Slashdot Mirror

http://support.microsoft.com/

Which .NET?

One would assume the one from Microsoft, since .NET is their name (pieces of .NET, like the C# language and the Common Language Runtime, have been standardized by ECMA).

Will all .NETs run on Vista?

If you mean, "Will the Mono and Rotor implementations of the ECMA-standardized bits run on Vista?" I'd assume so. And if not, they're open source so go make them work (yes, even Microsoft's Rotor is open source). Now if the question is whether .NET 1.0 or 1.1 will run on Vista, I have no idea. I'd assume not, but then .NET 2.0 is backwards-compatible and does a pretty good job without requiring you to recompile 1.x assemblies for 2.0. 2.0 is not forward-compatible, meaning that you can't take 2.0 assemblies and run them on a 1.x runtime thanks to necessary changes in the IL to truly support generics (unlike Java, where generics are just syntactic sugar for object boxing), among other things.

Will .NET run on linux, or will MS decide to litigate MONO and others out of existence?

When was the last time Microsoft litigated against someone? Yes, they have a stack of patents, but it's mostly for defensive purposes. And besides, Mono has worked pretty hard to stay clear of any patent-encumbered portions of .NET.

Will MS change license terms again, making it illegal to run .NET on anything but MS licensed systems?

They certainly can do that with their implementation. I see nothing wrong with them screwing users of pirated software. But their run-time EULA for .NET doesn't apply to Mono.

Will MS patches and updates applied to MS systems ?

What? What does patching have to do with .NET? And if Microsoft wants to force all patches through WGA, they have that right. They have no responsibility to users of pirated software. Since Microsoft's .NET implementation only runs on Windows, it doesn't apply at all to users of Mono on non-Microsoft platforms.

and on and on

Not really.

All of the above questions have one thing in common. All the answers come from Microsoft. All decisions are made by Microsoft, and not by the developer.

Well, no. Microsoft controls their implementation of .NET, but anybody is free to implement the ECMA standards (see Mono). Microsoft does have a say in the ECMA standard as an interested party, but ultimately it's up to ECMA what goes into the standard. As for support, Microsoft has a published lifecycle model for support that is very generous -- a minimum of 10 years for Business and Developer products, which means that .NET 1.0 will be supported until 2011. .NET 1.1 will be supported even longer, and all .NET Framework versions can run side-by-side. If you haven't transitioned from 1.0 to 1.1 by 2011, it sucks to be you.

x64 64-bit potato, potatoe

Funny. Much like this situation, only one of those spellings is actually correct. But there is more than a semantic difference here. If you actually tried to install the "64-bit Edition" on your PC, you would know that they are not the same thing at all. The "64-bit Edition" only runs on the Itanium line of CPUs, whereas the "x64 Edition" runs only on CPUs that support the AMD64 instruction set.

I have (by your terminology) x64-- it's different functionality, believe me...

It's not my terminology, it's Microsofts. Go look it up. And while we're beating our chests about our x64 creds, I was in the technical beta test for x64 (the one that you actually have to apply for, not the CPP that anyone can sign up for and everyone referred to as "the beta"), and I assure you that other than support for AMD64 and larger addressable memory space, the functionality is the same. In fact, the functionality is so identical that most of the non-core applications that ship with the OS are still the same 32-bit binaries from the original Windows XP and run in WOW64.

including I believe (not applicable to 32bit) the ability to run 2 multicore processors (for 4 cores total)

This is incorrect. You can run two dual core CPUs on 32-bit Windows XP Pro as well, though XP Home only supports a single dual-core CPU. Windows XP Pro has always supported two physical CPUs, and Microsoft has made it clear many times that for the purposes of licensing and support they count physical CPUs, not CPU cores.

But if you don't believe it from me, check with Microsoft yourself:

Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

You can find that info on Microsoft's Multicore Licensing FAQ page.

Now, if you're still convinced that the x64 edition of Windows provides different functionality from the 32-bit edition (other than the previously mentioned architectural changes to support the new instruction set), then by all means list some factual examples. Otherwise just admit that the ability to buy and install an OEM copy of a niche market operating system doesn't make you an expert on the subject.

What Is Strider "HoneyMonkey"? is a differnet take on the problem. /. reported on the project... http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/224 0222

I do have experience migrating several smaller .net 1.1 apps to 2.0, but nothing even close to this scale. I will give you as much information from my experiences as possible, and hopefully it'll be of some use to you.

The WinForms upgrade wizard worked pretty much flawlessly for each application I converted over, the trickiest part was setting up Source Control, and it was more of a problem with the source control solution we used (SourceGear). Good source control system once it's setup, but a real pain in the ass until then. There were 3 or 4 fairly large projects and a ton of small ones that all converted without a problem.

