browser development.

Apple had no monopoly on MP3 players or desktop OS's when they started. Apple used no leverage of any kind. They used high-quality industrial design and user-interface research, attention to detail, superb marketing and smart partnerships to earn their present spot on top of the market. They have not, ever, even once, stopped adding new capacity and features on to the iPod. The iPod has been phenomenally profitable since its introduction. Apple continued improving it at a torrid pace even when they had left the competition so far behind there essentially wasn't any, and they're still doing it today.

Here's the legal description of how Microsoft behaved:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,

and what the law says of people who behave that way:

shall be deemed guilty of a felony,

and the prescribed penalties if the prosecutor decides to make it a criminal case (which he didn't):

and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Note that a hundred million dollars is and was chump change to Microsoft. They had a hundred seventy two times that much available in *cash and short-term notes*.

In short, "to monopolize" trade is not "to have a monopoly on a product". Publishers have a monopoly on distribution of books they publish. That isn't the same as monopolizing trade in books.

Apple have a monopoly on Mac OS X. They are not monopolizing trade in personal-computer OS's. They have a monopoly on iPods. They aren't monopolizing trade in digital music.

They law applies equally to Microsoft and Apple.

It's just that Apple didn't break it.

I can't see anywhere where he states what version of Windows Media Player he's using but, given his setup, it's reasonable to assume it's pretty recent. Are you aware that, with Windows Media Player11 and according to Microsoft, `This version of the Player does not permit you to back up your media usage rights.'

So with WMP11, once you lose your licence data or upgrade enough hardware, you need to go around and contact every vendor you bought DRM files from and ask nicely if they'll re-license your content. Ask yourself what your chances are of being able to play your DRMed files in five or ten years.

Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista. By that same rationale, Windows Server 2003 was "just" the server version of Windows XP. However Windows Server 2003 had different SKUs than XP with different licensing models, and you can expect that Windows Server 2008 will be the same. Windows Server 2008 SKUs are much more inline with what is available for 2003 (though the total number is higher due to the duplication of editions for "without Hyper-V" versions). For the Server product, differentiation is more about licensing than features (the only feature difference between Standard, Enterprise, and Data Center is the lack of clustering in Standard).

Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista. By that same rationale, Windows Server 2003 was "just" the server version of Windows XP. However Windows Server 2003 had different SKUs than XP with different licensing models, and you can expect that Windows Server 2008 will be the same. Windows Server 2008 SKUs are much more inline with what is available for 2003 (though the total number is higher due to the duplication of editions for "without Hyper-V" versions). For the Server product, differentiation is more about licensing than features (the only feature difference between Standard, Enterprise, and Data Center is the lack of clustering in Standard).

Point taken. Even so, I don't think they should be obligated to provide a feature, especially if they would have to pay ROYALTIES to Microsoft on every product sold.

http://www.microsoft.com/beta/downloads/Default.aspx

Neither does/will this site. If the original submitter of the article wasn't a liar you'd all understand Microsoft is not redoing Microsoft.com in Silverlight. In fact, they're only redoing their download area in Silverlight. My guess is there will of course be an alternate HTML version of the download site available as well.

I'll agree that Silverlight is a neat platform that is pretty easy to work for, and shows a lot of promise. But Microsoft seems to be tryiong to use it in all the wrong places. You want to know what are by far the most annoying web sites in the world (to me at least)? Car manufacturers. Every one of them is written entirely in Flash, usually multiple flash applets which never seem to stack in just the right order unless you are using Windows/IE. For the sake of fancy animations and fade effects, they have sacrificed nearly every usability feature of the modern web, and Microsoft seems to be poised to do exactly the same thing.

If you have Silverlight installed, check out their new Downloads Center: http://www.microsoft.com/beta/downloads/Default.aspx

Aside from a few fancy but ultimately pointless animations, they haven't done anything that couldn't have been done in plain HTML/CSS 8 years ago. And look at the cost to the user of that decision: Text selection and copying is broken, the find feature of your browser won't find anything, you can't copy link locations or open links in a new tab or window, and the status bar won't show you link locations. Not to mention, if they go through with this, I'm sure that it will make Googling for anything on Microsoft.com virtually useless. (which is about the only way I ever find anything on either Microsoft or MSDN, as their built in navigation and search functionality is surprisingly useless.)

So, yeah, Silverlight's a pretty cool platform, and you can do some really neat stuff with it. But building a whole site with it is definitely high up there on the ways to ensure that nobody visits your site, or that the people who have to visit hate every minute of it.

There's no list because MS can't possibly know what programs do or don't setup the scenario. From a user's perspective, it doesn't seem like this is a huge deal, because you'd think that it would be all over, but it's not.

No, they don't have unlimited amounts of money, and you don't know what their other expendatures are.

Personally I like the eye candy and the ribbon in 2007. The ribbon I find especially useful.

That said, if you actually read the KB article, you'll see there's a hotfix available. I would say it's fixed and the fix is undergoing testing.

If Linux can't be almost 100% bug free, why do you expect MS to be able to, especially with all the free (although of questionable quality) labor that Linux gets? That just seems unrealistic.

I was pushed to Windows Update yesterday - really just looking for MS-Office SP3, but the button sent me there instead.

Anyway, they had a "Use Silverlight Beta" on the http://update.microsoft.com/ site yesterday. Obviously, I declined using it. It isn't my job to help a competitor to test/debug their code for free.

Sadly, they still REQUIRE I.E. 5 or later. Complete BS. Nobody should be using OCX on the internet these days - absolutely **nobody** for security reasons.

