Slashdot Mirror

About being certified by MS...I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is wrong.

Want to develop drivers for Vista, Server 2003, XP, W2k, and possibly older MS platforms? Hit the download button from here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/default .mspx/.

Want a kernel debugger and access to the O/S symbol files? Try here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/d efault.mspx.

Need some know-how on passing the Windows logo requirements? Try here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/whql/WHQLdwn.mspx

How about 64-bit Vista drivers? Well, those have to be digitally signed. Try here for more info http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bi t/kmsigning.mspx

Total cost to you: Zero. Well, that certificate for signing the 64-bit drivers costs money, but that's not going to MS.

I understand the general /. attitude towards most things MS, but at least try to get the facts straight before you spread FUD around.

About being certified by MS...I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is wrong.

Want to develop drivers for Vista, Server 2003, XP, W2k, and possibly older MS platforms? Hit the download button from here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/default .mspx/.

Want a kernel debugger and access to the O/S symbol files? Try here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/d efault.mspx.

Need some know-how on passing the Windows logo requirements? Try here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/whql/WHQLdwn.mspx

How about 64-bit Vista drivers? Well, those have to be digitally signed. Try here for more info http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bi t/kmsigning.mspx

Total cost to you: Zero. Well, that certificate for signing the 64-bit drivers costs money, but that's not going to MS.

I understand the general /. attitude towards most things MS, but at least try to get the facts straight before you spread FUD around.

About being certified by MS...I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is wrong.

Want to develop drivers for Vista, Server 2003, XP, W2k, and possibly older MS platforms? Hit the download button from here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/ddk/default .mspx/.

Want a kernel debugger and access to the O/S symbol files? Try here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/d efault.mspx.

Need some know-how on passing the Windows logo requirements? Try here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/whql/WHQLdwn.mspx

How about 64-bit Vista drivers? Well, those have to be digitally signed. Try here for more info http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bi t/kmsigning.mspx

Total cost to you: Zero. Well, that certificate for signing the 64-bit drivers costs money, but that's not going to MS.

I understand the general /. attitude towards most things MS, but at least try to get the facts straight before you spread FUD around.

Now here is the dirty little secret of all the expensive PC helpers out there. Upgrading hardware is really easy... it's usually just a case of carefully lifting out the old and slotting in the new piece of kit.

...even after a full day of tinkering with various network wizards

But which mysterious "PCI input device" was lacking a driver? And what was the "unknown device" flagged up by Vista?

Not according to Microsoft... According to their speakers at the MS Vista launch event, even the Home and Ultimate versions need to call Microsoft every 180 days to verify their key.

The buisness users can purchase an "Activation server" they maintain in house and can configure their workstations to call it to verify they have legit keys. The Activation server in house still has to call Microsoft every 180 days to verify all the license information it has.

The in house Activation server came about because of Government and Private organizations that want to have unconnected secured networks. Though the "Activation Server" needing to call MS every few months can result in a "potential breach" or extra wasted IT staff hours as you call the phone number to manually activate again...

Another option you have, though Microsoft claims that they did not enable it in Vista, as Volume License keys will be used in house only and no longer shipped out to customers, are the MAK license options in their Volume license 2.0 program. But as I said, MS claimed at their launch day event they will not be shipping any such versions of Vista...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx

If you look at what is covered by Microsoft's Published Protocols made available by entering into Royalty Free licensing agreement, you will find yourself able to "to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose." What are some of these Royalty Free protocols?

• Daytime (RFC 867)
• Chargen (RFC 864)
• AppleTalk
• DIFFSERV (RFC 2474)
• Discard (RFC 863>
• DNS (All appropriate RFCs)
• DHCP
• FTP
• TCP/IP
• ...