Not sure if you're using the web stuff or not, but that was where I had the most problems. The Web upgrade wizard is far from perfect. You should at least install the latest version of it from: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=7cecd652-fc04-4ef8-a28a-25c5006677d8&Displa yLang=en

That version has fixed several issues I had, but also seemed to introduce a few new ones (or it was a cascading problem, that resulted in different errors when the originals were fixed). I've had to do a lot of tweaking on many aspx pages to get it to find the Code Behind and there were a couple projects that I had to re-assign all my event bindings with, for some reason, although that was with the old version of the conversion wizard so that is probably fixed.

If SQL is being involed in this upgrade procedure, that was a much harder process to get migrated. Tables, Views and Stored Procedures migrate fine and the Reporting Services reports migrated over.. ok (though VS2005).. but the HUGE hassle is analysis service, if you use that, don't expect it to migrate very easily. DTS stuff was pretty easy to migrate over.

Anywhere, theres my memory dump. Hope that helps in some way.

Get a couple of crackshot dev to compile your apps.
Test the apps in a test bed envoirnment.
Your 90% of your stragegies will come out off the problems you encounter in your test-bed.

Second don't try to do too many things at once. For example, it would be tempting to move to 64-bit with 2.0

MSDN and TechEd videos are good resources for code migation issues. Some resources you can checkout are
Migrating ASP.Net
Microsoft .NET Pet Shop 4

Get a couple of crackshot dev to compile your apps.
Test the apps in a test bed envoirnment.
Your 90% of your stragegies will come out off the problems you encounter in your test-bed.

Second don't try to do too many things at once. For example, it would be tempting to move to 64-bit with 2.0

MSDN and TechEd videos are good resources for code migation issues. Some resources you can checkout are
Migrating ASP.Net
Microsoft .NET Pet Shop 4

Though Exchange SP2 does support "push" email with MS Mobile Services v5 WARNING: Microsoft publicity page , here is an Open Source solution I have just came across. funambol open source messaging platform which could help us keep the costs down when implementing mobile email solutions.

Microsoft's general counsel said "Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels. We've decided to open this up so people can understand the issues."

Also a ZDNet article, FSF berates apathy over Microsoft antitrust case , reports that the FSFE has criticised EU IT firms for not supporting the EC in its antitrust case against Microsoft.

ZDNet report that George Greve said in a blog entry that "[the] FSFE has been working on this case for many years, from the original investigation, over the 2004 decision, to the European Court case where it is now one of two [active] remaining third parties on the side of the European Commission. I only hope that more companies will help us defending their interests in this -- to this date, FSFE has received virtually no support for this case from the industry. Consequently, all the credit belongs to the free software community, including in particular the Fellows of the FSFE."

Greve also responds to the new EU complaint by ECIS applauding it, but pointing out that this may seem inconsistent as Microsoft has already reached individual settlements with ECIS members such as RealNetworks and Sun.

Also there is a good Guardian article from a few days ago which summarises and criticises recent rebuffs by MS to the EC's decision.

Also there is an entry on Tod Bishop's Microsoft Blog, Lessig advocates Microsoft , reporting that Lessig supports Microsoft's InfoCard project.

What did Microsoft do extremely well?

Excel

Visual Studio

Sooner or later Steve will swollow his pride and create a subsystem consisting of a modernized POSIX [...]

He doesn't have to. ...that already happened..

Does he want Microsoft to take out support for obsolete hardware every time they upgrade their operating system?

I beleive Microsoft managed that on their own. Compare that to A G4 from 1999, which can run OS X.IV.III (the current version of OS X) just fine (ignore the 0MB RAM, I have no idea who writes that stuff). Seriously, how many 1999 PCs could possibly handle Vista, with its' 512MB RAM reccommendation, 64 MB DirectX 9 compliant GPU requirement and a DVD-ROM at the least? Don't give me the upgrade crap; if you plan on that it's like building a completely new PC, and how many normal people (read:AOLers) could do it themselves or would really pay someone to fix it instead of buying a new Dell?

And blaming the mozilla foundation is blaming the exact wrong "side" for any difficulity explaining licences to people.

The Mozilla Foundation explains the licensing in plain english. The GPL always had an "English" preamble. And creative commons even has "deeds" that are as clear as language can get including translations in plenty of languages and icons representing a certain use. (creativecommons.org even has a "wizard" for people who want to select a license)

I am still, However, looking for a human readable version of microsofts licensing policy. As far as I know I would have to figure out what constitutes:
A. an educational/business/goverment organisation
B. a computer (Maybe a mainboard, maybe a processor, maybe a procesor core, maybe something with a mac address plus a set of PCI identifiers and a processor serial number)
C. a "software upgrade" (Didn`t you have to buy your dells with an installed microsoft OS because the organisational licensing only is about "updates" to this OS?)
D. a hurricane victim (tsunami victims need not apply)

Its all explained in this 44 page word file.

