Slashdot Mirror

If I want a .net IDE I have to buy VS.net or Delphi, or download the open source sharpDevelop. If I want to develop for Java, I have a much broader choice: netbeans, eclipse, IDEA, JBuilder and complete product families from IBM,Oracle or BEA.

The Windows Media videos here don't strike me as particularly crappy.

The flip4mac plugin is free from microsoft here
But to import the files into other programs, rather than just watch them, you need to purchase flip4mac.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/flip4mac.mspx

Check out the page. It lets Quicktime play wmv. I don't believe it's originally made by MS (not sure) but they are distributing a basic playback version for free. There's a more advanced version that lets one edit video streams as well. This is very cool, and better than dealing with the WMV player for Mac... Almost as annoying as Quicktime client for windows. Any way--mac, windows, linux/*bsd...I use mplayer or vlc. The odd wmv is the only thing I use wmv for, and this appears to solve that need.

Provided that Microsoft keeps licensing this plugin and giving it away for free, this is good news for Mac users. The plugin is a much better option than Windows Media Player, allowing you to play Windows Media files in a nicer GUI.

Microsoft probably didn't want to update Media Player to be a universal binary, so decided upon this option. They are distributing the plugin on their website for free, so this is a win-win situation.

Lucky you! http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/flip4mac.mspx. They've provided a way to keep watching.

Both are a good choice if you want to properly engineer a new web-based tool. ASP.NET is probably quicker but if you want to do anything really serious you'll probably want to look at purchasing Visual Studio 2005 rather than just using the Visual Web Developer Express. Also the tool support for JSF isn't nearly as mature so it will probably take longer to implement in JSF than in ASP.NET.

Having said that JSF is still a good choice - particularly if licensing costs and portability are an issue. Apache MyFaces is an excellent framework whose only downside is the poor documentation. JSF can be slower to get started with but I found that it enforces best practices more strictly and once you get the hang of all the XML wiring it wasn't that bad. Another benefit of JSF is that you'll have trouble breaking the MVC pattern but you can pretty easily embed alot of code in ASP.NET unless you properly use code-behind and deliberately seperate out the DAL which isn't the default for the point and click wizards (the DAL separation).

In the end it comes down to a few things. If you have existing C#/VB skills and don't mind being stuck with IIS then go for .NET. If portability is a big issue and you'd really like to run this application on a small server running Jetty(for instance) then go for JSF.

Both are a good choice if you want to properly engineer a new web-based tool. ASP.NET is probably quicker but if you want to do anything really serious you'll probably want to look at purchasing Visual Studio 2005 rather than just using the Visual Web Developer Express. Also the tool support for JSF isn't nearly as mature so it will probably take longer to implement in JSF than in ASP.NET.

Having said that JSF is still a good choice - particularly if licensing costs and portability are an issue. Apache MyFaces is an excellent framework whose only downside is the poor documentation. JSF can be slower to get started with but I found that it enforces best practices more strictly and once you get the hang of all the XML wiring it wasn't that bad. Another benefit of JSF is that you'll have trouble breaking the MVC pattern but you can pretty easily embed alot of code in ASP.NET unless you properly use code-behind and deliberately seperate out the DAL which isn't the default for the point and click wizards (the DAL separation).

In the end it comes down to a few things. If you have existing C#/VB skills and don't mind being stuck with IIS then go for .NET. If portability is a big issue and you'd really like to run this application on a small server running Jetty(for instance) then go for JSF.

I suspect that the Gamerscore thing is one of the few elements that Microsoft has come up with that will be ripped off by Nintendo and Sony. It is such a simple idea, so easy to implement, but its implications are huge.

The whole concept is predicated on a unified online system like Xbox Live. While Nintendo may have something out there like this for the Revolution (prompted by their need to cheaply sell old games online), Sony has said over and over that they're not going to do anything like Live. Without this, GamerScore is meaningless.

Games could have unlockable content based on gamer scores acheived in other games. Think of this as an extension of the Pokemon 2 cartrige strategy; in order to play 100% of a game, you are forced to play other games.

I wouldn't expect this to happen. You might see some cross-talk (get this achievement in that game, get this new thing in this other game), but that's something we've already seen before. For example, NFS:MW gives you a credit boost if you have NFS:U2 saves on your hard drive, and Gran Turismo 4 lets you carry over a certain amount of credits if you have a previous Gran Turismo 3 profile.

