Slashdot Mirror

about the memory footprint difference:
look at this. every gdi window in vista was stored in the video memory AND the main ram (for whatever retarded non-reason). in 7, ram usage barely goes up with number of open gdi windows. there are many other tweaks, but from what i understand this is the biggest one.

I probably won't get modded at all thanks to catching this discussion so late in the game, but I managed to get an insider poke at SysInternals, hard enough that they updated their BGInfo application to fix just this problem (for a test-lab Win7 machine no less). Difference is, I routed it through a guy at Microsoft who actually lives and breathes this stuff - Aaron Margosis. Check out his blog on application compatibility and least user access, he's been working through it since XP came out, and has really helped my company make strides towards a solid-performing (more) secure desktop for my users. http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/

Why do certain companies insist on changing making their applications look inconsistent with the rest of the operating system?

I don't know about OS X, but on Windows, from Vista on, there isn't really anything to be consistent with to speak of. Office 2007 uses window chrome for its toolbars (which isn't that far from Chrome using it for tab bar), and did you see the screenshots of Expression Blend or VS2010 beta (no, it's not a custom color scheme - they really look like that by default)? Heck, what about IE7+ and Windows Explorer extending the transparency effect (which normally marks the window chrome) to their toolbars / address bars?

In fact, if you really want a concrete example of why this 'memo' is useless FUD, check this out: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/05/odf-spreadsheet-interoperability.aspx

So you're arguing that MS's lawyers are completely incompetent and didn't know that being incompatible was a violation of antirust law and that antitrust law doesn't mention anything about standards compliance? I think that's a naive.

Whaaa? You just wrote an entire line of BS with a straight face. Good job.

They already own BSD licensed code that works on MS Office. Next argument please!

You can't take GPLd code (or a derivative thereof) and release it under a BSD license. Next.

But it's clear an precise enough that it worked for everyone else and there are multiple working open source implementations, one of which they can literally copy and paste from and which they helped fund the creation of and probably have full rights to it even if it wasn't BSD licensed. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly either.

???
1. Get this copy-paste notion out of your head. BSD and GPL are not compatible licenses.
2. "Many implementations that do the same thing" is not the same as "all these implementations follow the ODF standard".

Then there are cases where the popular ODF implementations aren't compliant with the spec.

Example please.

Will this suffice? How about this?
Quote: "So these two ODF implementations (OpenOffice and Symphony) do not have predictable formula interoperability, regardless of where you start. And these are not obscure implementations - they are the latest released versions of the implementations from IBM and Sun, the two companies that together chair the ODF Technical Committee"

They already did. MS doesn't want a standard for interoperability. They are simply looking for any way they can be compliant but still be incompatible.

I have a simpler theory -- you don't actually know anything about the standard and are just spouting off anything that comes to your mind.

Not really, that's what reference implementations are for. If you have any doubt about how to handle this, see the reference implementations and do it that way.

Gee, that way OOXML is a brilliantly well-defined standard.

The only argument you made that has any legs is the first one regarding compliance with the spec, but only if you assume ignorance of the law (I assume you perhaps aren't that familiar with antitrust law). I assure you, while it may at times appear that all of MS's lawyers have never heard of antitrust law, that is not the case in reality.

Very bold claim there. Wanna back it up with some legalese? How about you point us to this section of antitrust law that deals with compatibility taking precedence over standards compliance?

The kicker -- this consortium (ODF Alliance) is really just coming off as some sort of FUD-monger in this (don't kid yourself -- FOSS related entities use FUD too -- ain't nobody got a monopoly on FUD). The ODF alliance can invest cycles in fixing their standard, or in fixing their own implementations - heck they can even contribute to improving the compliance of MS's ODF converters (they're open source after all). OR, they can spend cycles on FUD. For example, their point about MS's commitment to support future versions of ODF. Also, their whining about lack of 'native' support for ODF in Office 2003 (this product was released 2 years before the ODF standard was ratified, for fucks sake). Then, they linked to other FUD (claiming MS is trying to fragment ODF).

At one point, they themselves concede that they don't have their shit together when it comes to spreadsheet formulas: "Though spreadsheet formula for ODF 1.0/1.1 (the version which Microsoft claims it supports in Office 2007) are implementation-d

So you're arguing that MS's lawyers are completely incompetent and didn't know that being incompatible was a violation of antirust law and that antitrust law doesn't mention anything about standards compliance? I think that's a naive.

