Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's New Attempt To Dominate Robotics

An anonymous reader writes "IEEE Spectrum reports that Microsoft's Robotics Group is announcing new world domination plans — at least for the robotics world. The company is making its Robotics Developer Studio (RDS), which includes Microsoft's CCR and DSS runtime toolkit, available to anyone for free. Why make it a freebie? Because the company wants to expand its RDS base and get a grip on the robotics development space, hoping big things will come out of it."

153 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, that is one biased summary.

    1. Re:Wow... by masterwit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I will have to second the AC's opinion here...

      We call this Business 101. Same reason Oracle kept java free...in the "goal" that its services would be desired later. (Keep Java popular and mainstream)

      Why don't we just say we hate Apple, Microsoft, and all other corporations to be fair...or we can legitimately point out where corporations are unethical and not tolerate those acts and support good business practices (There are examples for Microsoft, Apple, etc. Every silver lining has a touch of gray). Plus why start complaining about free software, do you wish they charged for it?

      Sorry for that rant...but this isn't front page new format, more flame-bait. As for creating software for robotics, I did find that interesting, thanks.

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    2. Re:Wow... by Locutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has a LONG LONG LONG history of doing all things legal and illegal to win market share. So dah, blindly thinking they are giving out the SDK free, as in beer, has a high probability it will not feel free or really be free if they win much market share. Look at how they handled the browser for a good example of how they work. They even tried making MS IE free but that wasn't working very well so they had to tie it to the OS, spread its bits all over the OS to fight orders to keep it separate, and even buy up Netscape contracts and pay companies for every unit shipped. And then they shipped a browser with many tied directly to proprietary features of only their platform.

      So, dah, who would trust Microsoft to actually compete by making better products? Not too many who've seen them operate over the past 20+ years. If they are so good, let them sell API's which run on top of Linux. Oh wait, they die without the ties to Windows. IMO

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    3. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I will have to second the AC's opinion here...

      We call this Business 101. Same reason Oracle kept java free...in the "goal" that its services would be desired later. (Keep Java popular and mainstream)

      Why don't we just say we hate Apple, Microsoft, and all other corporations to be fair...or we can legitimately point out where corporations are unethical and not tolerate those acts and support good business practices (There are examples for Microsoft, Apple, etc. Every silver lining has a touch of gray). Plus why start complaining about free software, do you wish they charged for it?

      Sorry for that rant...but this isn't front page new format, more flame-bait. As for creating software for robotics, I did find that interesting, thanks.

      No charge /= free software.

    4. Re:Wow... by Artifakt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And it's that 'legal AND illegal' that worries some here. With one hand, Microsoft is openly doing something that is legal and will doubtless benefit some people. Given their history, what's the other hand doing? It's possible there isn't a concealed part of the overall process, but given that very same history, why is anyone in a rush to demand they get the benefit of our doubts? How many times does Microsoft have to demonstrate they have an ulterior motive, before everyone gets the memo?
            Giving away your browser is legal. Having a monopoly is, in itself, legal. Not prosecuting everyone who distributes bootleg copies to overseas markets is legal. But whether they all should be or not, all these things have tied in to Microsoft doing things that (surprise) aren't legal. Now some Slashdotters don't think Antitrust should be the law. Some disagree over just what constitutes an abusive monopoly. Some think Europe is some socialist psycho-state that simply targets bigness. But the laws are what they are. Proving the court cases Microsoft has already lost has taken establishing how MS has had hidden motives for various actions that look open and aboveboard. The hidden motives are now on the record. So why does someone always seem to demand the rest of us prove those methods and motives are coming up again, when after five or six good examples, the burden of proof ought to at least have shifted the other way?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Wow... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      How is this one dedicated to open source? Sure, they threw some bits here and there; but can it even be run independently of MS OS? (that would a nice thing, on some small robot with "weak" non-x86 CPU)

      Anyway, in robotics people seem to be wiser and this MS suite doesn't enjoy much uptake compared to fully free/OSS ones.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:Wow... by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Give the MS bashing a rest. Not only is it no longer true, it's dangerous, as just focusing on Microsoft leaves Google and Apple free to do whatever they want without any kind of check.

      I agree with the spirit of your post, but certainly not this statement. It's 100% true.

      Microsoft is a deeply shitty company, not because of the software it makes, but because of how it behaves in the larger community. Always has been. You are entirely correct to point out we should not give a Google/Apple a pass on ANYTHING just because they are not Microsoft, but let's not start rewriting Microsoft's dirty history to support that point either.

      Point in fact, Apple worries me a lot more than Microsoft at this point with it's shiny walled garden approach and holier than thou attitudes, and Google worries me with it's, "let's record and store everything and sort out all the ethics later" approach. Not to mention, Google does some pretty dirty things, but just does it with company names they acquired. *cough* FaceBook *cough*.

      Considering how Microsoft has handled some things like IE, the fear about how the same thing would happen in Robotics is quite valid, and the logic is not based in simplistic Microsoft bashing.

    7. Re:Wow... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      No kidding. I thought that was a kdawson story, but I owe him an apology.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Wow... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Given their history, what's the other hand doing?

      Building a secret underground army of robotic clone warriors to take over the world.

      And who is Komar, King of the Voins? I've wondered that for years...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    9. Re:Wow... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, yes, "no charge" == "free software". What you probably meant is that "no charge" != "Free Software".

    10. Re:Wow... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      For many, Microsoft seems indomitable. Then again, there was a time when IBM and then Novell seemed indomitable in their own markets and Microsoft stepped right in and took them over. Microsoft was smaller and more driven in those days and quality standards, expectations and complexity were far lower in those days. For many, Microsoft remains indomitable still...especially in their own markets. But Microsoft seems to be weaker in new and in changing markets and are unable to keep up, let alone place itself as a market leader. So you may be quite right in suggesting that Microsoft's days are numbered.

      Funny thing is, Microsoft has enormous resources. They have much potential to surprise us all. I rather doubt they will -- their 1980's game plan has been working so well for them all this time, it may be impossible for them to re-tool their strategy and direction. But if Windows 7 is any indication that they are listening, there is a faint glow of hope.

      What do I mean about Windows 7? Heard many complaints lately? Me neither. Oh sure, bug reports and such, but nothing like Vista. (Personally, I still think they did a "New Coke" trick on us all with that... you know, switch the formula to something awful, then "switch back" to the old formula... only it's not the old formula, it's the old formula modified with HFCS and other stuff... still not the same, but we didn't remember what the old flavor tasted like because the new flavor was still a bad taste in our mouths... and yes, I know the analogy is a bit weak and has failing points, don't need to point out the obvious) But 7 did a lot of things right as far as I can tell. They even listened to ideas like abandoning legacy compatibility in the kernel and shoring it up (like Apple did) with emulation/virtualization. I think it is a well established fact that Win32 is a broken POS and has been holding back the quality of Microsoft Windows for a long, long time. Now is 7 a complete turn-around? Not really. But even *I* have to acknowledge what they have done right. (Still not going to run anything Microsoft voluntarily... I'm Linux all the way and have been steadily pushing it out where I work with great success.)