Funny you mention that, because Silverlight is VASTLY more compatible with accessibility technologies than Flash.

> Microsoft, the last I heard, pays no dividends.

Time to update your knowledge:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx
click "What is Microsoft's dividend history?"

As a developer, I'm waiting for Silverlight 2.0 so that I can use .Net languages instead of that heap of crap which is Javascript.


I hear you. Fortunately you only have to wait for Silverlight 1.1 which is available for developers to alpha test today.

it has some serious DISADVANTAGES in that it only runs on Windows in IE

No, that is incorrect. While not truly cross platform, it supports Firefox, IE (on various Windows versions) and Safari (on various versions of Mac OS 10).

See the requirements page.

Let's see, there are still millions of people using W2K yet there's no Silverlight for it. I guess those people won't be allowed to access Microsoft.com... (Read the system requirements--Silverlight 1.1 will supposedly support W2K, but that's months away...)

What about Windows Update? Will there be a special "Windows Update for W2K" until Silverlight 1.1 appears?

Why is M$ only supporting PowerPC Macs with Silverlight 1.0 and not 1.1?

How will corporations take to having Silverlight installed on their W2K, XP, & Vista PCs--in all likelihood against their wills by way of an automatic update--despite having automatic updates disabled? (Microsoft recently did this...)

Could all of this be due to a lack of trust in Microsoft???

Ask and ye shall receive. It was released in 1999, so it even meets your "long time ago" requirement.

One of the more amusing lines of the specification;

Microsoft's published RTF specs for a quite some time now -- the latest version of the spec is 1.9 and you can download it from Microsoft in your choice of binary .doc or MS-OOXML .docx, sorry no .rtf!

The spec is actually not bad, though the continued efforts to shoehorn in new features gets a little laughable. Here's an example of an RTF-reencoded XML tag from the spec:

{\*\xmlopen\xmlns0\xmlsdttpara{\xmlname Title}}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0
\insrsid1978110 \hich\af0\dbch\af11\loch\f0 Atlas Shrugged}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0
\ltrch\fcs0 \insrsid136785 {\*\xmlclose}}

As far as I know they've never tried to have RTF ratified by any standards body, but it's still very widely used. People have a lot of files named .doc around that are actually RTFs, and some word processors (AbiWord for one) actually use .doc-named RTFs as their "Word" format, since, having a spec, it's a lot easier to write than the binary .doc format. By design, old Word versions and non-Word software ignore any tags they don't understand, and I'd guess that most modern third-party RTF parsers and encoders are designed around the 2000 RTF spec (version 1.6) without all the new stuff.

Microsoft, the last I heard, pays no dividends.

No longer true, I believe because they got sick of answering the questions you pose in your post. ;)

From http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/dividend.mspx: "Microsoft pays a quarterly dividend of $0.11 per share. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, Microsoft shifted from paying an annual dividend to a quarterly dividend."

So I think MS is probably a "stock for fools". If you buy a stock with the expectation of its price rising, you're gambling, not investing. That's not to say that gambling that Mars won't explode in the next two weeks isn't a good bet; some gambles are worthwhile.

As an aside, I think TMF has moved away from that sort of stance. Look at it this way - if I'm a long term invester (and it's better to be), then I don't need the dividend now. What would I do? Probably re-invest it. If I believe in the company enough to own their stock, I'd rather they didn't pay me the dividend, which I'd just re-invest, because (I think) if my investment isn't tax-protected that's actually better from a tax perspective. I don't want to be taxed on the dividends now while I'm working and presumably in a higher bracket, I'd rather be taxed on them later at the long-term cap gains rate.

Yes but it is an OS level bug, since there is no list of affected programs in the KB article you
can't really be sure if the program you are using has the possibility to corrupt your files.
So from a users point of view this is basically "randomly corrupting files" when it happens.

There's no list because MS can't possibly know what programs do or don't setup the scenario. From a user's perspective, it doesn't seem like this is a huge deal, because you'd think that it would be all over, but it's not.

This is Microsoft we are talking about this company basically has unlimited amounts of money to throw at a problem.

No, they don't have unlimited amounts of money, and you don't know what their other expendatures are.

Instead of wasting time with useless features like DRM and eye candy (Vista) and UI changes for patent purposes only (Office 2007) they should instead fix core critical bugs in their OS and given that they have unlimited amount of money and resources I would expect their OS release to be almost 100% bug free.

Personally I like the eye candy and the ribbon in 2007. The ribbon I find especially useful. That said, if you actually read the KB article, you'll see there's a hotfix available. I would say it's fixed and the fix is undergoing testing.

If Linux can't be almost 100% bug free, why do you expect MS to be able to, especially with all the free (although of questionable quality) labor that Linux gets? That just seems unrealistic.

I don't have any book recommendations, but if you're developing for Windows, be sure to read the Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines. Even if you're not on Windows it has some design advice applicable anywhere.

Intrestingly enough, it looks like this update blocks ALL versions of files saved by Word for the Mac. It even blocks the most current version of Word for the Mac, Word 2004 for Mac.

Double-click the FilesBeforeVersion registry entry, and then type the value in the Value data box that corresponds to one of the values in the following table.

For example, the default value of this entry is set to "Word 6.0 for Windows" or "101." This setting means that all Word documents that were created in Word 1.x for Windows through Word 2.x for Windows Taiwan are blocked from opening. You can increase or decrease the default version. The versions that are specified in the list are in ascending order.

• Word 4.x for Macintosh
• Word 5.x for Macintosh