Whaaa? You just wrote an entire line of BS with a straight face. Good job.

They already own BSD licensed code that works on MS Office. Next argument please!

You can't take GPLd code (or a derivative thereof) and release it under a BSD license. Next.

But it's clear an precise enough that it worked for everyone else and there are multiple working open source implementations, one of which they can literally copy and paste from and which they helped fund the creation of and probably have full rights to it even if it wasn't BSD licensed. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly either.

???
1. Get this copy-paste notion out of your head. BSD and GPL are not compatible licenses.
2. "Many implementations that do the same thing" is not the same as "all these implementations follow the ODF standard".

Then there are cases where the popular ODF implementations aren't compliant with the spec.

Example please.

Will this suffice? How about this?
Quote: "So these two ODF implementations (OpenOffice and Symphony) do not have predictable formula interoperability, regardless of where you start. And these are not obscure implementations - they are the latest released versions of the implementations from IBM and Sun, the two companies that together chair the ODF Technical Committee"

They already did. MS doesn't want a standard for interoperability. They are simply looking for any way they can be compliant but still be incompatible.

I have a simpler theory -- you don't actually know anything about the standard and are just spouting off anything that comes to your mind.

Not really, that's what reference implementations are for. If you have any doubt about how to handle this, see the reference implementations and do it that way.

Gee, that way OOXML is a brilliantly well-defined standard.

The only argument you made that has any legs is the first one regarding compliance with the spec, but only if you assume ignorance of the law (I assume you perhaps aren't that familiar with antitrust law). I assure you, while it may at times appear that all of MS's lawyers have never heard of antitrust law, that is not the case in reality.

Very bold claim there. Wanna back it up with some legalese? How about you point us to this section of antitrust law that deals with compatibility taking precedence over standards compliance?

The kicker -- this consortium (ODF Alliance) is really just coming off as some sort of FUD-monger in this (don't kid yourself -- FOSS related entities use FUD too -- ain't nobody got a monopoly on FUD). The ODF alliance can invest cycles in fixing their standard, or in fixing their own implementations - heck they can even contribute to improving the compliance of MS's ODF converters (they're open source after all). OR, they can spend cycles on FUD. For example, their point about MS's commitment to support future versions of ODF. Also, their whining about lack of 'native' support for ODF in Office 2003 (this product was released 2 years before the ODF standard was ratified, for fucks sake). Then, they linked to other FUD (claiming MS is trying to fragment ODF).

At one point, they themselves concede that they don't have their shit together when it comes to spreadsheet formulas: "Though spreadsheet formula for ODF 1.0/1.1 (the version which Microsoft claims it supports in Office 2007) are implementation-d

A) Microsoft has not publicly stated this anywhere, that the reason they are not compatible with other implementations such as OO.org is because of concerns they have for legal issues if they look at OO.org's source code.

So why are you? Why are you attempting to speak for them? I want to see where Microsoft is making this argument, and the content of the argument. If they're not, then you're just talking out your kazoo.

B) Besides which, standards implementations usually rely on cooperation between implementers. Do you have any evidence Microsoft asked OO.org, "Hey, we'd really like to implement ODF the right way, the way you do, but we're concerned about the legal implications if we do - you might sue us. Could we come to some agreement here?"

If you don't have that evidence, then again, you are talking out yer piehole and raising strawman arguments nobody else is.

Microsoft already gave the reason their implementation doesn't work: They decided that conformance to the spec (at which it is alleged they also failed) was more important than interoperability. http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2008/08/05/guiding-principles-for-office-s-odf-implementation.aspx

Mahugh says nothing there about being legally prevented from conforming to the way in which OO.org does things.

Before you judge on this issue, it helps to read comments by various involved parts - those raising the issue to attention, MS people who have implemented ODF, and informed commenters outside this dispute. So, here's a bunch of links to start with.