      So is Microsoft going to be eaten like a cow in a piranha infested river by a bunch of smaller, more nimble and less domitable companies? I hope so. But let's be careful what we wish for...

      The early days of personal computing were days of chaos and huge investment camps in various technologies. Business was torn between Apple, IBM, Commodore, Wang and others. No one was compatible with anyone else. Protocols and standards were an ideal but no one really stuck to them... not even simple ones like ASCII. When Microsoft came along with Windows, many people rolled their eyes and one person said "great, with all these fancy menu systems, now they just made one that uses graphics instead of text." I saw more than that and I was right. They created an OS that tamed the PC application market by unifying drivers for video, printers and sound. No longer did the applications themselves have to support particular hardware devices. (Does anyone remember having to find Lotus 1-2-3 printer drivers? I sure do! Had to search for and download them from BBSes over modem line!) That was a huge win in the PC market. Microsoft was a hero.

      We have grown up a lot since those days and I would not like to see a return of those days. But as you alluded, Linux seems destined to become the OS standard playground. I hope it remains guarded and guided properly as the competitive market latches onto it as the basis for their products and services. We need the core Linux dev teams and even RMS now more than ever before to keep on top of Linux's development and not allow any one commercial interest to control it and not allow any commercial interest to violate the GPL.

      You know, initially, I was thinking I was going to write something about killer robots blue-screening and stuff like that. I might have gotten more funny mod poin

    11. Re:Wow... by jvillain · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When was the last time Microsoft had a success with any thing new? I hate to break it to you but the reason we don't hear more complaining about Windows 7 is coporations are still clinging to their XP licences and most home users are clinging to their pirated copies of XP.

    12. Re:Wow... by fractoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's funny, because I thought 7 was great. It just shuts up and sits in the background making all of the bits of your computer work, without you having to even notice it. That's what an operating system should be like - the best OS is one you never even think about because it just does what you want.

      Maybe it's time to stop being so angry about something that, if you'd only stop using it, wouldn't even affect you?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    13. Re:Wow... by hannson · · Score: 1

      If they are so good, let them sell API's which run on top of Linux. Oh wait, they die without the ties to Windows. IMO

      This is one of the stupidest things I've heard this week. I agree that Microsoft is an evil entity spawned by the dark lord himself, but even if they were good they'd have no reason to support a competitive platform. Besides if they did, it'd probably suck on Linux anyway so no harm no foul.

    14. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's funny, because I thought 7 was great.

      That's strange, unless you're from the future, the 7 the GP was referring to isn't even out yet.

      It just shuts up and sits in the background making all of the bits of your computer work, without you having to even notice it.

      Yeah, wake me up when any version of Windows even remotely resembles that in any way. Or you could, you know, just embrace reality and realize that between the annoying UAC prompts the absurdly circular menu in a menu configuration settings, constant popups from various programs wanting to be updated, incessant whining from various "security" software, nagware wanting you to upgrade to whatever the next expensive version is, it's really just the same old annoying in your face crap that MS has been putting out for 15 years. I understand a fanboy like you can't fathom the possibility that there could be any other way than the MS way but, trust me, Windows is far from the fairy tale you are making it out to be. Fortunately for me, I found a better way. Now my computer just works. No more viruses, spyware, trojan-ware, adobe upgrade this, java upgrade that, "are you really sure?", wga thinks I'm a thief, etc. anymore. Finally, I can compute in peace and actually Get Work Done.

    15. Re:Wow... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      "Having a monopoly is, in itself, legal."
      No, it's not. There are anti-trust laws for specifically this sort of thing.

      Regardless, if a company is doing something legal then there really shouldn't be an issue. What, should we not let Microsoft give away their software for free? Should we require them to charge money for the robotics studio? If it's legal then it's legal, end of story.

      However, if a company is doing something illegal then it's illegal and they should be prosecuted, end of story.

      I really don't understand how there's a debate here.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    16. Re:Wow... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Having a monopoly is, in itself, legal.

      No, it's not.

      Practically speaking, it's nearly impossible to be a monopoly and not violate antitrust law, but being a monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal.

    17. Re:Wow... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      +/-1, Reading Comprehension. I mean, you copied a quote that said "it's legal," and then you go and argue that "it's not illegal"? Tilt at windmills much?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    18. Re:Wow... by ejtttje · · Score: 1

      just does it with company names they acquired. *cough* FaceBook *cough*.

      FYI, Google didn't buy Facebook. There was a April Fools Day story to that effect, although easy to believe since Google had been in talks. However, it's Microsoft that followed through and bought a chunk of Facebook stock, although still only a minority, but in a deal that gave it some special influence.

      Otherwise I agree with the spirit of your post as well :)

    19. Re:Wow... by Smallpond · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Having a monopoly is, in itself, legal."
      No, it's not. There are anti-trust laws for specifically this sort of thing.

      If that were true, the first company to make any product would always be breaking the law. What's illegal is using control of a market to stifle competition.

    20. Re:Wow... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      True. The proper headline should be "Microsoft is trying to shit up the development of robots like they did with personal computers, and throw mankind into the new Dark Ages".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    21. Re:Wow... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      This foray into robotics for M$ is likely to be a failure as well. The best way to advance robotics is to work it from a different angle, animation. Low cost animation will be driven by virtual robotics, creating virtual environments (takes the hassle out of interpreting complex real environments and parks it as a future problem) and in virtual robot actor who will then automatically interact based upon a script.

      Creating that software coding interaction in more complex environments (whilst avoiding the need to analyse real ones) for a wider range of complex interactions, including voice (listening would be virtual) and, facial animation and complex actions with virtual artefacts.

      The big advantage is developing that robot software coding in animation, is that it can bring in a lot of income earlier in the robotic development process and of course avoids expensive robotic production facilities. Billions of dollars can flow through that part robotics development because of the scope to sell all the content produced for film, TV and of course internet streaming. The better the software coding for virtual robotics the lower the cost of CG animation based upon it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:Wow... by masterwit · · Score: 1

      They even tried making MS IE free but that wasn't working very well so they had to tie it to the OS, spread its bits all over the OS to fight orders to keep it separate, and even buy up Netscape contracts and pay companies for every unit shipped. And then they shipped a browser with many tied directly to proprietary features of only their platform.

      What do you mean, if the web-page is not IE6 approved, its obviously just clogging the tubes!