So yes, licensing is confusing for "normal people" or busineses. But when you work together with Microsoft (Through the BSA or other lobbyists) to make people follow licenses... then you could get help from their side by asking for understanable licences to enforce.

And blaming the mozilla foundation is blaming the exact wrong "side" for any difficulity explaining licences to people.

The Mozilla Foundation explains the licensing in plain english. The GPL always had an "English" preamble. And creative commons even has "deeds" that are as clear as language can get including translations in plenty of languages and icons representing a certain use. (creativecommons.org even has a "wizard" for people who want to select a license)

I am still, However, looking for a human readable version of microsofts licensing policy. As far as I know I would have to figure out what constitutes:
A. an educational/business/goverment organisation
B. a computer (Maybe a mainboard, maybe a processor, maybe a procesor core, maybe something with a mac address plus a set of PCI identifiers and a processor serial number)
C. a "software upgrade" (Didn`t you have to buy your dells with an installed microsoft OS because the organisational licensing only is about "updates" to this OS?)
D. a hurricane victim (tsunami victims need not apply)

Its all explained in this 44 page word file.

So yes, licensing is confusing for "normal people" or busineses. But when you work together with Microsoft (Through the BSA or other lobbyists) to make people follow licenses... then you could get help from their side by asking for understanable licences to enforce.

Kind of. There's tricks you can do, for example carousel, where you continously send the same file out again and again. So people can start listening at any point, receive to the end of the file in the current sending, then listen for the first half when it's broadcast again. Fcast (http://research.microsoft.com/barc/mbone/fcast.as px) is an example of this approach.

There are more complex tricks, but they're probably not worth going into.

Oh, or you could use swarmcasting (for example, BitTorrent). It's not as good, but tends to mean bandwidth usage is more localised (because clients will tend to connect to clients close to themselves in network terms).

Regarding 2), I'm sure stuff like this doesn't hurt either:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/learning/learn/n ewtodevelopment/default.aspx

Go ahead, watch a couple of them, they're all very good, IMHO. They'll make you crave a Windows 2003 Server for your projects aswell. At least just a little.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/887212 as someone who has a domain controller at home, I know I cannot have a media center pc

Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 does not support a scenario where you join your computer to a domain. Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 is designed as the foundation for a premier home entertainment system. Media Center lets you share Media Center content with other locations in the home by using Media Center Extender devices. Media Center Extender devices require concurrent connections, and these connections are available only through the Fast User Switching component. Therefore, the domain join functionality in Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 is disabled.

as the main point of pro over home is in fact, the ability to join a domain- I'd say it's really not the same thing at all...

The extend part is already in progress.

So, I work on Pastry. There are two branches of Pastry: MSPastry (developed by Microsoft Research) and FreePastry (developed initially by Rice, open source, now developed primarily at The Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (where I work)). They were started at roughly the same time, while Prof. Peter Druschel (formerly of Rice, now at MPI-SWS) was on sabbatical at MSR.

Microsoft didn't co-opt anything, and in fact allowed and encouraged the open source Java version initially. These days I understand the MSPastry isn't actively developed, but FreePastry lives on. FeedTree uses FreePastry, as does ePOST, and a variety of other projects.

actually you can embed fonts, crabby says so!

Best practice #2: Have fonts, will travel
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA011 193841033.aspx

Try the above with any living document.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/re ference/properties/innerhtml.asp
When the innerHTML property is set, the given string completely replaces the existing content of the object. If the string contains HTML tags, the string is parsed and formatted as it is placed into the document.

http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref/dom_el_ref8 .html
Note that when you append to the innerHTML of a document, you have essentially created a new document. The session history for the browser is incremented, and when you go Back, the document is there in its original, unappended state.

Meaning I could just load a separate page instead. innerHTML looks very promising and could be a really great property, but unfortunately the implementation is so tricky and riddled with caveats that using it as anything else than read-only variable will most likely break everything else.

In your example about the best you could do to avoid the breakage that would occur immediately after applying what you did could be by doing:

var list=document.createChild('ul');
list.type="square";
list.innerHTML="<li><a href=\"#link1\">Page 1</a></li><li><a
href=\"#link2\">Page 2</a>(new!)</li>";
document.getElementById('body').appendChild(list);

This way the innerHTML gets parsed before being inserted into 'list' but 'list' is still 'floating in air', doesn't change anything in existing tree yet, doesn't write to any history, doesn't have any content to be overwritten and so on. Probably. So when it's ready you plant a ready piece of the tree into the document, no re-parsing of HTML of the actual document occurs. Likely. It's not guaranted to behave that way though, so it's just your faith in logical behaviour of the browser that keeps it running.