- It is probable that some games may get an additional shelf life simply by awarding gamer points if the game is played after a certain date, using the time / date features of the console.

Don't count on time-based unlockables, unless it's "play the game this long". System date/time is easily changed.

- Matchmaking services will likley utilize the gamerscore to avoid Newbie Stomping.

You can't assume that a gamer with a 3000 score is better than a gamer with a 1000 score when they may be playing completely different games. For example, a gamer who only plays Geometry Wars but is really awesome at it and has all 200 available points is in a completely different class than a gamer who played through King Kong and the EA Sports titles, getting cheap and easy points. However, Microsoft has already considered this problem, and developed the TrueSkill system. You have a TrueSkill value for each game you play, so the only way to prove you're good is to play the game. You can't pump up your stats in Madden and the go wreck a high-level PGR3 race.

- The data from gamerscores might be used to target in game advertising. If a player is known to like first person shooters, he may be seeing more ads for action movies.

Probably not in-game, but I could see this being used on the dashboard. If I play very few sports games, I don't really care that there are new gamer tiles available for NBA 06. However, if I play a lot of racing games, I really do want to know when there's a demo for Forza 2.

The one thing I see as being absolutely necessary to happen is for Microsoft to become more involved in deciding how many points and how fast they should be given out. If it becomes too easy to get points from playing 'crapware' titles like "Barbies pony adventure", the hardcore audience will probably start to complain quite loudly about it.

The hardcore have already been complaining for a while, now (with good reason when you look at some of the "achievements" in something like Madden -- you get 10 points just for clicking the right thumbstick). It's too late to do anything about the current games, but hopefully Microsoft is listening and will have more strict requirements for future titles. Then again, you can always see what achievements another player has, so while he may have a 3000 point gamerscore, you can tell whether it's truly valid or if he just padded it with "cheap" achievements. It's a balancing act between giving the developers some freedom and not pissing off the hardcore gamers.

Microsoft's mission statement was "A computer on every desk, running Microsoft software".

Mission accomplished.

They've been struggling with what to do since they achieved that goal, but that's a problem of success. Here's their rather vague current mission statement.

What we will *definitely* see are "Virtual PC"-like programs that let you run Windows alongside OS X (in a Window, or taking over the screen, etc., with a hotkey to flip back and forth, for example).

Right, this is what is really interesting from my point of view. The only reason I would want to dual boot is to be able to get maximum performance with Games. Other than that dual booting is inferior to running Windows or Linux on top of OS.X via some Virtual PC type solution since I want to be able to switch between OS'es with a single keyboard shortcut.

There are already some alternatives for running Windows on a VPC on top of OS.X:

Microsoft Virtual PC
GuestPC
iEmulator

According to macwindows.com Microsoft has been unwilling to name a timeframe for when Virtual PC will be working on the MacIntel boxes. In other words no Microsot Virtual PC on MacIntel until this spring or even the summer. Of the other two vendors I only go a reply from iEmulator who plans to be releasing a MacIntel compatable version around the time the MacIntlel machines hit the market in February which means they look set to be the first to market. In all cases there should be a significant performance boost for these products hopefull to the pont that we get half way decen performance for Windows XP and hopefully Windows 2003 Server as well.

Has anybody heard any talk of an OS.X port from VMware?

Just get the Windows Media Encoder 9 Series and you can broadcast the streaming media over the network
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9ser ies/encoder/default.aspx

Microsoft seems to have given up on Windows Media Player for Mac, and instead released a free plugin for QuickTime. Unlike WMP/Mac, this supports WM9 and the latest stuff.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/flip4mac.mspx

Supposedly some incompatibilities with QuickTime 7.04 (released yesterday).

The GNU GPL is quite clear. In section 7, it says:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

The "For example" is the case that could affect Linux (or FreeDOS, the project I'm attached to). If Microsoft decides to charge a royalty for use the FAT technology, then Linux (or FreeDOS) could not use it. (And since FAT is pretty much a requirement for DOS, that would be a huge problem for FreeDOS.)

For now, we are probably safe. Microsoft seems to intend to charge for the FAT technology as it applies to manufacturers of devices.

Microsoft's page specifically mentions:

• A license for removable solid state media manufacturers
• A license for manufacturers of certain consumer electronics devices

Linux (and FreeDOS) is an operating system that reads and writes FAT, so we are not bound at this time by any royalty.