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    23. Re:Wow... by Locutus · · Score: 1

      I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they had to resort to giving away their robotics software( run ontop of Windows ) was because most robotics systems were opting for a more stable and scalable OS under the robotics APIs. And those examples were showing how their business methods work and those have not changed.

      geesh, another AC douche bag.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    24. Re:Wow... by rh613 · · Score: 1

      Hello, and welcome to slashdot.

      LOL! I was just about to say the same thing! ...and let me just once again state for the record how much it amazes me that techno-bigotry continues to be alive & well after so many years. I mean, I have to admit that getting sucked into the odd MS vs. Java debate back in the good 'ol days used to entertain mildly. But now I generally regard such expressed attitude as symptomatic of one being either a junior developer (perhaps recently graduated, minds still processing fresh concepts untested in the real world) deprived of a proper education by opinionated instructors, or those who seek a bandwagon to jump on and exalt a strongly-held opinion as a cover for largely absent talent and competence. Forgive the rant...I recently emerged from a project teeming with examples of each extreme. ;)

      --
      Ross Holder
    25. Re:Wow... by Cyclloid · · Score: 1

      I went and looked at the downloads for the RDS. I noticed something that contradicts the "free" aspect "freely available to everyone": "You should install Visual Studio (2008 or 2010) before you install RDS." @ MSDN download site for RDS

      -admittedly this might mean that if you have both VS2010 and RDS you need to install VS2010 first to not cause installation problems. However, this seems that you need to pay for the $1000+ Visual studios before you can use this "free" RDS.

    26. Re:Wow... by fractoid · · Score: 1
      My mistake on the version of Windows 7 that we were talking about. As you inferred, I meant the desktop version.

      Like you, I run Ubuntu at home, have done on and off for about three years. During the open beta, I ran the Windows 7 RC, and I liked it better than Ubuntu. Let's address your complaints:
      • UAC prompts - exactly the same as the 'Authenticate' sudo popups
      • Circular menu system - not sure what you're on about
      • Constant popups for programs - that's annoying programs, not the OS. Stop installing annoying programs.
      • Whining from the security center - tell it once to STFU when you install and it shuts up
      • WGA - while I like getting my software for free as much as you do, I've never had WGA accuse me of thievery on a legit Windows install.

      Now let's look at the points where Windows wins:

      • Better compatibility for gaming etc. I run WoW under Wine and it's OK but I don't get the DX9+ renderer and it crashes from time to time. I can't get some Steam games working.
      • Eye candy. Yes, I know about compiz, but Windows 7 gets less slowdown on my hardware.

      So yeah, not an MS fanboy, just a guy who uses computers a lot, knows both sides of the fence, and tells it like I see it. I liked Windows 7 more than Ubuntu, but I didn't like it enough more to pay actual money for it, so I went back to Ubuntu when the free RC license ran out.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    27. Re:Wow... by Locutus · · Score: 1

      Microsoft actively went after any company which made cross platform development packages and in the 90s that was mostly C++ frameworks. Borland was a target and so was Watcom. These were the main compiler vendors and once Microsoft removed those, they only had IBM to deal with and even then, they were only a potential threat since OS/2 was effectively blocked by Microsoft's vast distribution channel strangle hold.

      No industry continues to product good products for fair value when all the competition has been eliminated. But so many companies will wait until Microsoft comes out with sub par versions of things because they are "a Microsoft shop".

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  2. API! by sopssa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they combine it with a similarly good API as XNA is and get hardware support, that's great.

    Coding robotics has previously required a lot of low level coding. Who of us haven't though how great it would be code your own robot easily, and make it work just like you want it to, without going to all the low level details?

    1. Re:API! by pitdingo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Great. So where can i download the version for Ubuntu? Anyone with half a brain would continue to stay far away from anything from Microsoft, you always end up paying dearly in the end.

    2. Re:API! by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      you always end up paying dearly in the end.

      I haven't yet. When does "always" happen?

      Or is this similar to what I hear from the other side: stay far away from anything having to do with Linux, you'll always end up not being able to do what you want to do in the end.

      (or have trouble configuring, or whatever).

    3. Re:API! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Plus why would limit yourself to only handful of supported prebuilt robots. Or to how MS software is limiting their use? (will it even run independently of a PC with Windows?)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:API! by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      Coding robotics has previously required a lot of low level coding. Who of us haven't though how great it would be code your own robot easily, and make it work just like you want it to, without going to all the low level details?

      Yeah, it'd be really innovative if you could program robots in a language like, for instance, smalltalk..... oh, did I hear the 1980's calling?

    5. Re:API! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      you always end up paying dearly in the end.

      I haven't yet. When does "always" happen?

      When you're least expecting it, just like the Spanish Inquisition!

    6. Re:API! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I see a future where MS bots will only talk to other MS bots.

      I think you're confusing MS Bots talking with other MS Bots with MS Zune's Squirting feature ... on the other hand, maybe they're one and the same?

    7. Re:API! by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't, troll. It actually stands for "I'd like a nice pleasant and attractive Linux experience out of the box that I don't have to dick with for 3 weeks to get it set up." And, you know what? It succeeds stupendously. So take your childish, Ubuntu is for noobs trolling elsewhere, thank you.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    8. Re:API! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      I don't think i need all of Smalltalk's power for my robotic turtle, he just needs to rotate, move forward and raise or lower his pen. Is there a high-level language suitable for him?

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    9. Re:API! by westlake · · Score: 1

      Plus why would limit yourself to only handful of supported prebuilt robots. Or to how MS software is limiting their use? (will it even run independently of a PC with Windows?)

      The software isn't limited to educational and hobbyist kits like LEGO's Mindstorms.

      That is one of the reasons why it includes a DX 10 graphics simulator with NVIDIA physics acceleration. Why there are tutorials for importing 3D models using tools like Blender:

      Benefits of Simulation


      Low Barrier to Entry

      Simulation enables individuals using a personal computer to develop very interesting robots or robot swarms with the primary limiting factors being time and imagination. At the same time, it constrains them in ways similar to physical robots so they can focus efforts in something that can be realized.


      Staged Approach

      RDS approaches simulation in stages, allowing developers to deal with complexity at the right time. This means the programmer can debug the simulated robot starting with basic primitives and requiring only basic knowledge. It is extremely concise to add such a virtual robot in an environment, with some simple shapes to interact with. This means debugging, even in the simulation, is simpler.


      Prototyping

      Physical models for a robot and the simulation services that use them can be developed concurrently by many individuals, and just like many software development communities, create a platform, that many can use and modify without worrying about breaking expensive, unique robots.


      Education

      Simulation can be an extremely useful instructional aid. the programmer can choose what to focus on, build up complexity, and control the environment. The programmer can also introduce components that are purely virtual, concepts that cannot be easily realized, but still useful for learning.