The list just keeps going on. I know this is royalty free but for the life of me I cannot figure out why I would need to sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft to implement any of these. A patent agreement maybe with Apple for AppleTalk or relevant parties to implement Bluetooth for example (not saying that I agree with software or protocol patents but this is the IP environment that we currently work in). Signing an agreement with Microsoft to be allowed to read documentation and implement someone elses protocol, WTF? No significant innovation. I would be interested to know if anyone has entered into this Royalty Free agreement.

Protocols not included in this list are subject to other licensing and royalty agreements. An implementation of a General Server without restricted protocols has a royalty rate of 5% for a software product and 2.5% for an embedded product with a minimum royalty of $40 per server or $0.40 per user. Per server licensing would put the minimum product price at $800.

Included in this is permission to implement propriety Microsoft protocols (.NET Remoting TcpChannel Protocol, FrontPage Server Extensions Remote Protocol, Microsoft Media Server Protocols, Windows Group Policy Protocols, etc) which may include significant innovation as well as others that are existing protocols that have been extended. These include:

• H.323 Protocol Extensions (Additional codec)
• Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with IPsec Extensions
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.0 Streaming Protocol
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.1 Streaming Protocol
• World Wide Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Protocol Extensions
• Internet Protocol Security Protocols Extensions
• NT LAN Manager Authentication Protocol (Kerberos extension)
• Network Time Protocol Extensions

None of these appear to be licensed separately, they are only available as part of task based licensing bundle. The protocols in the list above also don't have any significant innovation, they are just minor extensions or combinations of, existing protocols. I agree with the EU, these should not be patentable (nor should any protocol) and that the royalty is excessive.

If you look at what is covered by Microsoft's Published Protocols made available by entering into Royalty Free licensing agreement, you will find yourself able to "to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose." What are some of these Royalty Free protocols?

• Daytime (RFC 867)
• Chargen (RFC 864)
• AppleTalk
• DIFFSERV (RFC 2474)
• Discard (RFC 863>
• DNS (All appropriate RFCs)
• DHCP
• FTP
• TCP/IP
• ...

The list just keeps going on. I know this is royalty free but for the life of me I cannot figure out why I would need to sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft to implement any of these. A patent agreement maybe with Apple for AppleTalk or relevant parties to implement Bluetooth for example (not saying that I agree with software or protocol patents but this is the IP environment that we currently work in). Signing an agreement with Microsoft to be allowed to read documentation and implement someone elses protocol, WTF? No significant innovation. I would be interested to know if anyone has entered into this Royalty Free agreement.

Protocols not included in this list are subject to other licensing and royalty agreements. An implementation of a General Server without restricted protocols has a royalty rate of 5% for a software product and 2.5% for an embedded product with a minimum royalty of $40 per server or $0.40 per user. Per server licensing would put the minimum product price at $800.

Included in this is permission to implement propriety Microsoft protocols (.NET Remoting TcpChannel Protocol, FrontPage Server Extensions Remote Protocol, Microsoft Media Server Protocols, Windows Group Policy Protocols, etc) which may include significant innovation as well as others that are existing protocols that have been extended. These include:

• H.323 Protocol Extensions (Additional codec)
• Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with IPsec Extensions
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.0 Streaming Protocol
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.1 Streaming Protocol
• World Wide Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Protocol Extensions
• Internet Protocol Security Protocols Extensions
• NT LAN Manager Authentication Protocol (Kerberos extension)
• Network Time Protocol Extensions

None of these appear to be licensed separately, they are only available as part of task based licensing bundle. The protocols in the list above also don't have any significant innovation, they are just minor extensions or combinations of, existing protocols. I agree with the EU, these should not be patentable (nor should any protocol) and that the royalty is excessive.

If you look at what is covered by Microsoft's Published Protocols made available by entering into Royalty Free licensing agreement, you will find yourself able to "to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose." What are some of these Royalty Free protocols?

• Daytime (RFC 867)
• Chargen (RFC 864)
• AppleTalk
• DIFFSERV (RFC 2474)
• Discard (RFC 863>
• DNS (All appropriate RFCs)
• DHCP
• FTP
• TCP/IP
• ...