In July 2005, Ecma submitted [the C# and .NET] TRs to ISO/IEC JTC 1 via the latter's Fast-Track process. This process usually takes 6-9 months.

• SharpDevelop is an open-source IDE very similar to Visual Studio, it can do C# and VB.NET
• DotGNU is a GNU-sponsored project to implement the .NET platform.
• The Mono Project, started by Miguel de Icaza of GNOME fame, is another implementation of .NET

... C#? Visual Basic? ...

Actually, yes. Objective-C, too.

Scribe[Technical paper pdf warning!] is a framework to do very similar things. Is this an application developed on top of that? Scribe works by building a multicast tree of the participants too.
One interesting thing to note is that as a participant in scribe, you'll have to pass on notifications of feeds even if you're not interested in them, because you're a part of the tree and pretty much the only path to the guys below you. How does FeedTree deal with cheating/lying nodes that refuse to pass on messages? Also, to be a part of the overlay, you need to keep sending keep-alive messages. Not a big deal, I know, but I always thought Scribe was impractical for general use, but would work great for a restricted audience (like a large geographically distributed company) that can be "trusted".

Not to mention Services for Unix, and by extension SUA in 2K3 Server/Vista, are almost completely based on OpenBSD code.

If that really is the case, they're hardly alone in it.
Take the Microsoft core values, as a randomly selected example:
"We are open and respectful with others and dedicated to making them better." (source http://www.microsoft.com/citizenship/about/mission .mspx)

This does not define "better", and even if it did - as you say - corporate marketing slogans are not the same as corporate policy. Why does no one constantly hold this up to MS, and inquire how their censorship of Chinese MSN will make their Chinese users "better"? And how are exactly are they being "Open"? etc etc.

I think Google's main mistake with this "Do No Evil" thing - if you can see it as a mistake - is to try to actually live by, and derive corporate policy from, their claimed core values.

who is crazy enough to upload a full quality HD movie on the 'net

Anybody with a broadband connection.

Highly compressed HD (with codec based on mpeg4 ASP like Xvid/WMV or AVP like x264/Nero) uses *less* bandwidth than legacy mpeg2 dvd...(just a few megs for decent quality)
which means full HD quality movies are readily available under 4GB on the internet...

browse a torrent site for HDTV or the usenet group alt.binaries.hdtv, you'll be amazed by the number of full movies available in HD, the source being re-encoded HDTV like HBO or even straight (drm removed) commercialy-wmv-distributed movies like Terminator 2

FYI, WMVHD comes on DVD:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/cont ent_provider/film/dvd.aspx

Things like IMAX documentaries come with *both* 720p and 1080p on a sinbgle DVD, the 1080p version weighs something like 2GB.

Why hasn't some white-hat hacker written similar bots that put up a pop-up with a message saying something like:

"This is a message from the 'Computer Protection Advisory Group.'
Your computer has a security hole that can be used by hackers to take control of your computer.
THAT IS HOW THIS MESSAGE WAS ABLE TO BE SHOWN!
Go to Microsoft Windows and run their 'Windows Update'.
This is the URL to type in (do not click):
http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate/v6/def ault.aspx

Also, please be sure to turn Windows Auto-Update on!"

Or something similar. (Of course the white-hat bot checks which OS is being used and posts the correct URL for that OS.) The message needs to be something that is not scarey, is clear about the message that the user must do something, and has a URL to help them solve the problem. Note: I added that they should turn Auto-Update on, because I am assuming that they are new to Windows. I know that Slashdotters will argue that turning this on might be a mistake. Let's not rehash that here. Focus on the idea of a white-hat botnet to fix the darn problems.

Any thoughts? It seems that white-hats could run bot-nets that spread benign information just as easily as black-hats could spread adware/spyware. When ever I see Windows machines that are not being updated, this questions comes to mind... Why not?

Or am I just too naive?
JWedg

It's actually pretty easy for a company to prevent employees from writing to mass storage devices with XP SP2: Change one registry key on every machine... simple stuff with an Active Directory environment.

More significantly though, this kind of thing really makes a case for Microsoft's Rights Management Services technology... even if you were able to copy the physical documents onto an iPod, they'd be completely useless to you outside the organization because they're encrypted, and only by talking to the RMS server (located internally) can they be unlocked.

You mean like this MS EULA for XP Home?

Suppose this software is bundled with my brand new shiney intel macintosh?

You are free to read it beforehand here, here and here? In fact, you can read all of their licenses here.

You forgot this one.