First of all, a series of blog post by OASIS' Rob Weir (who's criticizing MSOffice) and Microsoft's Doug Mahugh (who's defending it) that evolved into a kind of a public discussion on the issue. Here they are in chronological / meaningful reading order:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/05/odf-spreadsheet-interoperability.aspx
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/battle-for-odf-interoperability.html

Then there's some outside commentary. I've taken the following links from comments in Doug's blog posts, and they tend to either be neutral or side with MS on this, so it may not be a representative sample. If you have any representing informed argument for the other side (e.g. by members of ODF committee, or ODF implementers - in general, people who know the ins and outs of the spec, and can accurately judge on its wording and intent - not random blogosphere FUD from either side), please mention them in replies.

http://ajg.math.concordia.ab.ca/?p=4
http://adjb.net/post/Notes-on-Document-Conformance-and-Portability-4.aspx
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/05/odf-11-formula-support-in-office-sp2.html

Before you judge on this issue, it helps to read comments by various involved parts - those raising the issue to attention, MS people who have implemented ODF, and informed commenters outside this dispute. So, here's a bunch of links to start with.

First of all, a series of blog post by OASIS' Rob Weir (who's criticizing MSOffice) and Microsoft's Doug Mahugh (who's defending it) that evolved into a kind of a public discussion on the issue. Here they are in chronological / meaningful reading order:

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/update-on-odf-spreadsheet.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/05/odf-spreadsheet-interoperability.aspx
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/battle-for-odf-interoperability.html

Then there's some outside commentary. I've taken the following links from comments in Doug's blog posts, and they tend to either be neutral or side with MS on this, so it may not be a representative sample. If you have any representing informed argument for the other side (e.g. by members of ODF committee, or ODF implementers - in general, people who know the ins and outs of the spec, and can accurately judge on its wording and intent - not random blogosphere FUD from either side), please mention them in replies.

http://ajg.math.concordia.ab.ca/?p=4
http://adjb.net/post/Notes-on-Document-Conformance-and-Portability-4.aspx
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/05/odf-11-formula-support-in-office-sp2.html

But it's clear an precise enough that it worked for everyone else and there are multiple working open source implementations, one of which they can literally copy and paste from and which they helped fund the creation of and probably have full rights to it even if it wasn't BSD licensed. Sorry, that argument doesn't fly either.

No, it just means that there are other implementations that behave similarly to OpenOffice.org.

Demanding that Microsoft implements the ambiguous / not standard parts of OO.o's ODF in the same way that OO.o does is sort of like demanding that Mozilla implements all the ambiguous / not standard parts of MS's HTML/CSS rendering implementation. Or demanding that Apple modify OS X's kernel so it implements the same syscalls as Linux instead of implementing POSIX, because Linux is the most popular operating system used to run programs that target POSIX.

Of course, with ODF, 1+2=1. ODF 1.1 is broken, and there is nothing that can be done to make a fully standards-compliant ODF 1.1 implementation without filling in the gaps somehow. Apparently, OO.o 1-2 uses a nonstandard forumla implementation and OO.o 3 writes to the not yet finished ODF 1.2 standard.

oh just get the f**k out if you can't even release a proper standard:

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/13/tracked-changes.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx

seriously, get the f**k out. openoffice is a piece of garbage, with the stability of a mind of a psychic killer, at least have the guts not to speak badly of other implementations if you can neither draft the standard nor implement it correctly.

oh just get the f**k out if you can't even release a proper standard:

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/13/tracked-changes.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx

seriously, get the f**k out. openoffice is a piece of garbage, with the stability of a mind of a psychic killer, at least have the guts not to speak badly of other implementations if you can neither draft the standard nor implement it correctly.

Doesn't seems strange to you that only Microsoft handle it very differently?

It isn't just Microsoft. IBM's Lotus is also incompatible with OpenOffice. That post explains in detail why MS made the choices they made.

Also see his later post on 1+2. Office and Lotus agree it is 3, but OpenOffice thinks it is 1 in some cases.

Here's what is really going on: for the first time, someone is actually using ODF who cares about consistency with existing documents, and making predictable behavior. Since ODF currently is ridiculously underspecified, this is revealing a lot of problems with how prior implements interpreted things.

ODF 1.2 will nail down many of these areas--and significantly increase the size of the ODF spec. When eventually the ODF spec is actually somewhat complete, so that independent implementations can be reasonably interoperable without requiring implementors to look at the OpenOffice code to find the "real" spec, it's going to be in the ballpark of the size of the OOXML spec.

Doesn't seems strange to you that only Microsoft handle it very differently?

It isn't just Microsoft. IBM's Lotus is also incompatible with OpenOffice. That post explains in detail why MS made the choices they made.