The list just keeps going on. I know this is royalty free but for the life of me I cannot figure out why I would need to sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft to implement any of these. A patent agreement maybe with Apple for AppleTalk or relevant parties to implement Bluetooth for example (not saying that I agree with software or protocol patents but this is the IP environment that we currently work in). Signing an agreement with Microsoft to be allowed to read documentation and implement someone elses protocol, WTF? No significant innovation. I would be interested to know if anyone has entered into this Royalty Free agreement.

Protocols not included in this list are subject to other licensing and royalty agreements. An implementation of a General Server without restricted protocols has a royalty rate of 5% for a software product and 2.5% for an embedded product with a minimum royalty of $40 per server or $0.40 per user. Per server licensing would put the minimum product price at $800.

Included in this is permission to implement propriety Microsoft protocols (.NET Remoting TcpChannel Protocol, FrontPage Server Extensions Remote Protocol, Microsoft Media Server Protocols, Windows Group Policy Protocols, etc) which may include significant innovation as well as others that are existing protocols that have been extended. These include:

• H.323 Protocol Extensions (Additional codec)
• Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with IPsec Extensions
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.0 Streaming Protocol
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.1 Streaming Protocol
• World Wide Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Protocol Extensions
• Internet Protocol Security Protocols Extensions
• NT LAN Manager Authentication Protocol (Kerberos extension)
• Network Time Protocol Extensions

None of these appear to be licensed separately, they are only available as part of task based licensing bundle. The protocols in the list above also don't have any significant innovation, they are just minor extensions or combinations of, existing protocols. I agree with the EU, these should not be patentable (nor should any protocol) and that the royalty is excessive.

If you look at what is covered by Microsoft's Published Protocols made available by entering into Royalty Free licensing agreement, you will find yourself able to "to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose." What are some of these Royalty Free protocols?

• Daytime (RFC 867)
• Chargen (RFC 864)
• AppleTalk
• DIFFSERV (RFC 2474)
• Discard (RFC 863>
• DNS (All appropriate RFCs)
• DHCP
• FTP
• TCP/IP
• ...

The list just keeps going on. I know this is royalty free but for the life of me I cannot figure out why I would need to sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft to implement any of these. A patent agreement maybe with Apple for AppleTalk or relevant parties to implement Bluetooth for example (not saying that I agree with software or protocol patents but this is the IP environment that we currently work in). Signing an agreement with Microsoft to be allowed to read documentation and implement someone elses protocol, WTF? No significant innovation. I would be interested to know if anyone has entered into this Royalty Free agreement.

Protocols not included in this list are subject to other licensing and royalty agreements. An implementation of a General Server without restricted protocols has a royalty rate of 5% for a software product and 2.5% for an embedded product with a minimum royalty of $40 per server or $0.40 per user. Per server licensing would put the minimum product price at $800.

Included in this is permission to implement propriety Microsoft protocols (.NET Remoting TcpChannel Protocol, FrontPage Server Extensions Remote Protocol, Microsoft Media Server Protocols, Windows Group Policy Protocols, etc) which may include significant innovation as well as others that are existing protocols that have been extended. These include:

• H.323 Protocol Extensions (Additional codec)
• Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with IPsec Extensions
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.0 Streaming Protocol
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.1 Streaming Protocol
• World Wide Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Protocol Extensions
• Internet Protocol Security Protocols Extensions
• NT LAN Manager Authentication Protocol (Kerberos extension)
• Network Time Protocol Extensions

None of these appear to be licensed separately, they are only available as part of task based licensing bundle. The protocols in the list above also don't have any significant innovation, they are just minor extensions or combinations of, existing protocols. I agree with the EU, these should not be patentable (nor should any protocol) and that the royalty is excessive.

If you look at what is covered by Microsoft's Published Protocols made available by entering into Royalty Free licensing agreement, you will find yourself able to "to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose." What are some of these Royalty Free protocols?