I have not read the patent filings for myself (yet), so I do not know yet if there are any other issues to this.

-jh

I believe that the microsoft EULA essentially states the same thing:

15. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state /jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or statutory.

and

LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose.

Commercial software provides no advantage in that regard...

;)

There is one device that I can think off that needs the FAT filesystem preinstalled: the humble iPod.

All the recent iPods come with FAT32 as the filesystem (originally added for Windows users). They originally used HFS+, but that is no longer the case (and hasn't been for quite some time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

I am aware that the FAT Licensing page puts a supposed $250,000 cap, but this is M$ and they can change their minds or have other nasty clauses in Licensing agreements that would be unfavourable to companies like Apple. Towards the bottom of the page they even say: "Sometimes, companies may want to negotiate broader or narrower rights than the standard Microsoft license for FAT file systems. In this case, prices may vary." M$ could easily use this to shut iPods out of the Windows market (if they are forced to return to using HFS+ filesystems).

These patents could be very handy iPod killers if M$ wants to use them as such.

FAT IS an open standard you 'tards. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firm ware/fatgen.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp

This states that FAT32 is not limited in the specs, but by implementation.
The limitation of 32GB volumes only applies to creating volumes with XP, but a camera or whatever that has been formatted by the manufacturer can be larger.

The more important limit is the 4GB per file limit. It's not so much a limit for a photo-only camera, but for any recording device that records over time, it can be quite important. Obviously there would be workarounds (like DVDs) by using a series of smaller files, but that's a hack.

I'm sure there are flash drives larger than 32GB that exist, though they are probably working into the thousands of dollars. Even if it's not strictly flash, there are plenty of hard drives that emulate flash (ironic, isn't it?). Just about any of the cheap compact flash cards that are above 4GB use microdrives. The filesystem ideas don't change because it's not solid state.

Dear Microsoft Apologist,

Did you tried to format a bigger than 32Gb drive under windows with FAT ?

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/W indows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resour ces/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc _fil_tdrn.asp

Of course, this is an artificial limitation put in place by the Monopoly You Defend, so people have to swtich to even more proprietary NTFS file system for big drive.

Extern USB/FireWire hard-drive vendor ship you a formatted bigger than 32Gb hard drive.

But don't try to re-format them.

You can't.

One obvious course of action for "removable solid state media manufacturers" is simply to ship the device with no filesystem. Get the end user to format the device on first use and Presto! - that $0.25 per unit remains in the bank where it belongs.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp

According to this link: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp , three of the patents (U.S. Patent #5,579,517, U.S. Patent #5,758,352 and U.S. Patent #6,286,013) all cover the "Common Name Space for short and long filenames."

What other parts of the FAT filesystem are protected by patents? This aspect of the FAT filesystem is just darn near obsolete as there aren't many systems that absolutely have to have the 8.3 format anymore are there?

Now, I have to admit, this is something that seems fairly specific to Microsoft's needs and is not a feature I've seen in any other filesystem. However, it also seems that this might be fairly easily just...excluded...without causing any really serious issues.

I am probably oversimplifying things.

Undocumented APIs that the DOJ forced MS to document: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dnapiover/html/api-overview.asp

"Microsoft teams identified a few hundred undocumented Windows interfaces or parameters that were used by one or more of the Microsoft Middleware components."

A license for manufacturers of certain consumer electronics devices--Pricing for this license is $0.25 per unit for each of the following types of devices that use removable solid state media to store data:

        * Portable digital still cameras
        * Portable digital video cameras
        * Portable digital still/video cameras
        * Portable digital audio players
        * Portable digital video players
        * Portable digital audio and video players
        * Multifunction printers
        * Electronic photo frames
        * Electronic musical instruments
        * Standard televisions

Thoughts?

Well I'm not really so sure about your quoted time frames for "re-engineering" Windows - in practice it would porably be easier to start from scratch using best practices from the outset (like, say Singularity). One point does stand out though:

Not everyone can guarantee 99% fault-free software within a reasonable timeframe. There aren't the mathematician/software engineers, for a start. However, maybe it would be possible to have a standards authority that could certify a software product as "mid-grade" (50% bug-free), "high-grade" (75% bug-free) or "mission-critical" (99.99% bug-free). Software providers could elect whether or not to be certified and consumers would then be free to decide how much quality they want to pay for, because they'd know how much quality was there. Consumers would also be in a stronger position to interpret the lack of such certification.