      Learning System

      Another interesting aspect of simulation is that it can be used while the robot is running, as a predictive tool or supervised learning module. For quite some time, developers have used simulation running concurrently with an active robot to try things out in the simulation world that is updated real-time with sensory data. Then the simulation can tell them, probabilistically, if something is a good idea. Virtually looking ahead in the various possibilities.


      Simulation Drawbacks and Limitations

      Essentially, this is trying to turn a hardware problem into a software one. However, developing software and a physics model has its own challenges and end up with a different set of challenges and limitations. Usually this means there is a sweet spot; a range of applications where simulation is very appropriate, and then a range of applications or stages in development, where using the real robot is essential or easier. As the simulation environment improves, the range where application is appropriate expands. The increase in processing power plus the concurrent and distributed nature of the RDS should help address some of the issues.


      Lack of Noisy Data

      People involved in the large robotics challenges will tell programmers they must spent serious time with the real robot no matter how good the simulation is. This is partially because there is a lot of work left in making simulation more usable and more realistic. But it is also because the real world is unpredictable and complex with lots of noise being picked up by sensors.


      Incomplete and Inaccurate Models

      A large number of effects in the real world are still unexplained or very hard to model. This means the programmer may not be able to model everything accurately, especially in real time. For certain domains, like wheeled vehicles, motion at low speeds is still a big challenge for simulation engines. Modeling sonar is another.


      Lots of Time for Tuning

      In the simulation environment, it's actually very easy to ge

    10. Re:API! by 0x000000 · · Score: 1

      Something like http://www.tinyclr.com/ is actually pretty cool, having used it, yes the 72 Mhz chip feels a little slow compared to using it more directly using C.

      Microsoft has also updated many of the libraries, so it is easier to do various different tasks at the same time, however there are still a lot of steps involved in writing code for something like the FEZ domino, I could definitely understand that it is harder, yet at the same time Visual Studio is an absolutely awesome development environment that is not yet matched on Mac OS X or Linux.

      --
      cat /dev/null > .signature
    11. Re:API! by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      Is LOGO a high level language? Wasn't it originally just commands to stepper motors? Or can it do proper logic? My ignorance annoys me.

    12. Re:API! by pitdingo · · Score: 2

      Ah, the Microsoft Slashdot Astroturf Group out in full force. How is this +5? You are saying vendor lock-in is good? You like paying tons of money for things you can do for free on other platforms?

    13. Re:API! by Unoti · · Score: 1

      When I was a teenager in the mid 80's, I taught Logo to kids at a summer camp on IBM-PC's, this was right about the time the PC Jr. was released. There are of course many flavors and variants of the language. But the one that I taught was a real programming language with variables, loops, functions that took parameters, and the whole enchilada. We wrote some pretty fun, crazy and smart stuff.

    14. Re:API! by skids · · Score: 1

      That's because there's a gap in the API. Low level APIs stop at raw hardware access. High level APIs stop at inverse kinematics.

      Not that I've searched exhaustively, nor am I privilaged enough to have seen any of the really expensive platforms, but I've basically found nothing that can be taken seriously for real-time dynamic systems control (the missing part), much less one that defines a useful protocol for real-time communications between several low-power controller boards to take care of what they can -- everything backhauled to a central brain, no autonomous nervous system. About all I could find on that was some guy's thesis from the 80's.

      Even the low level APIs seem to be fixated on servos -- there's like 15 other kinds of motors.

      Definitely some room for some innovation here, but not many people take dynamic systems control in CS majors, and the CSEs are all busy doing VLSI. (Wasn't my best subject, ashamed to say.)

    15. Re:API! by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Oops. I didn't mean to post anonymously. Hehe.

    16. Re:API! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      So now we suddenly rely on MS PR?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. Where can I get a robot? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great, so where can I get a cheap compatible robot and what kind of stuff can I program it to do?

    Also, http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/tech/asr/intelligent-robotics/nasa-vision-workbench/ looks pretty damn cool.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Where can I get a robot? by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative

      Great, so where can I get a cheap compatible robot and what kind of stuff can I program it to do?

      These are MSDN sites.

      So be prepared for information overload.

      Microsoft Robotics: 3rd Party Hardware

      Microsoft Robotics Developer Center

      This page is an introduction to robotic simulation, with some nice screen shots of the VSE sample environments: Simulation Overview

    2. Re:Where can I get a robot? by sznupi · · Score: 3, Informative

      This list seems more tidy. And just below with links to fully free software with which MS tries to compete via this release, probably (doesn't mention one...worth mentioning)

      Hey, in this case the users are small in numbers and "geeky" so typical MS adoption rules should not apply. OTOH parent poster seems specifically inspired by this MS release (and its promises) in asking for a robot to play with...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  4. Hasta La Vista by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like a plan to me.

    When the robot uprising starts, there'll be a million ways to crash the fuckers.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Hasta La Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Must kill all humans.. Error.. please reboot me"

    2. Re:Hasta La Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hasta La Vista
      Best pun I've seen in hours

    3. Re:Hasta La Vista by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      Oh I already see the C-rated movie with the incredibly bad plot.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    4. Re:Hasta La Vista by JustOK · · Score: 2, Funny

      C#-rated

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:Hasta La Vista by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Oh I've already seen the C-rated movie with the incredibly bad plot.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Hasta La Vista by masterwit · · Score: 1

      Ok haha I can see this:
      -

      Robot: ---Scanning horizon for lifeforms---

      Paperclip: "So it looks like your trying to kill someone..."

      (1) Reload a weapon

      (2) Point and shoot

      (3) Guidelines to killing humans

      (4) Identifying a good human to kill

      Robot: "No! I just want to find the fuckers! ahhhh"

      Microsoft Dominator has just recovered from a serious error; if this error continues, contact your system administrator
      -

      Trust me, if anything ensures our survival it will be the built in help that causes their demise...

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    7. Re:Hasta La Vista by rjch · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a plan to me.

      When the robot uprising starts, there'll be a million ways to crash the fuckers.

      Well, that will teach me to eat dinner whilst reading Slashdot. One keyboard with extra noodles, coming up...

    8. Re:Hasta La Vista by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      Touché

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  5. Not only free as in beer! by aBaldrich · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:

    In addition to creating a single RDS release, the robotics group is also making the source code of selected program samples and other modules available online, hoping to improve collaboration among users. In particular, Microsoft wants to entice the growing community of hobbyists, do-it-yourselfers, and weekend robot builders.

    They are releasing code. Which is worth mentioning in the summary, since we are talking about Microsoft. Obviously they are not opening the whole thing, because after they extend, they want to make money, but still it is interesting.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    1. Re:Not only free as in beer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As I read it, it is unfortunately only free as in beer. What they're talking about is releasing sample programs written in RDS. That's very different from releasing any source code for RDS itself.