Step 1: Turn on the TPM

1. Click through a bunch of stuff and reboot

Step 2: Set ownership of the TPM

1. Create the TPM owner password

Don't act like it's news. Microsoft already changed it's license agreement. Now, for all you folks who like to upgrade your computers, a new motherboard means you need to buy a new copy of windows for a new license. Yep! Windows MAY NOT be transferred between different PC's and changing out the motherboard constitutes a new PC according to Microsoft now. In fact, according to a Technet Community Chat, replacing a DEFECTIVE Motherboard still requires a new license! As they said:
"Q: k guys, my question is .i have a system i sold, mainboard is to handle a 3.2 processor but originally sold it with 2.4 with promise of upgradeability to 3.2, though main board works fine with 2.4 it does not with 3.2, is this considered a failed mainboard
A: This is still considered an upgrade if the motherboard is changed. You might want to try using the latest BIOS for the motherboard. If it still doesn't support the 3.2 GHz CPU and you replace the motherboard then you'll have to sell them a new OS." - Microsoft Technet Community Chat

Quite a bit of fun, no?

Would I rather use OS X on the desktop and Linux or BSD on a server? Yes of course, but I do think Win 2K pro was the best version of Windows Microsoft ever issued if one is forced to use Windows for games or work

Do you really not understand technology, or just pretending you don't?

WindowsXP has a massive scale of compatibilty, security, application stability and even tons of kernel enhancements over Win2k. People that see WindowsXP as Win2k with prettier graphics must also see a porshe as just a VW Bug with prettier paint.

Add in SP2 that forks off after the Windows 2003 server security and optimizations. (remmeber the reports that when Windows 2003 was first released it was faster on the desktop than XP? Well that code was pushed into WindowsXP in SP2.)

WindowsXP is not only safer, more compatible, has a ton more features, a more robust kernel, but is actually faster than Windows2K, even with the 'pretty' themes turned on. Average tests in our labs show XP consistently 10% faster than Win2k.

Here are some 'real' tech points, and these are just the changes in XP prior to SP2.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPK ernel/default.aspx

Here is the MS version of some of the same topics:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/xp_ker nel.mspx

Happy reading and please for the love of God people stop believing that Win2k is A) Faster or B) more solid than XP. Both are false and just lead users to staying with an older OS and avoid XP when they could be benefiting from it.

Take Care,
TheNetAvenger

Would I rather use OS X on the desktop and Linux or BSD on a server? Yes of course, but I do think Win 2K pro was the best version of Windows Microsoft ever issued if one is forced to use Windows for games or work

Do you really not understand technology, or just pretending you don't?

WindowsXP has a massive scale of compatibilty, security, application stability and even tons of kernel enhancements over Win2k. People that see WindowsXP as Win2k with prettier graphics must also see a porshe as just a VW Bug with prettier paint.

Add in SP2 that forks off after the Windows 2003 server security and optimizations. (remmeber the reports that when Windows 2003 was first released it was faster on the desktop than XP? Well that code was pushed into WindowsXP in SP2.)

WindowsXP is not only safer, more compatible, has a ton more features, a more robust kernel, but is actually faster than Windows2K, even with the 'pretty' themes turned on. Average tests in our labs show XP consistently 10% faster than Win2k.

Here are some 'real' tech points, and these are just the changes in XP prior to SP2.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPK ernel/default.aspx

Here is the MS version of some of the same topics:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/xp_ker nel.mspx

Happy reading and please for the love of God people stop believing that Win2k is A) Faster or B) more solid than XP. Both are false and just lead users to staying with an older OS and avoid XP when they could be benefiting from it.

Take Care,
TheNetAvenger

I'm a musician and electronics tinkerer, and I'm wondering how this will impact playing with DSP/MIDI homebrew hardware/software, as well as the choice in vendors for commercial digital music processing/creation/control hardware and software.

There are two levels of driver signing under Windows Vista: signing by the author ($500 per year to VeriSlime) and signing by Microsoft Windows Hardware Quality Labs (I'm guessing roughly $1000 to $2000 per driver revision). If you see a "Designed for Windows" logo on the box, then the vendor is already paying for WHQL testing. Microsoft may be shooting itself in the foot with homebrewers, sending them to GNU/Linux or *BSD or the like.

You don't need to buy a new version of Windows every 2-3 years. If you didn't need the latest and greatest apps and OS features, Windows 98/ME is supported until July 11 of this year. Windows 2000 extended support ends June 2010 and Windows XP Pro extended support ends five years after Vista is released.

You don't need to buy a new version of Windows every 2-3 years. If you didn't need the latest and greatest apps and OS features, Windows 98/ME is supported until July 11 of this year. Windows 2000 extended support ends June 2010 and Windows XP Pro extended support ends five years after Vista is released.

You don't need to buy a new version of Windows every 2-3 years. If you didn't need the latest and greatest apps and OS features, Windows 98/ME is supported until July 11 of this year. Windows 2000 extended support ends June 2010 and Windows XP Pro extended support ends five years after Vista is released.

1. Security, security, security
This has never be a paramount feature of Windows V.anything. In fact, it's been anything but the 3 s's. We are still waiting for the IE fix as well as the grandiose top priority on security.

2. Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover
See #1 .. we are still waiting. Can we cut the shit and focus on a more secure browser instead of glitz and tabs?

3. Righteous eye candy:
See #2.. Could we get something to nip that little spyware problem please? Enough with the froof.

4. Desktop search:
hot tip: [START] -> right click -> explore -> F3 (above the #4 key). if your 1eet, dir /s

5. Better updates:
Can we get that XP patch first? Maybe if you weren't dicking with the eye-candy, we could have this before 2007.

6. More media:
Ok, this looks like a good fix. Oh, wait.. no mention of fixing it I guess. How long has this been a problem?

7-10.. add your own

My point is that Windows on decent hardware will give you excellent stability. If it doesn't, you can either a) whine about it on Slashdot or b) remedy the situation by finding out what the problem is and fixing. You should not, however, consider anything that could be deemed "instability" as expected behaviour.

Comparing glibc and IE is comparing apples and oranges. With Linux you'd need to replace glibc with something that implemented the same functionality, but you can change the window manager or browser without difficulty.

IE IS NOT JUST A WEB BROWSER APPLICATION. It's a reusable *module*. It's an OS-level shared library just like glibc, QT, khtml, WebCore/WebKit, Quicktime, or any of a million others.

Your argument that Windows is modular because the modules have dependencies on each other is not only logically unsound, it demonstrates a deep misunderstanding about what "modular" actually means.

Cutting and pasting code isn't modularity - this is what Visual Studio encourages (code snippits). Simply put, nobody but Microsoft would even have thought to add such a feature.

Not being a VS user, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. A few Google results, however, would suggest your complaint is completely without merit, if not outright lying.

Windows is definitely designed in a very modular fashion. That Microsoft don't have an easy way to custom-build your own Windows "distribution", does not change this.

WMF needed extra patches applied if Office was installed - simply put the code was duplicated from Windows into Office. It should have been in a framework that Office called.

Well, The January patch summary would suggest otherwise, however, the Office team are well-known for going their own way and reimplementing OS functionality. Again, your logic is faulty as this is irrelevant to the modularity of Windows - it's like arguing Linux isn't modular because there's a zillion different widget libraries for X.

Microsoft are not a single, well organised, coherent entity, they're a bunch of different groups that just happen to be grouped under the same umbrella. The Office and Windows teams may as well be different comapanies.

This kind of "design" is totally different to Mac OS X - where there are modules and clear interfaces.

So you're saying there isn't a *single* OS X application that reimplements functionality provided in the OS ? Because that's the logic you're trying to use to argue Windows isn't "modular".

Microsoft have said that Windows Vista is a total rewrite of Windows around these design ideas, clearly XP wasn't!

Windows VIsta isn't a "complete rewrite" in anything outside of staged press interactions. It's Windows NT 6.0 - certainly there have been some major changes and cleanups (particularly to do with internal dependencies), but nothing approaching a "complete rewrite".

My point is that Windows on decent hardware will give you excellent stability. If it doesn't, you can either a) whine about it on Slashdot or b) remedy the situation by finding out what the problem is and fixing. You should not, however, consider anything that could be deemed "instability" as expected behaviour.

Comparing glibc and IE is comparing apples and oranges. With Linux you'd need to replace glibc with something that implemented the same functionality, but you can change the window manager or browser without difficulty.

IE IS NOT JUST A WEB BROWSER APPLICATION. It's a reusable *module*. It's an OS-level shared library just like glibc, QT, khtml, WebCore/WebKit, Quicktime, or any of a million others.

Your argument that Windows is modular because the modules have dependencies on each other is not only logically unsound, it demonstrates a deep misunderstanding about what "modular" actually means.

Cutting and pasting code isn't modularity - this is what Visual Studio encourages (code snippits). Simply put, nobody but Microsoft would even have thought to add such a feature.

Not being a VS user, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. A few Google results, however, would suggest your complaint is completely without merit, if not outright lying.

Windows is definitely designed in a very modular fashion. That Microsoft don't have an easy way to custom-build your own Windows "distribution", does not change this.

WMF needed extra patches applied if Office was installed - simply put the code was duplicated from Windows into Office. It should have been in a framework that Office called.

Well, The January patch summary would suggest otherwise, however, the Office team are well-known for going their own way and reimplementing OS functionality. Again, your logic is faulty as this is irrelevant to the modularity of Windows - it's like arguing Linux isn't modular because there's a zillion different widget libraries for X.

Microsoft are not a single, well organised, coherent entity, they're a bunch of different groups that just happen to be grouped under the same umbrella. The Office and Windows teams may as well be different comapanies.

This kind of "design" is totally different to Mac OS X - where there are modules and clear interfaces.