• Daytime (RFC 867)
• Chargen (RFC 864)
• AppleTalk
• DIFFSERV (RFC 2474)
• Discard (RFC 863>
• DNS (All appropriate RFCs)
• DHCP
• FTP
• TCP/IP
• ...

The list just keeps going on. I know this is royalty free but for the life of me I cannot figure out why I would need to sign a licensing agreement with Microsoft to implement any of these. A patent agreement maybe with Apple for AppleTalk or relevant parties to implement Bluetooth for example (not saying that I agree with software or protocol patents but this is the IP environment that we currently work in). Signing an agreement with Microsoft to be allowed to read documentation and implement someone elses protocol, WTF? No significant innovation. I would be interested to know if anyone has entered into this Royalty Free agreement.

Protocols not included in this list are subject to other licensing and royalty agreements. An implementation of a General Server without restricted protocols has a royalty rate of 5% for a software product and 2.5% for an embedded product with a minimum royalty of $40 per server or $0.40 per user. Per server licensing would put the minimum product price at $800.

Included in this is permission to implement propriety Microsoft protocols (.NET Remoting TcpChannel Protocol, FrontPage Server Extensions Remote Protocol, Microsoft Media Server Protocols, Windows Group Policy Protocols, etc) which may include significant innovation as well as others that are existing protocols that have been extended. These include:

• H.323 Protocol Extensions (Additional codec)
• Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with IPsec Extensions
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.0 Streaming Protocol
• Windows Media Services HTTP 1.1 Streaming Protocol
• World Wide Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Protocol Extensions
• Internet Protocol Security Protocols Extensions
• NT LAN Manager Authentication Protocol (Kerberos extension)
• Network Time Protocol Extensions

None of these appear to be licensed separately, they are only available as part of task based licensing bundle. The protocols in the list above also don't have any significant innovation, they are just minor extensions or combinations of, existing protocols. I agree with the EU, these should not be patentable (nor should any protocol) and that the royalty is excessive.

...within multiple browsers and operating systems (Windows and Macintosh)...
Consistent with Web architecture, the XAML markup is programmable using JavaScript and works well with ASP.NET AJAX. Broadly available for customers in the first half of 2007, "WPF/E" experiences will require a lightweight browser plug-in made freely available by Microsoft.

You mean, ActiveX-based software, right? It's not like these applications are going to really function on any platform other than Internet Explorer

1996 called, and they want their view of Microsoft back. Things have changed rapidly, better get used to it.

I haven't seen anything new promoted by Microsoft lately that used ActiveX. ASP.net 2 generates xhtml and targets 4 browsers (IE6+ Firefox, Opera, Safari) and WPF/E is explicitly cross-platform.

You mean, ActiveX-based software, right? It's not like these applications are going to really function on any platform other than Internet Explorer

1996 called, and they want their view of Microsoft back. Things have changed rapidly, better get used to it.

I haven't seen anything new promoted by Microsoft lately that used ActiveX. ASP.net 2 generates xhtml and targets 4 browsers (IE6+ Firefox, Opera, Safari) and WPF/E is explicitly cross-platform.

Speaking of Microsoft Research... Andy Wilson - Check out the videos for Touchlight and PlayAnywhere - very cool stuff.

How the hell did that get mod'ed interesting in a day and age when you have powershell on both XP and Vista available for use which is just as robust as bash.

I think you forgot to include the cost of Office 2007 Ultimate? - $679!

You do know that Ubuntu comes standard with OpenOffice and all the other essential applications most Windows users miss out on (unless they pay extra)?

If you can't get away with installing Cygwin at work, try GNU utilities for Win32

Just unzip them into the path and off you go.

also, that problem with search for text in file is a BUG

If you want a working version of their GUI search, try Agent Ransack

The problem you are having is that you do not use Microsoft Vista certified equipment!

If you browse to this site, you will find some great Microsoft products that work with Vista out of the box.