    2. Re:Not only free as in beer! by Tolkien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      making the source code of selected program samples and other modules available online

      Woohoo, they're providing tutorial code.

    3. Re:Not only free as in beer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why the hell would a person interested in robotics want the source code to a programming IDE?

    4. Re:Not only free as in beer! by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      What part of "selected program samples and other modules" don't you understand? They're not releasing the code for the actual product..

    5. Re:Not only free as in beer! by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      RDS is not just an IDE but a class lib. You always want the source code to stuff under you in robotics because of exotic hardware (in 10 years, will there be a driver for a R314-HOKUYO-LASER4 sensor?), exotic set ups (what happens if I have 19 cameras instead of 16?), the extreme real-time nature of the system. Robotics programming is like game programming, computer vision programming, driver programming, and embedded system development all at the same time. Any software that behaves an unknown fashion is bad.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
  6. Re:bad quote by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Does Microsoft make anything that isn't slow, bloated, and fully integrated into skyne--I mean .NET?"

    Notepad.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. Microsoft Attempting to Catch-up with Open Source? by steve+buttgereit · · Score: 1

    I admit it I didn't RTFA... but it sounds like the Willow Garage stuff... http://www.ros.org/wiki/ ?

    (http://www.willowgarage.com/ for the record is their main site).

  8. Success breeds success! by rueger · · Score: 1, Funny

    Good on MS for building on their twenty years of technical marketing triumphs like the MS mouse, the wavy keyboard, the Zun... ah... did I mention the mouse?

  9. Get a grip by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"Why make it a freebie? Because it wants to expand its RDS base and get a grip"

    No! Really? MS wants to offer something "free" for the purpose of dominating some market? I just can't believe it!! I bet it can't possibly benefit them in some way.

  10. But it has a basis in the business model. by xzvf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They offer Internet Explorer for free undercutting Netscape's business model. They offer Outlook with a pretty user GUI and integrated with Office to push users to ask for Exchange. An email program that's easy to setup the first 50 users, but a nightmare for large corporations. Active Directory simplifies an all Windows environment, but mangles LDAP so you have to jump through hoops to add any other desktop to the environment. Sharepoint is really cool and easy to setup until you have to set controls and expand it enterprise wide. RDS is cool for simulating robotic programming and could be nice for education, but you'll end up with something that's easy to get started with, but a nightmare to really implement.

    1. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by The+Spoonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An email program that's easy to setup the first 50 users, but a nightmare for large corporations.

      Really? Every Exchange implementation I've been on in the last 15 years (starting at 1000, 5000, 9000 & my current job @ 15,000 users) has been just as "install and forget" as the first @ 200 users. Perhaps you're just doing it wrong?

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    2. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly you are a troll. Your anecdotal, uncited evidence was obviously inferior to the parent's anecdotal, uncited evidence. ;)

    3. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by EdIII · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you have been really really REALLY lucky?

      I hate Exchange with a passion that is hard to put into words. The attempt to express my feelings for it is best done by quoting Khan, "from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

      I had nothing but problems with corrupting Exchange stores, failing services, installation compatibility issues, etc. Of course you can blame the server admin and just claim I did not have the skills or the understanding, despite working with Microsoft tech my whole life and computers before Microsoft even pushed out Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.

      Getting modded informative is really just accessory to flamebait on the GP. Problems with Exchange are well known, and *most* people I know view it as a major pain in the ass to support.

      However, you can go right ahead and claim operator error......

    4. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by falzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Khan... or, Ahab...

    5. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Heh.. yes you are right. Star Trek mangled a lot of the quotes from Moby Dick, but I thought it would be appropriate and more accessible to quote Khan on Slashdot.

      I know it's from Moby Dick, but every time I think about it I hear Ricardo Montalban's voice saying it.

    6. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by Platinumrat · · Score: 1
      it's Khhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!

      /. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING

      That was my intent.

    7. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Does it run on linux?

    8. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, no.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    9. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you have been really really REALLY lucky?

      I doubt it as a) luck isn't real, b) my results are consistent across not just my own implementations, but those of others I work with and c) luck isn't real.

      I hate Exchange with a passion that is hard to put into words.

      Ah. I think I see your problem. Your bias is blinding you to the possibility that YOU could be the problem.

      problems with corrupting Exchange stores, failing services, installation compatibility issues

      I have seen exactly one corrupted store, and it was on that first 200 user implementation I did. I had used the eseutil incorrectly. Of those I've heard of from others, root cause was always found to be either an incorrect configuration or admin error. I don't know what "failing services" is supposed to mean, but I'm intrigued by your last one: so, you're saying you didn't check compatibility BEFORE installing? Again, I think I see what your problem is.

      despite working with Microsoft tech my whole life

      Longevity of experience does not equal quality of experience. You have obviously learned nothing if you're still having issues with something as basic as Exchange.

      Problems with Exchange are well known, and *most* people I know view it as a major pain in the ass to support.

      Yes, I have found that people will generally congregate with other people of the same levels of knowledge as them. I, for example, only congregate with people who laugh at comments such as yours.

      you can go right ahead and claim operator error

      As that has been my experience, as well as the experience of every Exchange admin I know...I shall, thank you.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    10. Re:But it has a basis in the business model. by alexo · · Score: 1

      I doubt it as a) luck isn't real [...]

      Huh? "Luck" is a handy shorthand for "falling near the far end of the statistical bell curve".

  11. Re:A Roboticist's Perspective by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    But how else will your robots check their MySpace accounts?

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  12. The joke has come true! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they start making (robotic) vacuum cleaners."

  13. Toy Robots by bmo · · Score: 1

    "Consumer robotics is a new product category and building [applications] there requires leveraging the capabilities and inspiration of a broader community," he says. "This is exactly what we want to do.

    I'm sorry, but consumer robotics is not real robotics. Consumer robotics is toy robotics because anything other than toy robots, when operated by Joe or Jane Consumer, can kill people.

    --
    BMO

  14. iRobot by copponex · · Score: 4, Funny

    DUDE: Robot, grab me a beer.
    iROBOT: I'm sorry, Steve says those are bad for you.
    DUDE: What the fuck?
    iROBOT: Would you like some water with a splash of lemon instead?
    DUDE: No, I just want have a beer and play a little... where is my Halo 5?
    iROBOT: There was a cutscene that showed a nipple, so it has been discarded. I have replaced it with "Yoga For Everyone." Would you like me to show you some poses? We can...
    DUDE: No, please, go ahead and get started with out me. I'm just going to go find this receipt I've been looking for...

    1. Re:iRobot by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Funny

      DUDE: Robot, grab me a beer.
      iROBOT: I'm sorry, Steve says those are too fattening for you.
      DUDE: What the fuck would Steve recommend, then?
      iROBOT: Apple martini.