I actually attended a talk by... I think he was Director of Information Assurance... a senior person from the NSA about 5 years on the subject of software assurance. His point was that security, and assurance does matter, and he claimed that, over the next decade, it would become a significant factor in the software industry. It is not working correctly all the time that is important (that would be nice, but isn't sensible or even practical for all software), its having assurance as to what will always work correctly, and/or assurance about the quality of the software suc as you suggest with certification. It's about knowing what it is that you're dealing with. I think the sort of certification you describe, or other guarantees, perhaps with regard to certain critical functions of the software (but not necessarily of the software as a whole), are the way of the future. People who are heading off to college now to learn software engineering really ought to be taking note of the courses on software assurance, formal methods etc. You won't be using it for everything, but I do believe that in the not too distant future you will be expected to know it so you can use it appropriately when required.

Jedidiah.

Doesn't Win2K have a firewall?

No, Win2K has no MS-supplied firewall. AFAIK, you can't even install the MS (XP) firewall on W2K.

The fixes have already been released.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-002.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-003.mspx

The fixes have already been released.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-002.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-003.mspx

The whole article is a troll.

Its filled with 'feelings' and 'impressions' by people cited as experts, without examination of their claims - nor an inquiry to factual matters. It describes a dislike, without addressing the basis of the problem, nor posing any other solution beyond disliking Microsoft.

The fact is, you still have millions of Win9x and NT boxes, hanging their gut out on the 'Net. This is and has been the principal problem. Slammer worm? Christ, I blame the crappy network border management, that allowed a local service-discovery broadcast protocol to come in from the Internet without being blocked.

I trust Rich Forno on Unix security. To use him as a source on Windows secuity is ridiculous. He is anti-Microsoft in bias - irrationally so. Microsoft could buy OpenBSD tomorrow, stick IIS6 on it, and Forno would still rant about the thing.

The WMF problem is a legacy file format. Let's not give MS a free pass on this, but seriously. It's like the zlib problem we had across distributions, a couple years back.

There are some other gross inaccuracies claimed by 'experts' and 'analysts' in this piece. "It is still built on the same legacy code, it is still written without adhering to secure coding practices, it is still thrown to the masses without adequate security testing." That's an assertion without supporting evidence. It doesn't have a factual basis. The MS SDL is a very good security development and testing process, implemented company-wide in 2003. Don't take my word fo it. Read the damned thing. This is how to do it in commercial software.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/library/en -us/dnsecure/html/sdl.asp

I wish I saw similar efforts from Oracle, or any of the other major commercial software vendors.

It remains to be seen if this methodology is well-executed. Server 2003 is the first full-blown OS released thouh a full SDL cycle. So far, it has been a reasonably secure system, with limited exposure of default "attack surface", and intelligent choices about vunerable service and connectivity configurations.

Vista will be the first full SDL derived client. While I may not like the policy enforcement of "Digital Rights" and whatnot in userland, as a system I expect that it will be difficult to exploit or escalate privileges - and that attacks will be localized at isolated in effect. Let's hope so.

So i wouldn't be surprised at all to see MS drop managed C++ entirely.

Actually, MS is pushing C++/CLI for standardization. The .Net 2.0 Managed C++ is much less ugly than in .Net 1.x.

The nice thing about .NET though is that you aren't stuck to any particular language though...

Everyone touts this, and I agree that it's a seductive idea. However, I think few people consider the likely long-term ramifications, particularly in large applications built, augmented and maintained over long periods of time. Imagine some large organization having an internal CLR application which has accreted multiple modules in several .Net (or Mono) languages. Now imagine that Mr. VB.Net needs to track and correct a flaw in a module written by Mr. Perl.Net long after Mr. Perl.Net has left the company. Some will say that the modules written by Mr. Perl.Net would have been appropriately designed & documented so that any other CLR developer can understand & modify them regardless of programming language - but that doesn't happen on the planet most of us live on, especially with internal applications.

So in short, they're forcing you to .NET, but not off any particular language.