Would this be the same menu latency that is configurable using the registry?

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windo ws2000serv/reskit/regentry/34628.mspx?mfr=true

What a pointless article.

The Windows Mobile 5 SDK may be free, but it requires Visual Studio 2005 Standard edition, which is not free by any means. And as for distribution, some carriers can prevent unsigned third-party apps from running on their network. The cost of signing an app is pretty high (several hundred dollars.) Pocket PC development used to be free, but Windows Mobile development is anything but.

Create a shortcut and enter DropMyRights.exe as the target executable, followed by the path to the application you want to execute in lower privilege. For example:

C:\warez\dropmyrights.exe "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"

For shame! What's that directory doing on a computer at Microsoft Security Engineering?

This proof of concept didn't work for me since although I run as an administrator user, my browsers/email clients are launched using a neat little tool from Microsoft called DropMyRights.

Read more: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms972827. aspx

It's not? It's of great importance to the company that decides to run DB/2 on XP and then runs into difficulties, because whether the difficulties are related to XP or not, IBM is not going to provide support. Even if what they ran into was ultimately a bug in DB/2, IBM's not going to do a thing about it until the company has replicated it on a certified, supported platform, and IBM is in no way unique in this regard.

Vast majority of *what* software? The vast majority of enterprise software, that comes with real support contracts, is certified on particular versions of Windows -- usually with specific sets of service packs. "Oh, you're using Service Pack 3? Sorry, we don't support that. We have only certified SP2, I'm afraid you'll have to verify the problem on a supported platform before I can help you." I've heard those words, or words like them, plenty of times.

No, your typical consumer software isn't certified for particular versions of Windows, but stuff like Websphere, DB/2, Oracle, Domino, Groupwise, etc. certainly is.

Hell, even Microsoft specifies particular Windows versions for their enterprise products. For example, I just hit the MS pages about Exchange Server 2007 and the Planning Checklist page includes these tidbits:

• Under Active Directory Planning: At least one domain controller in each Active Directory site that contains Exchange 2007 must be running Windows Server 2003 SP1
• Under Mailbox Server Role Planning: Server is running Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 1 (SP1), Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition or Windows Server 2003 R2

There are more, and if you look at any of the other versions of Exchange Server, Active Directory, SQL Server, etc., you'll find that almost all of them specify similar exact versions and fixpack levels. Of course, the products will generally run on other versions of Windows but Microsoft will not support them, just like any other vendor of software with big-dollar support contracts. Unless, of course, you want to buy a custom support contract, in which case most vendors will support anything you like, assuming it doesn't bankrupt you.

Linux is no different in this respect.

Asynchronous Notification Using Event Objects

[...] The WSAEventSelect function behaves exactly like the WSAAsyncSelect function. However, instead of causing a Windows message to be sent on the occurrence of an FD_XXX network event (for example, FD_READ and FD_WRITE), an application-designated event object is set. [...]

Heh, but they're being quite reasonable:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/features/details/useraccountcontrol.mspx

It's just that the majority of users aren't going to read that, or the quite reasonable consumer security guidelines. They can fix that by linking to guidelines (like the guide linked at the bottom of the above page) as part of the UAC warning. They won't though, because some marketing type will worry that it will alienate non-technical users. I don't think UAC is a bad thing, it's just a sucky implementation. This is in-part down to non-compliance of applications, but I think the blame there lies dually with Microsoft and developers that claim their apps are Vista Ready.

I suspect it's at least partially all the backwards compatabilty engineering that goes on. Windows does things like detect known buggy programs and patch those programs code and all sorts of things like that. No Unix does anything of the sort.

Try running ProcessMonitor and seeing the flurry of activity that happens when you launch a process on Windows.

Plus, though, as you say, traidition. Traditionally Unix had no other choice, so Unixes have to keep it simple. Windows has always been strong on multthreading since day one, so there's never been the huge need to keep it small.