    2. Re:iRobot by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're doing it wrong:

      DUDE: Robot, grab me a beer.
      iROBOT: I'm sorry, Steve says those are bad for you.
      DUDE: Robot, sudo grab me a beer.
      iROBOT: One beer coming up, master.

    3. Re:iRobot by RevWaldo · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're still doing it wrong - this is Windows after all.

      DUDE: Robot, grab me a beer.
      iROBOT: I'm sorry, Steve says those are bad for you.
      DUDE: Robot, runas /user:Administrator grab me a beer.
      iROBOT: iRobot has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience.


      .

    4. Re:iRobot by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and then the 1.1 update comes our and you've got to jailbreak it all over again

  15. 2 year old technology by figleaf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Robotics studio was made a paid product 2 years ago.
    Looks like they did not get enough buyers and its being offered for free now!
    And looks like it hasn't been updated in last few years.

    Regarding CCR, .Net 4.0 has made vast improvements in multi-core API.
    I don't see how much relevant CCR will be given the release of Task Parallel Library (TPL) for .Net and ConCRT for C++

    1. Re:2 year old technology by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      I tried robotics studio 2 years ago - to be honest I don't ever remembering it being a paid app. I guess maybe they had an 'express' version like they do with visual studio now. But just like visual studio, the extra stuff in the paid version is really not useful to very many, above what is there in the express version.
      Anyhow, it was a decent framework, but had a limited target of hardware. If microsoft does for RS what it did with windows, and that means write drivers for every piece of hardware out there, then it will become the defacto standard. It is a good strategy with a proven track record. Make an up front investment writing code that the manufacturers could/should have written, but were too lazy, and in the process you become the ubiquitous platform - it will pay off in the long run.
      There is no question in my mind we are about to encounter a robot explosion - I've read that a lot of smart people predict the labor market will shrink to less than 10% of its current size in 10 years - there will a lot of rich people, and a lot of people out of work all at the same time, just like the time these new fangled things called computers and automation came around. If I was a kid looking to the future (a job), I sure as hell would be reading and learning everything I could about Microsoft Robotics Studio right now.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
  16. Industrial Robotics Manufacturers ... by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

    ABB and MotoMan are quaking in their boots.

    Seriously, does anyone use Microsoft's Robotics Products? for anything industrial?

    1. Re:Industrial Robotics Manufacturers ... by 0x000000 · · Score: 1

      No, and the amateurs that are playing with the Arduino and Basic stamp are not going to use .NET either ...

      --
      cat /dev/null > .signature
    2. Re:Industrial Robotics Manufacturers ... by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Fanuc and Kuka. No, seriously... the idea of using Microsoft Robotics Studio in industrial automation is laughable in the industry. It's regarded as a toy. It's really targeted at people inventing their next robot vacuum cleaner, or perhaps grad students.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  17. I for one... by LukeWebber · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome our new, blue-screened robot overlords.

    1. Re:I for one... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      ...and their Blue Flailing Murder Spasms of Death

      .

    2. Re:I for one... by fuscus2010 · · Score: 1

      The Blue Bot of Death

  18. Re:A Roboticist's Perspective by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

    Did MySpace start blocking Linux browsers?

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  19. Another example... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ... of Microsoft trying to stay relevant. Will it succeed? The answer will be found in how many gullible people remain on the Blue Marble.

    .

    Will Microsoft suck the innovation and profits out of the robotics industry in the same manner they sucked the innovation and profits out of the PC industry? Will the use of Microsoft's development environment environment force you to slow down your innovation to the level that Microsoft wants to accommodate?

    Stay tuned to /. for updates..................

    1. Re:Another example... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Will Microsoft suck the innovation and profits out of the robotics industry in the same manner they sucked the innovation and profits out of the PC industry?"

      Sure, because before MS came along there was all kinds of innovation and profit in the PC industry. Which is pretty amazing since there was no IBM PC before MS came along.

    2. Re:Another example... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Of course not. But there sure was a pretty viable *PERSONAL COMPUTER* industry. Apple and Commodore owned the PERSONAL COMPUTER industry, and golly, it was even big enough for a couple of geeks in a garage to start a company, and then go public.

      Why do people keep thinking Microsoft is the only thing in this world?!

    3. Re:Another example... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring context (a common problem around here).

      If someone posts that MS "sucked the innovation and profits out of the PC industry" do you think they're referring to Commodore or Radio Shack? If the initials PC refer to all personal computers what was the point of those Apple advertisements "I'm a Mac", "I'm a PC"?

    4. Re:Another example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apple and Commodore owned the PERSONAL COMPUTER industry

      Sure. That alternate universe would have been so cool, where I'd have to pay f**** $10,000 for a toaster made by Apple. Say what you will abt MS's abusive monopoly practices (they are guilty as daylight), I like having cheap hardware for my Ubuntu distro. And IBM clones were cheap.

      Seriously, ease up on the Mac-kool-aid. Side effects include delusions...

  20. Bot net! by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

    Hacked robot controllers gives a whole new meaning to "botnet".

  21. Sounds like bad news to me by thenextstevejobs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't RTFA, but I'm assuming that the main idea here is lock-in to MS products and technologies. That means it'll be harder to share work and ideas down the road because of artificial dependencies on MS to run the code, etc. Hopefully folks in the field will hold their ground and build their work on top of open, sharable, neutral platforms

    --
    Long live the BSD license
  22. Re:bad quote by tnok85 · · Score: 1

    Well, notepad.exe (empty, just opened it) is using ~6-7MB of RAM, while vi is only using ~3MB with a script open - albeit a short one.

  23. Nice summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By the summary's logic, Linus Torvalds must be the next Dr. Evil, because he's been giving away Linux for over a decade.

    1. Re:Nice summary by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he only did it for fun and to become a millionaire.

    2. Re:Nice summary by devent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Linus doesn't give Linux for free, he's giving it for Free. Meaning, you can do what ever you like with Linux and it's source code.

      If MS would be opening up the code for everyone under an open license, that would be news. But until that, it's just a marketing gag to get a foot in a new market.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    3. Re:Nice summary by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Linux doesn't have a proven track record of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Step 1, embrace whatever new protocol it is. Everyone's happy that MS gets on board. Step 2, extend the protocol with MS-specific tech. Competitors can't use this because it's patented or relies on knowledge of the inner workings of closed-source software. Step 3, extinguish. When the extensions become industry-standard, use them to smash competition. Winner: Microsoft.