Also see his later post on 1+2. Office and Lotus agree it is 3, but OpenOffice thinks it is 1 in some cases.

Here's what is really going on: for the first time, someone is actually using ODF who cares about consistency with existing documents, and making predictable behavior. Since ODF currently is ridiculously underspecified, this is revealing a lot of problems with how prior implements interpreted things.

ODF 1.2 will nail down many of these areas--and significantly increase the size of the ODF spec. When eventually the ODF spec is actually somewhat complete, so that independent implementations can be reasonably interoperable without requiring implementors to look at the OpenOffice code to find the "real" spec, it's going to be in the ballpark of the size of the OOXML spec.

If anyone is interested in specifically what is "broken"(read: incompatible with OpenOffice.org 3.0)... which I doubt... here is some very good information detailing which decisions were made in implementing ODF and why they were made:

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/default.aspx

The last couple blog posts should be what everyone is looking for.

Beyond this, Microsoft is simply implementing ODF 1.1 because ODF 1.2 is not done yet. If Microsoft is going to support a standard, they will support the standard not the most popular implementation's interpretation of the standard.

If you can believe Microsoft, they're not the only ones. Lots of ODF implementations have interoperability issues.

Doug Mahugh at MSFT has been blogging about this: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx
and

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/13/tracked-changes.aspx

If you can believe Microsoft, they're not the only ones. Lots of ODF implementations have interoperability issues.

Doug Mahugh at MSFT has been blogging about this: http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/09/1-2-1.aspx
and

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/05/13/tracked-changes.aspx

From what I've read it's more of a major overhaul, but yeah, it's the same OS under the hood. I'd be shocked if Vista drivers didn't work in Win7.

Yes, but you should update your graphics drivers regardless... Microsoft has updated the Windows Device Driver Model to fix a major problem (bug?) with the memory consumed by graphics drivers for various Windows GUI processes.

There's a graph showing memory usage of the older driver model versus the newer one.

Source: Engineering Windows 7 for Graphics Performance, Windows Engineering Blog

From what I've read it's more of a major overhaul, but yeah, it's the same OS under the hood. I'd be shocked if Vista drivers didn't work in Win7.

Yes, but you should update your graphics drivers regardless... Microsoft has updated the Windows Device Driver Model to fix a major problem (bug?) with the memory consumed by graphics drivers for various Windows GUI processes.

There's a graph showing memory usage of the older driver model versus the newer one.

Source: Engineering Windows 7 for Graphics Performance, Windows Engineering Blog

Microsoft developer Jensen Harris wrote a great series of posts in 2006 on the thinking behind the ribbon.

It wasn't a management-requested "make everything new again", nor was it a fit-and-finish trick to make Office look different from Windows. According to Harris, it was done because:

1. The top 10 requested features in Office were already in Office - but nobody could find them.
2. Office usage doesn't follow the 80/20 rule. You and I use only a tiny portion of Office - but it's a different tiny portion.

Expanding on #2: In Word 2003, the most-used command (Paste) is only 11% of the total command usage. Second place (Save) gets only 5%. And it goes down from there; the top 5 commands together get 32%. The usage difference between #100 (Accept Change) and #400 (Reset Picture) is about the same as the difference between #1 and #11 (Change Font Size).

Essentially, Office was now big enough - and needed to be big enough - that menus and toolbars didn't scale. That's why they've kept trying new UI metaphors: task panes, adaptive menus, etc. But they all made it feel more bloated and confusing, and took up too much real estate.

So the ribbon is their hail-Mary pass; they're trying to reinvent the basic UI to make it more discoverable. I think it works. I'm no Microsoft fan, and I've used every version of Office that ever was, but I've grown to like the ribbon enough that I use Office 2007 via Fusion when I could have OOo for free. The real test: when I haven't used a feature for months, I can usually find it in the ribbon without Googling for it.

WORKSFORME.

Well... Stupid as the CueCat was, I finally found use for it years latter. For the price (free), it's a workable barcode scanner with just a little bit of coding.

http://linux.wareseeker.com/Internet/cueact-0.1.1.zip/318832
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=cuecat
http://blogs.msdn.com/coding4fun/archive/2007/03/06/1815618.aspx

Now if I could just find a use for all those damn AOL CDs in the attic.