C# is a nice language to begin with. Its very similar to Java, it is widely used and supported, it is easy to get started with and you even get free developer tools.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/
http://www.monodevelop.com/

Visual C# 2005 Express Edition for Windows development, Visual Web Developer 2005 Express Edition for the web and MonoDevelop for Linux desktop apps.

Good luck, have fun and think in layers.

While it may be true that different colored borders are supposed to mean varying levels of "trust", as in what component is running, I don't think any user would know that. The text in the dialogs doesn't appear to be different (that I can tell)

The text in the dialog is different. The two being talked about in this article say "Windows needs your permission to continue" and "A program needs your permission to continue". You can see an example of these dialogs here. Scroll about a third of the way down to a flow chart showing the dialogs.

Though, I think this is all much ado about nothing. Computer users these days have been trained to find and click on the "Continue" button as quickly as possible, I have yet to see why the UAC dialog will be any different.

SignalObjectAndWait . A mutex is considered signaled when it is unowned; using a mutex as the object to signal will release the mutex (and then wait for the second object to become signaled atomically).

I have not seen those things in Windows, even with hundreds of program installs. Not since the 9x days at any rate.

Here's the one thing Windows needs: fork()

Windows has fork(), as well as all the other POSIX calls.

Originally, Windows NT had 4 separate APIs: the NT API, Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. The NT API was (and still is) the one used by the kernel. It has all the capabilities necessary to support the other three, and is never (well, rarely at least) used directly by applications. Win32 was, at the time, very new and hadn't seen wide use--it was designed as the primary API for Windows 95, and Microsoft wasn't yet sure whether it would catch on in the NT world.

The other two APIs have the same level of explicit support in the kernel as Win32, but there's a catch: you have to pick which subsystem you want to use for a given application. Win32 programs can't make calls to the POSIX subsystem, nor vice-versa. Over time, it became clear that only Win32 was being used for NT programming, and the other two APIs disappeared. The OS/2 API is, as far as I know, completely unavailable for modern versions of NT (i.e. 2000, XP, and Vista), while the POSIX API is still supported, but isn't available by default.

Check out Windows Services for Unix. This packages installs (and uses) the NT POSIX API.

For more information, read Microsoft Windows Internals

Here's the one thing Windows needs: fork()

Windows has fork(), as well as all the other POSIX calls.

Originally, Windows NT had 4 separate APIs: the NT API, Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. The NT API was (and still is) the one used by the kernel. It has all the capabilities necessary to support the other three, and is never (well, rarely at least) used directly by applications. Win32 was, at the time, very new and hadn't seen wide use--it was designed as the primary API for Windows 95, and Microsoft wasn't yet sure whether it would catch on in the NT world.

The other two APIs have the same level of explicit support in the kernel as Win32, but there's a catch: you have to pick which subsystem you want to use for a given application. Win32 programs can't make calls to the POSIX subsystem, nor vice-versa. Over time, it became clear that only Win32 was being used for NT programming, and the other two APIs disappeared. The OS/2 API is, as far as I know, completely unavailable for modern versions of NT (i.e. 2000, XP, and Vista), while the POSIX API is still supported, but isn't available by default.

Check out Windows Services for Unix. This packages installs (and uses) the NT POSIX API.

For more information, read Microsoft Windows Internals

Microsoft makes Virtual PC, which is a competitor to VMWare's products. Not much of a competitor admitidly.

You are talking mostly bollocks, probably because you don't program using the Windows API

Anyway, PThreads is better. The reason is that Win32 gives you a fixed set of synchronization primitives. If you can solve your problem with those primitives. they work great. If you can't, you are completely stuck.

And PThreads also gives you a fixed set of primitives. In some respects they are more powerful, in others they are weaker. This is a bullshit strawman.

For example, it used to be that a socket handle was not a synchronization object, so you couldn't integrate select() calls with other synchronization primitives.

WTF?