So you're saying there isn't a *single* OS X application that reimplements functionality provided in the OS ? Because that's the logic you're trying to use to argue Windows isn't "modular".

Microsoft have said that Windows Vista is a total rewrite of Windows around these design ideas, clearly XP wasn't!

Windows VIsta isn't a "complete rewrite" in anything outside of staged press interactions. It's Windows NT 6.0 - certainly there have been some major changes and cleanups (particularly to do with internal dependencies), but nothing approaching a "complete rewrite".

I am very sure Vista(tm) can be run under a Virtual Machine, just like XP or 98 (which runs smoothest in Virtual PC (vmware is another example). I am also very convinced os X can be running under such Virtual Machine. Everything is possible with emulation, only, you've got to pay a small price, a price of performance...

This emulator has to translate a lot of things like memory, cpu, disks, mouse, keyboard, com ports, network card, usb devices (plug 'n pray), printer and low system (bios) calls to the underlying OS which takes a lot of CPU power and memory usage.

If this would be still running that fast on that nice mactel; I do not know...

I am very sure a virtual machine will run os X on PC and Vista on the mactel platform; only the task to run it natively without emulating too much is a pain ful cruisade (sometimes)...

oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO oOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

Life is like a box of chocolates, You never know what you gonna get! right?

As there is a lot more to use of a human brain than currently used by the majorty; the cpu is also not used as it should be used and in most cases even overused; most stuff is programmed (very) bloated; like Windows itself, like Vista be very good in the beginning, slow (& more bloated) in the middle and bad in the end (ready to reinstall); unless you very carefully pick your applications and don't change too much than needed upgrades (like with linux: when it's running, keep it running!)

>>> ... When I started programming I had to be carefully get everything on a 360k floppy, program and data files together. If I wanted a OS I'd have to swap floppies or add a B: drive. The 720k floppy's where just coming out so I was saving for a 2x size floppy drive. The next upgrade was a 20mb drive ...

>>> ... The PC evolution has exploded in all kinds of directions; as well upwards in technology and prices as downwards in quality and programming; just like all consumer devices these times...

>>> ... I sincerely hope the same does not happen with the universal binaries and os X; I just started to work with it, after +15yrs of working with PC, grew up with OS2 v2+ and warp, DOS, GEM, cp/m, Windows v2+, Windows v3+ and trumpet netsock which was a emulator(?), ... I have finally found something which is not such a burden to maintain that hard and which just works: a Powerbook 15" with os X!

>>> With Windows I learned to not to go strange with your os;

- Get rid of Internet explorer *immediately*! get Firefox or any alternative before your pc crawls ...
- if you got a good graphics * editor or messenger(tm) client ; stay with it and don't install 20 others to "try";
- Get a good Virusscanner, a free one like AVG or payware like F-secure Antivirus.
- If you want to get a good program you got to look at the size too, a smaller footprint can mean a smaller utilisation of memory and system usage; for a virusscanner or anti spyware utility this can be very vital!
- I repaired lots of them pc's's and it's all because of these virus/spyware/strange-installed things!
- which comes to : be sure to know what you install, verify the source a/o file (bbs 2400 baud world was hard sometimes!)
- Get rid of Outlook and Messenger, go to Trillian or alike
- Do not open files

The 3rd technology has already emerged.

H.264 on standard DVD, with the upgrade path being ANY sort of higher capacity device.

That would be awsome, but will the popular content providers (controlled by MPAA and the like) release their content in hi-def H.264 without DRM restrictions that downgrade the resolution on non-HDCP outputs? If they do, will the studios allow set top DVD players to playback hi-def H.264 playback?

The current selection of popular titles in hi-def on DVD (to playback on computers, not set tops) is paltry and I don't see the selection expanding without software DRM (and OS requirements, like Vista) that restricts HD playback to HDCP devices. For example, since Terminator 2 Extreme Edition DVD with 1080p WMV HD was released in 2003, where are all the other popular titles? Now that Terminator 2's DRM has been cracked, I have a hard time believing the studios will trust any DRM that does not require HDCP and other restrictions built into the OS.

BTW, the output restrictions (requiring HDCP) built into Vista doesn't apply only to AACS (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray). It looks like it can be applied to any video content, including streaming downloads and H.264 on DVD. I predict popular content providers will restrict their hi-def content to OSs that have this DRM, like Vista and (I'm pretty sure) Tiger. I think the selection of HD on DVD content for legacy displays and OSs will be like today's selection of non-DRM legal music downloads.

It's hard to believe the major studios would not try to sell HD content to such a huge existing market. But with the Terminator 2 crack and the AACS fiasco (HD-DVD has been waiting for the spec to finalize), I think they probably are paranoid enough to require new hardware and software (including OS) for any HD content.

The 3rd technology has already emerged.

H.264 on standard DVD, with the upgrade path being ANY sort of higher capacity device.