I know I've posted this before, but MS actually has a presentation about why they made the decisions they did with the Ribbon, and it was persented at MIX last year. They talk about all the usability and UI research that they did on Office 2003 that caused them to develop the ribbon for 2007, and then they spend some time talking about how they came up with the idea and worked out the details of the ribbon.

It's an interesting presentation if you work on UI design and have some time, or are curious as to why the hell they went to the ribbon.

No, they implemented the ribbon because the wanted an interface to patent.

Read what they say, and how it pissed off even some MS developpers.

you weren't committing the far, far worse offense of using Hungarian notation.

It has its uses.

So, you aren't aware that Win7 can handle up to 256 cores. Where's you research to prove your point?

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/

Discusses the removla of dispatcher spin locks from the scheduler which allows a Windows 7 desktop to run up to 256 cores.

From the MSDN blog:
If nothing else, memcpy_s makes you think about the size of the target buffer. . . Of course, you can easily make a call to memcpy_s() insecure by getting the buffer sizes wrong.

I don't know a lot about C, but this seems a bit absurd to me. If a C programmer gets the target buffer size wrong with memcpy(), they're going to start being less sloppy with memcpy_s()?

Make the Redmontonians uncomfortable, and ask them when they are implementing Office or Visual Studio in .Net

I don't know about Office, but you can see the videos from PDC 2008 to see what Visual Studio 2010 is about, and part of it is new WPF-based UI. In fact, the publicly available VS2010 CTP already has the new WPF-based editor in it. And here are some screenshots from VS build which has the rest of the shell converted to WPF as well.

"I expect to see this meta tags on most sites in the near future." - by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) on Monday May 11, @06:08PM (#27914165) Homepage

You're most likely dead-on right, but, from what I understood here from all of this? It can be altered by the user quickly, & only bother them/set them @ risk, ONCE, because the user can change it quickly enough (because adbanners have been known to be infested w/ malicious code & even MS has been "hit" by this, with many others)...

Problem here/inferiority to HOSTS files here? Well, this only works on MOZILLA variants (FireFox)... not other browser, email programs, OR others you may utilize.

However, by way of comparison?

HOSTS files provide security benefits here, & speed too as a bonus, vs. not only adbanners, but also vs. malicious code bearing websites, from a SINGLE POINT OF CONTROL THAT EXTENDS TO ALL OF YOUR WEBBOUND PROGRAMS, not just FireFox/Mozilla variants to which this addon only is available for...

HOSTS files, customized ones, work here... & it's a solution that's easily edited/added to, + understood by users, as a bonus!

(Because as one of my best pals whom I 'turned onto' these has stated, verbatim? "All you need to do, is know how to use notepad.exe, how to read english, & to get a decent one to start with - as well as sources that update the data one needs to blockout bogus sites", & I list a few below!)

(Use a custom HOSTS file, along with stalling javascript's indiscriminate usage on EVERY website a user visits (because it's truly the "root of all evil" here most times, & anyone can verify that statement @ SECUNIA or SECURITYFOCUS.COM for example, from their last 4-5 yrs. of data or more on records of exploits they have) can stall MOST attacks vs. your system, extending even to EMAIL programs, not just a single browser, as is the case w/ AdBlock...)

(HOSTS files work, via blocking KNOWN bad adbanners &/or websites, from a CENTRAL source that extends to all your webbound apps (not just individual browsers &/or webbased programs (email mainly, this is an attack vector too if HTML mail & scripting is allowed)))

I populated it with my own lists for HOSTS files since 1997 (30.000 entries long, mostly for adbanner blocking @ first 1997-2001), then later for security 2002 onwards...

I extended it further (to 654,000 unique entries currently & yes, I have to stop the Windows DNS client for that, it's 14mb for Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003, & up to 19mb (using 0.0.0.0) OR 26mb (using 127.0.0.1) for Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7) per sources like:

1.) StopBadWare.org
2.) SRI
3.) Dancho Danchev's ZDNet Blog
4.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" Immunize lists
5.) , + other reputable known HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia.com, here ->

All nearly DAILY updated here.