1. select() has nothing to do with synchronization. Although it does have something to do with scheduling.
2. select() can't wait on "synchronization primitives" under *nix. Really. Try man select . It works with FDs, only.
3. select() is not a core function of the Windows API. It is part of Winsock, which uses lower level scheduling primitives.
4. Finally, if you want to do asynchronous development with Windows you use Async IO, not select. Async IO is built on top of Events, which are synchronization primitives.

That brings me to the next point: in Unix there is no wait to wait on multiple synchronization primitives (as opposed to FDs) at once, and only a few primitives support a timed wait. In Windows you have WaitForMultipleObjectsEx. Look it up.

Let me be clear on the difference: in Windows the scheduler API for waiting on IO and synchronization primitives is fully integrated - you can wait on any combination of IO and sync objects in the same Wait call. You must of course be using Windows Async IO which uses Events rather than FDs as the waitable object. Under *nix you can wait for multiple condition variables, or multiple file descriptors, or a single mutex / thread / process. There is no way to link an FD to a condition variable.

PThreads gives you condition variables. They are harder to program, but once you understand them, you can use them to synchronize on absolutely anything. You aren't dependent on the OS to have foreseen your special needs and provided special synchronization primitives to meet them.

In Windows you have Mutexes, Events and Semaphores. Events alone are sufficient to provide almost identical functionality to condition variables. You may have missed that memo.

I say "almost identical" because the underlying scheduler behaviour is slightly different, which makes it very difficult to perfectly emulate Pthreads on Win32. Read Strategies for Implementing POSIX Condition Variables on Win32.

If you really want the Win32 model, it is easy enough to build it on top of PThreads, but there is no way to build PThreads on top of Win32.

Cough. Bullshit. Cough. Read Porting of Win32 API WaitFor to Solaris Platform to get a clue. It is possible to build Pthreads on top of Win32, and vice versa. Neither emulation is particularly efficient though.

The complaint about lost signals in PThreads means that the author is using them incorrectly.

The complaint about weakness in the Win32 scheduling API means that the author is using it incorrectly.

Microsoft makes you jump through hoops if you use VMWare and not VirtualServer;

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=897615

The article is below.

SUMMARY
Hardware virtualization software allows you to run multiple operating system instances simultaneously on a single computer. Microsoft has two software offerings, Virtual PC and Virtual Server, which provide this functionality. Third parties also have software on the market providing this functionality. This article addresses support provided by Microsoft for its software running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.

Microsoft does not test or support Microsoft software running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. For Microsoft customers who do not have a Premier-level support agreement, Microsoft will require the issue to be reproduced independently from the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. Where the issue is confirmed to be unrelated to the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software, Microsoft will support its software in a manner that is consistent with support provided when that software is not running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.

For Microsoft customers who have a Premier-level support agreement, Microsoft will use commercially reasonable efforts to investigate potential issues with Microsoft software running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. As part of that investigation, Microsoft may require the issue to be reproduced independently from the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. Where issues are confirmed to be unrelated to the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software, Microsoft will support its software in a manner that is consistent with support provided when that software is not running in conjunction with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.
MORE INFORMATION
Third-party software discussed in this article is produced by companies that are independent of Microsoft. Microsoft makes no warranty, implied or otherwise, regarding the performance or reliability of third-party software. Third parties are responsible for the testing of their software running in conjunction with Microsoft software. Microsoft software may not work as intended in third-party virtualized hardware environments.

SQL Express is free (don't know 'as in' what, but it's free) database. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/

Its still Microsoft Office 2007 Standard, Pro, Enterprise etc, and its still Microsoft Word 2007, Microsoft Excel 2007 et al. They only rebadged the generics - 2003 Office systems, 2007 Office systems. The individual packages are still the same format as they always have been.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/suites/FX1016777 51033.aspx

Never noticed these colors as well.

I did try to cut the number of warnings given, but uac still is not yet at a level it is user friendly.