Agreed. MS gains the most as more developers move to a platform it "controls" - how much control is debatable, but I think no one is foolish enough to believe that MS's .Net push is in any way altruistic. However, the native Win32 C++ developers will be the hardest to convert, and that's why MS is investing effort in C++/CLI to entice them. Few native C++ programmers have any love for MFC, but also few seem willing to leave native Win32 for .Net drag-and-drop GUI capabilities. And for desktop/server applications, experienced C++ devs already know what native APIs to use for whatever they're working on - there's a perception that .Net has little to offer them when building these apps. That's a big hurdle for MS if they intend (regardless of their current public stance) to derive a crushing long-term strategic advantage from mass adoption of .Net.

T

Wrong. If you watch the video of Anders Hejlsberg demonstrating LINQ, you'll notice that it's a language feature, not a MSSQL-only layer, and he actually demonstrates using LINQ not only with MSSQL but XML documents and arrays (IIRC) too.
Miguel De Icaza's comment on the video was "Anders Hejlsberg is a man of excellent taste"

The video is a bit on the long side, but it's well worth it if you're interested in the topic :)

http://www.mozilla.org/firefox
http://www.mozilla.com/products/

http://www.opera.com/download/
http://www.opera.com/

http://www.theopencd.org/ Download the 650MB ISO image file and burn to CD share with your friends who have less bandwidth to the internet to install FireFox broswer and Thunderbird e-mail client on their Windows PC.

Make a WMF virus variant that pops open the http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ website to give the user an opportunity to click "Install FireFox" for windows. Hey I did not force him to install anything, but just pointed it out.

Remember, Its the thought that counts! I was just making it easier for the end user to use his or her computer Virus free.

Fred

to fix this problem http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin /MS06-001.mspx

If Microsoft gave a rats ass about Mono or any of the work done related to Mono, they would have squashed it a long time ago. From all reports, Bill is flattered by Mono...and although Ballmer gets irritated when people ask him questions about it, I suspect he doesn't really care either.

Folks. Microsoft spends $6 billion dollars on R&D every year. They are building C# 3.0 and designing C# 4.0. The direction of C# is going towards a more functional programming capability. They are on the verge of delivering XAML, WPF, and WCF which will alter the way applications are designed and developed on Windows Vista. The new technologies will have no relation to what mono is doing now or even what .NET 1.1 is doing now.

They don't care because they're taking the whole development game up a notch. If you're developing applications in anything these days you should be paying attention not to what we develop in today, but what we will develop in 5 years from now. It will not resemble anything available today.

There's an article by Carl Zetie at Forrester on these new technologies and how they will impact future development. I highly recommend reading it:

The original is here: http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt /0,7211,38241,00.html

The free link is here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/c/5/7c51c 83b-d873-40ce-9405-7f792927eeca/Why%20WPF%20Will%2 0Dominate%20Rich%20Client%20Development.pdf

Mono is not threatening Microsoft in any way shape or form. Get over it.

David C.

WinFx is not the next .net framework, it is the next generation API set.

It's an encompassing term, covering Presentation Foundation (how you display things on screen), Communications Foundation (secure program to program stuff), WinFS (the meta data "file system"), Workflow and Infocard (authenication and authorisation), all of which exposed as a managed code API.

It is also not limited to Vista, most of it will be back ported to XP and 2003. Look upon it as a Win32 replacement for .net. Now imagine implementing that from clean room code. Stop crying at the back.

So whilst the summary may be concise, it is not, I am afraid, accurate.

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000 Service Pack 3; Windows 98; Windows 98 Second Edition; Windows ME; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP Service Pack 2

The question is: Will Mono support these new features, and if so, when?

Judging by your signature "I AM BETTER THAN YOU - I OWN A MAC!" and the fact that you only quoted that last line, I'd say that it is you who are trolling.

PS. My less crap games comment is based on my experience with purchasing crappy games like Herbert's Dune by Dreamcatcher when I was a windows user at home from 1996-2002. Have a nice day.

No, they haven't. The article didn't even get that right.

http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2006/0 1-04CES.asp

"Let's fast-forward to Xbox 360. We're quickly moving from thought leadership to market leadership. And tonight I'm pleased to announce that Xbox 360 achieved an unprecedented global launch for the world of videogame consoles. In the first 90 days we will have launched Xbox 360 in nearly 30 countries, and Xbox 360 is on track to ship between 4.5 and 5.5 million consoles by the end of June."

http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.asp x?view=22&pcid=8c93c58e-306d-4641-91ab-c5695ef33d9 2&type=ovr I've had this thing for 6 freakin' years!!