(& kept free of repeat entries via a program I wrote to do that, as well as alphabetize the entries, plus change them to a "faster up off disk into memory" internal schema for blocking out bad sites & adbanners, by going from the larger, slower 127.0.0.1 default loopback adapter IP, to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Server2k8/Windows 7, a mistake on MS' part I mentioned to they here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] which they started on 12/09/2008), OR the fastest & most efficient 0 blocking IP address))

HOSTS files are a good layer for this, then you can also "layer on" IE Restricted Zones, Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, & FireFox addons like NoScript + its internal to browser restricted sites lists ontop of them, for the utmost in security protection AND speed (I do other things like use custom cascading style sheets & PAC file filtering as well, b

I'll take D - "none of the above" :)

you really WOULD like to see MS actually make constructive contributions to computer science, as opposed to just enriching it's current stockholders, you should agree with me.

Enriching it's shareholders requires continuously improving products (which is done through research and developement based on that research). The ribbon is a recent and visible example of that, from the product group you were referencing. (recycling electrons). You might contend that MS is up to all kinds of nefarious activities to enrich it's shareholders. There's many things to be said about that. First, it's debatable. Second, if they break the law in anyway, there are harsher penalties for that - breaking up the company is pretty mild. Third, nefarious activities aren't the sole domain of very large companies, so breaking up MS isn't the solution to that either. And finally, you still haven't pointed out this synergy between Office and Windows that you're referring to..

Interoperability will improve unbelievably, because IE, for instance, won't have the wealth of the other divisions to draw on.

But any modern OS is incomplete without a browser. If you were to break up the company, you would have to include the browser in the OS unit.

It is only that wealth, and the stubborness of MS, that has prevented IE from being standards compliant in the past.

I would contend that it's a lack of competition that caused IE's stagnation and lack of standards compliance. After a few years of good, solid competition from FF, IE's vitality is finally getting restored. The rest of the industry let us down by not competing with IE. Mozilla righted things with FF.

MS reps waltzed into the conference, paid off a few people, and bullied the rest into signing off on a new standard. Phhht. As a seperate corporation, they could never have pulled that off.

Nothing related to OOXML and ODF is not politicized. Your version of events isn't neutral either. If there was indeed bribing involved, how do we know that Office (as an independant company) would not have large enough coffers to do the bribing on it's own? Their revenues & profits are on the same scale as Windows revenues and profits. They don't need any funding from the OS division.

but it should stand on it's own merits, and not rely on all the rest of the MS monopoly.

And it does. I honestly have no idea about the 'assistance' the office team gets from the rest of MS, that you're referring to.

What we have today really sucks. And, because so few people can even imagine how much better things COULD BE, they think that they are happy with it.

What we imagine (in terms of a better world, software-wise) is hardly justification for breaking up MS. For instance, if Apple open sourced all it's software, and it's hardware designs, and released all it's patents into the public domain, of course things could be better. But that's not a good enough reason to force them to do that -- they are completely justified in following the business model they have today.

Also, by losing their biggest actual benefit (the tight integration with Office), they will have to compete more on features, usability, and security--which will be good for everyone.

I saw someone else post this as well -- am I missing something? What's the tight integration between Windows and Office?

It would be good for Office. By being cut loose, the application company would no longer have to put the Windows platform, branding, and goofy UI idea du jour ahead of the main goal: making the best office suite better. Suddenly, I think we could expect the infuriating hobbles put on the Mac version of the product (Why no VB support? Why can I only see 5 Styles in the style list? Why can't it look more like Pages, which looks more like Word 2003?) to disappear, and--even better--the introduction of a native Linux version.

I don't know.. I can't think of any windows platform/branding/goofy UI that Office has to put ahead of it's main goal. Perhaps you could clarify that point? You're not talking about the ribbon right?? I mean, that's an example of awesome UI, and it would surely have been implemented irrespective of Office being made by the same company as windows (see here for details).

The Mac issues I'm not familiar with (I'm not a Mac user) but I suspect it's mostly a numbers game. For example balancing the cost of creating a VB runtime for Mac vs. the Mac office revenue. Same case for making Office available on Linux -- low linux installed base, plus very high adoption of (and pre-disposition towards) OOo among that installed probably makes it infeasible irrespective of Office unit being a part of MS, or an independant company.

This would be good for Apple.

Sure, but that's no justification for splitting MS.. I mean, if MS ceased to exist altogether, even that would be good for Apple.

This would be good for Linux.

Same point as above -- that doesn't really justify splitting MS.

So there you go, Mr. AC. Those are the reasons why cutting MS in two would be good, exactly.

So, I think I understand what you mean when you say it would be "good". But that's not the same as "fair"...