      Note that this isn't some sort of flamebait. Microsoft invented these terms in their own internal memos to describe their business practices.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  24. Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly people, there are more than enough valid reasons to dislike MS without adding imaginary ones. TFS takes the free release of what's probably at least nifty and interesting software and turns it into an irrelevant blurb about "world domination". As far as I can tell, MS dominates two (closely related) industries: home/office desktop and laptop OSes and utilities, and office software. They have also entered into many other markets, sometimes producing good products, sometimes bad, but never really getting the necessary leverage to "dominate" other, often better competitors for long. (e.g. Xbox, Zune, hotmail, Silverlight, Windows Mobile, Windows Server, even IE at this point.) I'm sure there is no shortage of asshats who go with MS simply because of an easy contract, but I'd like to think that robotics engineers and researchers aren't among them. If the tools are solid, great. If not, no one will care.

    Seriously. Hate on MS because of sleazy monopoly abuse. Hate on them for releasing disappointing public-beta style software. But the sort of hyperbolic nonsense on the frontpage makes *NIXers look like unbalanced zealots.

    1. Re:Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Perhaps years of technologies like COM and ActiveX and .NET and tools ilike VisualStudio or the SQL Server management tools have shown us what to expect. And those are just some of the 20% of their technologies that have WON, not the 80% that dropped into oblivion within two years of being announced.


      Here's what I expect:
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all...

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think you sort of missed my point. COM, ActiveX and .NET as examples of the insane, overbloated, byzantine, crufty, heinous APIs that we can expect, and VisualStudio and SQL Server management tools as examples of the lame, bloated, convoluted, script-free, REPEATABILITY-free, non-portable (even between like systems) developer/management tools we can expect. In other words, kool-aid lock-in at its finest.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ah, I see. I thought you were emphasizing MS forcing these tools into acceptance rather than their inherent crappiness. But then again, the very reason I'm not against MS getting into other markets is because they can't get away with that; they're forced to compete like everyone else, and occasionally they manage to make something pretty darn cool. The OLED screen & tegra chipset on latest Zune, for example, or the (accidentally) highly moddable 1st gen Xbox.

    4. Re:Summary is Ridiculous Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      While I agree to some extend, I can't see what you don't like about the .net API. It's one of the finest APIs I've ever used.

  25. Re:bad quote by castorvx · · Score: 2, Funny

    To be fair, it takes a lot of memory to store one level of undo.

  26. Someone call PETA by Snufu · · Score: 1

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Androids.

  27. Only 30,000 years to Galaxia. by glrotate · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Let's hope.

  28. What market exists? by cozytom · · Score: 1

    I've built many robots, (Hero-1, other homebuilt ones, etc). I've been involved with robot clubs since the early 80s. Very little has changed!

    My first robot was run off a parallel card plugged into my Heathkit H-8. simple h-bridge some bumpers, and I was set. worked pretty good but the dang cord was a problem.

    The next robot had an on board Z80 processor. It also had a CRT and a dozen batteries. It weighed a ton, used relays and transistors to control the motor.

    The Hero had an on board 6809 (I guess one of the accessories had a second 6800 I think, so technically it was 2).

    I used various 8 bitters for many other robots, always trying to solve the power problem, finding more and more efficient processors, so I could use less battery.

    I switched to a tinyboard (8088) for one, it ran DR-DOS, and turbo pascal!

    Even the handyboard processor was good, and has a great library (interactive C).

    Basic stamps have come and gone for various projects.

    Aurdrino's are pretty current.

    Which one of the above processors will run anything from M$? I don't think any. Right, all 8 bit processors. I see very few robots with more than an 8 bitter even in the 21st century!

    Someone needs to convince the robot builders to switch to 32 bit processors (ARM, maybe beagle board, or anything else) and then there *might* be a market for an OS that runs robots. Trouble is, it'll be Linux or Android running it, since the robot builders are a little more scrappy.

     

    1. Re:What market exists? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      industrial robots have been used for 25+ years for loading and unloading stamping presses, welding and cutting, machining, etc.

      this is of kind of robot that is fastened in one place, of course, not walking around. but doing real useful work.

      and for at least the last 15 years most have been controlled using MS Windows anyway....

  29. fixed it for you by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    They offer Internet Explorer for free adopting Netscape's business model.

    1. Re:fixed it for you by ggeens · · Score: 1

      They offer Internet Explorer for free adopting Netscape's business model.

      No. At the time they started giving away IE, you still had to pay for Netscape. Netscape only became free when it was too late to make a difference.

      --
      WWTTD?
    2. Re:fixed it for you by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Netscape was free before IE existed.

  30. Re:bad quote by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 1

    That's odd, only takes up 1632KB here (Win7-64)

  31. Re:Business as usual by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    It's actually "Embrace, extend and extinguish".

    Its origin is a matter of dispute, but everyone agrees that the DOJ used it to describe their view of MS's strategy with respect to competitors.

  32. nope you didn't by xzvf · · Score: 1

    Netscape charged for it's browser until MS started bundling IE with Windows.

    1. Re:nope you didn't by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Not true. It was initially cost-free for non-commercial use although Netscape kept changing its policy and reneged on its promises.

    2. Re:nope you didn't by TheLink · · Score: 1

      FWIW, there was a time when I stuck to Netscape 3 because Netscape 4 was a piece of shit that made IE look good - kept crashing and performing badly. People like to say Microsoft killed Netscape. But IMO, Netscape killed Netscape. Their codebase was so bad that for years Mozilla languished in a "worse than IE" form. Anyone remember Netscape 6?

      In the recent years Mozilla has been better than IE (and guess what its market share has gone up), but some years ago, Mozilla was something that people put up with because they somehow couldn't run Opera or IE. I remember even using Konqueror instead of Mozilla.

      --
    3. Re:nope you didn't by unapersson · · Score: 1

      Netscape 6 may have been pretty bad compared to Mozilla, but it was never as bad as IE. At least it supported CSS correctly. Mind you, back then there were plenty of sites coded specifically for IE that probably looked awful in a standards compliant browser.

    4. Re:nope you didn't by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I disagree. From wikipedia: "However, it was clear that Netscape 6 was not yet ready for release and it flopped badly. It was based on Mozilla 0.6, which was not ready to be used by the general public yet due to many serious bugs that would cause it to crash often or render web pages slowly."

      Sure wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but you can find much evidence supporting that on the Internet.

      Fact is, it was based on Mozilla, and Mozilla was really crap back then. Even later on Firefox 1.5 was a huge memory hog and crashed regularly - I would know I was using suse at work. It was so bad that at times it used more ram than my Windows XP virtual machine running IE (IE on XP on vmware server gsx on suse :) ).

      Firefox only started getting significantly better after version 2. My colleague who was an early adopter of Firefox 2 ran into lots of probs initially. Only later on more of the bugs got fixed. So before that, Netscape could certainly not be better than IE6 or even IE5. I don't care how "standards compliant" a browser is if it keeps crashing or using up 700MB-1GB of memory.

      Now, Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 are clearly better than IE6 and IE7. But years ago, Netscape 6 and 4 were pieces of shit.