That would be awsome, but will the popular content providers (controlled by MPAA and the like) release their content in hi-def H.264 without DRM restrictions that downgrade the resolution on non-HDCP outputs? If they do, will the studios allow set top DVD players to playback hi-def H.264 playback?

The current selection of popular titles in hi-def on DVD (to playback on computers, not set tops) is paltry and I don't see the selection expanding without software DRM (and OS requirements, like Vista) that restricts HD playback to HDCP devices. For example, since Terminator 2 Extreme Edition DVD with 1080p WMV HD was released in 2003, where are all the other popular titles? Now that Terminator 2's DRM has been cracked, I have a hard time believing the studios will trust any DRM that does not require HDCP and other restrictions built into the OS.

BTW, the output restrictions (requiring HDCP) built into Vista doesn't apply only to AACS (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray). It looks like it can be applied to any video content, including streaming downloads and H.264 on DVD. I predict popular content providers will restrict their hi-def content to OSs that have this DRM, like Vista and (I'm pretty sure) Tiger. I think the selection of HD on DVD content for legacy displays and OSs will be like today's selection of non-DRM legal music downloads.

It's hard to believe the major studios would not try to sell HD content to such a huge existing market. But with the Terminator 2 crack and the AACS fiasco (HD-DVD has been waiting for the spec to finalize), I think they probably are paranoid enough to require new hardware and software (including OS) for any HD content.

Short answers are not the whole story.

Half-truths are sometimes worse than the whole truth.

True: Shared source code is free, apparently without restrictions.
Also true: You need to buy a runtime license for each and every device that you ship.[1]

[1]: From the webpage you link to:
"A valid Windows CE 5.0 runtime license must be purchased for each Windows CE 5.0 derivative work prior to distribution.".

From link to "How to Buy Windows Embedded Operating Systems" on the same page:
"Step 4
Acquire runtime licenses for commercial shipment.
When you have completed testing and development and you are ready to bring your embedded system to market, you must acquire runtime licenses and certificates of authenticity from your distributor for each unit that you ship." ...

Important This article contains information about how to modify the registry.

Make sure to back up the registry before you modify it. Make sure that you know how to restore the registry if a problem occurs. For more information about how to back up, restore, and modify the registry, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
256986 (https://premier.microsoft.com/kb/256986/ [microsoft.com]) Description of the Microsoft Windows registry

SYMPTOMS
Consider the following scenario. You install Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) on a portable computer. Then, you connect a USB 2.0 device to the computer. In this scenario, the computer uses its battery power more quickly than you expect.

CAUSE
Windows XP SP2 installs a USB 2.0 driver that initializes any connected USB device. However, the USB 2.0 driver leaves the asynchronous scheduler component continuously running. This problem causes continuous instances of memory access that prevent the computer from entering the deeper Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) processor idle sleep states. These processor idle sleep states are also known as C states. For example, these include the C3 and C4 states. These sleep states are designed, in part, to save battery power. If an otherwise idle portable computer cannot enter or maintain the processor idle sleep states, the computer uses its battery power more quickly than you expect.

RESOLUTION
Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method.

These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved.

Modify the registry at your own risk. To resolve this problem, add the EnIdleEndpointSupport entry to the USB registry key.

To do this, follow these steps:

1. Click Start, click Run, type regedit, and then click OK.
2. Locate, and then click the following registry subkey:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\USB

Note If the USB subkey does not exist, create it. To do this, follow these steps:

a. Select the Services key. On the Edit menu, point to New, and then click Key.
b. Type USB in the New Key #1 box to name the new key "USB."
3. Right-click USB, point to New, and then click DWORD Value.
4. In the New Value #1 box that appears, type EnIdleEndpointSupport, and then press ENTER.
5. Right-click EnIdleEndpointSupport, and then click Modify.
6. In the Value data box, type 1, leave the Hexadecimal option selected, and then click OK.
7. Quit Registry Editor.

STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed in the "Applies to" section.

APPLIES TO
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2, when used with:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers /fileoverview.mspx
Bottom of the page, under "Compatibility."

The question remains, though, will MS actually implement this to exactly match its specifications, or are we just looking at the next RTF? (As far as compatibility of whole documents goes.)

You can get the OEM version of Windows XP Professional for $137 from NewEgg. It is NOT tied to hardware.

Incorrect. Quoth the Microsoft Get the Bare Facts about Acquiring PCs Without Preinstalled Operating Systems (8th hit I got on googel for "oem license site:microsoft.com"):

OEM licenses for Microsoft operating system software are not transferable from one machine to another, even if the PC on which it was originally installed is no longer in use. The OEM license is tied to the original PC on which it was installed.

OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers ONLY. They are not intended for distribution to end users. Unless the end user is actually assembling his/her own PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well.