Let me point out:
-It sometimes tells the publisher is unknown, and sometimes it show the publisher, but say it is unverified. It is just a conspiracy with verisign to sell code signing certificates.
-Java vm had fine grained access controls a long time ago, and the NSA build these into windows NT 4.0 also. But all UAC allows is to give full access(=admin that can install drivers) or deny (no option most of the times) it. Yes, you can apply all kind of rights to the user, but not to a program... This is a lost opportunity.
-Once UAC is popping up you have no way to take back control. So guess what a user does when he is confronted with {while (true)askPersmissiontoinstalltrojan;}
-...???
-profit. Yes for Steve Ballmer that is... ;)

It is widely reported that Microsoft makes its money on Windows and Office. The other products earn little or even lose money

No, it isn't reported, and no, other products do make (lots of) money. It's very easy to look it up too: the breakdown of earnings per division can be found here. You can see that out of 5 divisions, 3 are operating at a gain, and two at a loss. The Entertainment and Devices Division (XBox) and Online Services Business (MSN) are in the red. Windows, Office and SQL Server are in the black

The business division of interest for this particular article is Server And Tools, makers of SQL Server. Here's what Business Week says about this division here: Microsoft's server and tools business, long Microsoft's lone growth engine, had another blowout period, posting its 18th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth. Its SQL server database software posted particularly sharp gains, up 30% for the period. That helped the division's sales jump 17% to $2.9 billion

Sure are: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/default.mspx

So in addition to being an asshole, he's incompetent as well? SHFileOperation too complicated for him?

I think your nuclear war analogy is very apt: if there weren't substantial risks of retaliation, MS would have litigated already.

The hope of entirely avoiding this issue by avoiding all MS patents seems forlorn. Microsoft holds over 6300 issued US patents directly as the assignee (based on a quick search at uspto.gov), and about 10,000 patents worldwide (see this article). Many of them cover obvious ideas that are hard to avoid using. Proving that a patent claim is invalid based on obviousness is not easy. From the US Patent Office point of view, if an idea has clear benefits and was not in use at the time of the invention (i.e., no prior art), then it wasn't obvious. So in practice you're usually reduced to trying to find prior art. And of course you have to prove all relevant claims invalid.

Having said this, it's probably still important to avoid any truly innovative ideas that MS owns. Litigating based on these seems like less of a risk for MS.

No you haven't, you've linked to a distro specifically designed for running on low spec systems. That misses the entire point. There are versions of Windows specifically designed for legacy PCs as well; and installing and using one of them on the kind of system it was designed for wouldn't exactly be newsworthy either. The fun thing is getting an OS that isn't specifically designed for low end systems to run on them, hence the parent's challenge.

You could use windows desktop search:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/desktopsearch/def ault.mspx
I've been using it recently and works quite well.

Even though it is a little dated, I had windows95 running on a 386 DX 20 with 8mb of ram. It took half an hour to bootup.

That's no surprise, since you're well within the system requirements.

No, its operating revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004 was $36.8 billion (source). Its operating profit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 was $16.5 billion (source). So basically your statement is wrong, based on a misunderstanding of finance (equating profit with revenue) and out-of-date. The good news though is your conclusion "$1.5 billion is not chump change to Microsoft" is probably accurate. And since, in my opinion, the vast majority of posts on this subject seem to draw the wrong conclusion based on false statements, your post that draws the right conclusion based on false statements deserves to be promoted. So MOD PARENT UP!!!

You sound like you are describing 'Origami', or the 'Ultra Mobile PC' (UMPC).

They are expensive now, but the idea is to get the price down to (I believe) around $500.

Alternatively you could just let the kids join their PSP's to the school wireless network.

MS have the free Windows Desktop Search for 2000, XP, & 2003, which gives most of what Vista gives, just not built in to the start menu. If you prefer a non-Microsoft solution, Copernic (also free) is good (that's what I use). At the enterprise level, I've heard good things about X1 (though that's *not* free). I'm afraid I don't know of any open-source ones.