If read that page you linked to literally, then yes, it does appear that there will be no security hot fixes after mainstream support supposedly ends, but if you take a look at their Service Pack Roadmap page, you'll see that SP3 for XP is planned for AFTER the mainstream support cut-off date. So take off your 'I hate Microsoft' glasses and think logically for a second. Microsoft currently offers no alternative to XP, and judging by the way they operate there might not be one by the time mainstream support supposedly ends. There is no way they could end support at the date they have listed. The date they have listed is a date set according to XP's release date, with the assumption that there would be an alternative for customers to switch to long before that date.

The word you want is intertia or momentum, not brittle. Software does not suffer from osteoporosis. "Help I've crashed and cannot boot up!"

you obviously haven't suffered the mysterious Microsoft registry rot... how a perfectly functional computer one day can completely fail to boot the next day (a Stop 0xC0000218 Error Message is not my idea of a good start to the day)... at least with .ini files in win3.1, I could use edit from the good old DOS prompt to fix it...

Objective-C - Is it used ever outside of Apple development?
Why's that, doesn't development for MacOS X amount to much then? Plus, the Cocoa APIs are far more elegant than the hideous STL abomination.

Shouldn't be using STL (Think you meant MFC?) anymore... use .NET and Windows Forms. Besides why would we compare a language that is available on what, 5% of end user machines out there (I think I am being generous) whereas every other language is operating system independant (except for c# - but Microsoft windows has what, 90%+ market share? And the compiler is free?)

-everphilski-

Let's face it, the point of this article was not accuracy, it was to make fun of Windows users who try Linux and promptly give up because they can't get used to it. The article is clearly biased against Windows, so don't expect the author to treat it fairly.
 
Personally, I'm a Windows user, both at home and at the small business I run, a PC sales and repair center. I spend most of my working day removing viruses and spyware from my client's PCs, so I know enough about them to keep my own XP systems clean (Firefox, scanning incoming e-mails for viruses etc.).
 
At my business I have a PC running Server 2003, connected to a standard ADSL line via a router/firewall. it runs a web server, e-mail server (smtp & pop3) and provides VPN access so I can log in remotely. It also runs my EPOS sofware and hardware (till printer, customer display & barcode reader) in an LUA user account. I have no problems with it, it stays up at least 30 days at a time, rebooting only if required to do so after monthly Windows updates.
At this time I see no reason to move to Linux, especially as I have almost no knowledge of it and frankly, no incentive to learn as I can do all the things I need with Windows. For this reason I will continue to pay the £199 a year to receive the MS Action Pack and regular copies of new MS software for no extra charge.

And I call BS on you. There are a ton of resources available for experienced Windows users to allow an incredibly customised Windows installation, along with integrating SATA/RAID drivers.

As you noted, XP doesn't go out of it's way to offer every single option under the sun within it's installer, and describes every process it's going through, which can be helpful to the average user. And I admit, especially in the case of the floppy drivers, RAID/(some)SATA setups can be irritating if you don't want to have to go customise your installation CD, but let's face it, pick any Linux installer from before 2003 (release date of SP2 for XP, I could've used XP's release date... but I decided to be lenient ;) and you'll find that just as much messing around is needed to get everything working 'out-of-the-box'.

Back to your point, there are a ton of resources around that allow fairly easy creation of a customised XP CD (I define 'easy' as 'I can do it'... I'm far from an expert =P) with integrated drivers, program installations and a more openly explained process of the XP installation. Try these resources:

- Integrated Drivers for XP
- Great at removing unneeded items, setting up automatic installation, and lots of other handy things
- An amazing and comprehensive guide to creating a customised XP installation
- Microsoft's own deployment tool

*Note*: _No_ mainstream support for XP Home Edition after December 31 *this* year (2006). That means no *security* patches. Hope that machine likes being a spam/zombie/proxy host.

*Note*: _No_ mainstream support for XP Home Edition after December 31 *this* year (2006). That means no *security* patches. Hope that machine likes being a spam/zombie/proxy host.

I guess you didn't do a search over at http://support.microsoft.com/ then, as they have several articles that tell you how to intigrate third party drivers such as RAID into your installation of Windows. I don't know the article numbers off the top of my head, but a search should help find them.

Try the TweakUI app for Windows XP from Microsoft. It allows you to change what folder the system points to for most of your "special" folders. It provides other functionality too. Very cool.

Could you perhaps get to the uninstall if you sweep the mines away?