Virtually every field of specialization has its own jargon. Usually, the idea is to use a specific word for a narrow definition to speed communication and reduce the chance of misinterpretation. Beyond specialty jargon, every software company has some unique jargon, but unless you work there, you're unlikely to see it. Microsoft is just higher profile.

Of course, sometimes the jargon goes wrong. You can see some appalling examples at Raymond Chen's blog. Just search for "Microspeak" posts.

But, I'd bet Microsoft is going #2. No betting actually, that's the plan.

Yes, it's a documented plan (See "Can I upgrade from the RC to the final version of Windows 7?")

So they're going to have a bunch of people who are just going to deal with reboots.

And, in case you hadn't read, the reboots are only phase one. Phase two is that the RC expires on June 1, 2010. This, like the reboot thing, is documented on the RC's download page.

Having said that, there is a way to upgrade Windows 7 Beta or RC, provided (oddly enough) by the the Windows 7 team.

Actually, my SSD (firmware 1.10) supports TRIM and I've used it with good results. OCZ is one of the two companies mentioned that is working on a TRIM solution, but you should also know, that Windows 7 definitely supports TRIM. Google is your friend.

"I am no fan of WGA, but most customers don't care, until something goes wrong."

But that's the point. WGA is one more opportunity for things to go wrong, so it is by definition not in the customer's best interests to have it installed. If you eliminate it you will have a more reliable operating system that won't fail due to spurious WGA errors or the WGA servers going down (as they occasionally have) or being unreachable over the network.

How is your comment to this blog entry on-topic?
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx

The blog entry talks about the Windows handwriting system.
Your comment talks about changes to HOSTS file handling.

Also, you haven't replied to any of my new posts, and have not answered my outstanding questions. What's the deal?

He tests odf text only and it seems to make it look like it works fairly well, though he does point out the errors that should be fixable by MS. Of course he may be picking and choosing things to test just as he is not even bothering to pick even one spreadsheet to test since his job is still basically PR as you mentioned. Make it look like they are doing something and be able to claim interoperability without actually having any.

http://blogs.msdn.com/craigmcmurtry/archive/2004/12/14/301155.aspx

16bit installers are detected and replaced with a 32bit installer.

See bottom of document #1

Well, its for their future version of Office, Office 2010 will be MS's version of EMACS!

Microsoft already has their own version of Emacs (well, sort of - there are some familiar bits there for sure): IntelliPad (scroll down there to see some screenshots). It's scriptable using IronPython, and it picks up MGrammar syntax definitions for automatic syntax highlighting.

The idea is to have a powerful yet lightweight (yes, I understand this part isn't very Emacs'ish), highly configurable editor for Oslo DSLs.

Uhh, but Office 2007 has exactly the same shortcuts as Office 2003. Here is a list for Word: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290938

And here is a list of the changes between the 2 versions: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926809/ I count a total of 6 items on the list. In fact MS added Keytips for better keyboard navigation of UI: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/10/13/480568.aspx

Its a myth that Office 2007 takes up more UI space than Office 97 or 2003. Office 2007 UI takes up slightly less vertical space than Office 97 out of the box. If the user displays a few toolbars, as most users do, Office 97 consumes far more space than 2007. Here is a post which goes into the detail measurements: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/17/577485.aspx

Anyways, you can always minimize the ribbon.

Whaddaya mean? You could triple-fault a 286 to get back to real mode, so I hear. You didn't need to ask the keyboard controller to reset you.

But for some reason few people seem to be aware of it, or choose to use it. I mean I've seen logic analyzers running standard OEM Windows XP.

$1000 [per seat presumably] for the tools. $90 per device, but you only pay it when you ship the device. ( http://blogs.msdn.com/mikehall/archive/2004/12/22/331034.aspx )

It might be the 5MB minimum build size too it seems.

Same here on a Vista 64 system last night. IE8 showed up as an "Important" update for me, not critical -- only XP users will see it as a critical update. I chose a custom install, and was indeed prompted every step of the way; I just had to click on the appropriate radio buttons, or an occasional checkbox, to get what I wanted. Once complete, none of my settings were altered.

One annoying thing I noticed about PrivBar is that both the x86 and x64 versions seem to behave differently after the upgrade to IE8. Checked Aaron Margosis' blog, and one of the latest comments on this blog entry describes the problem, and the author of PrivBar actually responded to the comment with news that he's working on a new version that works around the IE8 "bug":

It's a bug in IE8 -- it doesn't show the title of toolbars, which is where PrivBar puts the username. I'm testing an updated version that puts all the info in the button.

One of the most useful things about PrivBar, besides providing a visual indicator of which version of IE you're using (32 or 64 bit) and what your privilege level is, is that it displayed the user ID the process is running under. That's really important from a security standpoint.

Actually you can
Microsoft even tell you how! (last bit)

HOSTS files provide security benefits, & speed!

(Via blocking KNOWN bad adbanners &/or websites, from a CENTRAL source, not just individual browsers &/or webbased programs (email mainly, this is an attack vector too if HTML mail & scripting is allowed))

I populated it with my own lists for HOSTS files since 1997 (30.000 entries long, mostly for adbanner blocking @ first 1997-2001), then later for security 2002 onwards...

I extended it further (to 654,000 unique entries currently & yes, I have to stop the Windows DNS client for that, it's 14mb for Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003, & up to 19mb (using 0.0.0.0) OR 26mb (using 127.0.0.1) for Windows VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7) per sources like:

1.) StopBadWare.org
2.) SRI
3.) Dancho Danchev's ZDNet Blog
4.) SpyBot "Search & Destroy" Immunize lists
5.) , + other reputable known HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia.com, here ->

All nearly DAILY updated here.

(& kept free of repeat entries via a program I wrote to do that, as well as alphabetize the entries, plus change them to a "faster up off disk into memory" internal schema for blocking out bad sites & adbanners, by going from the larger, slower 127.0.0.1 default loopback adapter IP, to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Server2k8/Windows 7, a mistake on MS' part I mentioned to they here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage which they started on 12/09/2008), OR the fastest & most efficient 0 blocking IP address))

HOSTS files are a good layer for this, then you can also "layer on" IE Restricted Zones, Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, & FireFox addons like NoScript + its internal to browser restricted sites lists ontop of them, for the utmost in security protection AND speed (I do other things like use custom cascading style sheets & PAC file filtering as well, but those are another subject)...

APK

P.S.=> Layered security, AND, more speed... usually security things (like AntiVirus' programs for example) add another layer of processing complexity and slow you down... NOT HOSTS Files! apk

Not true, Microsoft has already said that you will be able to upgrade from the RC to the released version, but you will have to edit a config file to bypass the version check.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/04/07/delivering-a-quality-upgrade-experience.aspx

CDs and DVDs (including CD emulation), where the IHV specified AutoRun task authored during manufacturing, will continue to provide the AutoRun choice allowing customers to run the specified software.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/04/27/improvements-to-autoplay.aspx

Although, afaict, that says it will still give you a dialog rather than just silently running.

looks like it is, details on the delivery process are given at the bottom of http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/06/ie8-blocker-toolkit-available-today.aspx

Does anyone know if this is still in effect?

1. When a user has a problem with a website in IE8, they can click the "Compatibility View" button to revert to IE7 rendering.
2. The URL is sent to Microsoft who compile a list of IE8-incompatible websites.
3. This list is sent to IE8 users so the site can automatically switch to IE7-mode for everyone.
4. If your website is fixed or is accidentally added to the list, you can add a meta tag to disable compatibility mode!

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/02/19/ie8-standards-mode-opt-in/
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/12/03/compatibility-view-improvements-to-come-in-ie8.aspx

Does this seem like a way for Microsoft to require people to mark their pages as "standards compliant" in a Microsoft-specified syntax?

It seems like IE8 users would click the compatibility mode button not because they think the site should render better in IE7, but because it doesn't look right. Won't this populate Microsoft's "render as IE7" list with sites that are just poorly rendered in IE8? Surely this can't be what's going on. It'd be a train wreck in progress. Any good, standards-compliant pages IE8 can't render very well get rendered even more poorly unless you put MS markup in them?

Can't be.

My guess is that MS are engaged in some kind of gambit to pollute the existing DOCTYPE standard somehow, by requiring browser-specifying markup, but it's not clear to me exactly how. Well, IE8 is here. We'll see what happens.

Yes, Standards mode is default, although it is easy to override, either from the user side or the web author side: <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=7" />

http://blogs.msdn.com/askie/archive/2009/03/23/understanding-compatibility-modes-in-internet-explorer-8.aspx