      Not surprised Google went with webkit instead of the Mozilla code base, and have made rather rapid progress.

      --
  33. Re:Give stuff away = still evil? by the_B0fh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    mucking foron - did you see what microsoft did to its last attempt at putting out open source stuff? just killed it not too long ago. so... sure, yeah, whatever.

  34. Re:Give stuff away = still evil? by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As with most religions, F/OSS zealots like what they like and hate what they hate without regard to fundamental principles.

  35. If only the samples compiled... by fyndor · · Score: 1

    I downloaded the Robotics Dev Studio and tried to run the samples. As far as I can tell they don't compile with VS 2010 Express. Way to dominate guys :(

  36. MS makes Robo OS by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    Two thoughts on this and neither are good:

    -Blue Screen of Death will have a new terrifying meaning

    -At my age I may be among the first generation to have substantial elder care provided by robots (about 15yrs out). I was hoping for cool and useful robots ... now it will be the same old crap. I'll be 75 and will then be asked ... "my robot has this problem ..."

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  37. Resistance is Futile by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Take note, with this announcement Microsoft has given a new meaning to 'plug-ins'.

  38. It's more like abandonware by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This looks more like Microsoft giving up than going for world domination. A few years ago, Microsoft had a presence at robotics conventions, pushing the thing. That shrank, then disappeared.

    A basic problem is that Microsoft Robotics Studio is built on Microsoft Web Services, which is not exactly the tool you want for real-time operation. It has a simple-minded visual programming environment. There's little (any?) vision support. There's little, if any, machine learning. It's really only about two notches above Lego Mindstorms, and way below stuff like DARPA Grand Challenge vehicles or Boston Dynamics' robots.

    If you want to see more cutting edge stuff, download Willow Robotics code. They're working hard on vision and making real progress.

    Hobbyist robotics needs a major quality upgrade. People are still building '80s type robots. By now, any serious robot should have a vision system and SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping). Any robot with a laptop, or one of the fancier cell phones, on board has enough compute power for that. But Microsoft Robotics Studio won't take you there.

  39. I'd like some of whatever they're smoking. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where do they think there's money to be made? In toys, Lego Mindstorms pretty much has it sewn up; it's well established, integrates well into a major well established mechanical toy and and has a huge community around it. I don't know a great deal about industrial robotics, but I'd suspect it's a game for specialists simply because of liability issues - it's bloody dangerous if done wrong.

    I want to to know what they're smoking. And where I can get some.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I'd like some of whatever they're smoking. by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I don't know a great deal about industrial robotics, but I'd suspect it's a game for specialists simply because of liability issues - it's bloody dangerous if done wrong.

      And because those robots are expensive as hell ... Most industrial robots work with at least 0.1 mm precision.

    2. Re:I'd like some of whatever they're smoking. by radtea · · Score: 1

      Embedded intelligence is going to drive the next industrial mini-revolution, in the same way that desktop and networked intelligence drove the last one.

      Consumer robotics is going to be the Next Big Thing, and MS may be looking for ways to gain a foothold in that field.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  40. Re:Give stuff away = still evil? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We're not all zealots - some of us consider software to be nothing more than something to get a job done or to entertain.

    Open Source has been around for decades, it hasn't stopped commercial software companies making huge amounts of money in the process.

    If I "preach" to friends or family about Open Source then it's because I want to make them aware that they have a free alternative if they want to consider it, but ultimately it's down to them what software they use.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  41. Re:bad quote by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    3,964k here, XP Home SP3. Hey, I typed 'the cat sat on the mat' into it and it dropped right back to 400k then back up to 752k. Odd. Maybe the more text i put in, the smaller the memory footprint? Oh, now it is at 1,012k before I could type anything else in. Hmm, maybe I should wait for the memory use to fluctuate before I hit save and thus economise on disk space? :-)

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  42. Free to consume but not to reenvision? by mattr · · Score: 1

    You should read TFA it does mention a number of different manufacturers.

    Has anyone used Robotics Studio? The visual programming language looks kinda neat at a glance.

    Do people really build robots with this kind of thing? Looks like maybe it is for easily configuring a robot to follow certain paths and such?

    In comparison Willow Garage is open source and has a lot of people getting involved. I'd like to hear from people who have tried both but ROS is a real open source unix development kit, and so is more likely to last into the future as things need to get totally reinvented with new technological insights. It is possible academic and commercial labs together could drive innovation faster through ROS than one company (MS).

    One issue I have been wondering about, and which seems to be true from some people I've talked to, is that the most powerful algorithms are commercial not open source. Not that an algorithm ought to be patentable but.. if so, it could be that the recently mentioned open source patent pool would be very useful in this area.

  43. danger! by spongman · · Score: 1

    Danger, Will Robi

    *** STOP: 0x00000019 (0x00000000, 0xC00E0FF0, 0xFFFFEFD4, 0xC0000000)
    BAD_POOL_HEADER

  44. Wrong Movie by confused+one · · Score: 1

    We are the Borg. Lower your shields, and surrender your ship. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile.

  45. Lego Mindstorm NXT by howardd21 · · Score: 1

    You can pick it up for around $300 new.

    --
    no comment
  46. Re:bad quote by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

    3.4mb here, xp sp3

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  47. Was already free for non-commercial use! by shervinemami · · Score: 1

    It was already free for non-commercial use, so I guess Microsoft finally realised that not many companies are making money from robots (besides military robots & industrial robots), so it wasn't really earning them much money anyway.

    Personally, I hated learning Microsoft Robotics Studio, it is great for doing a few basic things, but doing anything different than that requires a lot of things that must be learnt that have very little to do with your robotics project. The whole purpose of a robotics environment like this is so that robotics builders can concentrate on actual robot stuff, whereas MSRDS makes you waste so much time learning their proprietary formats & techniques that you could easily loose the fun in learning robots!

    Thats my opinion anyway, as a someone with a Masters degree in Robotics Engineering that still has trouble using MS Robotics Design Studio!

    1. Re:Was already free for non-commercial use! by Fulg · · Score: 1

      The whole purpose of a robotics environment like this is so that robotics builders can concentrate on actual robot stuff, whereas MSRDS makes you waste so much time learning their proprietary formats & techniques that you could easily loose the fun in learning robots!

      (disclaimer: not a robotics guy, I just messed around with an NXT set last year)

      My main issue with their environment is that the resulting robot doesn't actually do any of the thinking, you need a PC running MSRDS connected at all times. All processing is done on the PC, and commands are sent down to a slave program running on the robot. Other development environments supporting the NXT (like NQC) target the brick directly and give you a fully-independent robot, which is (to me) much more interesting.

      Their realtime 3D simulation environment looked like a big selling point, but then I couldn't make it do anything myself besides running built-in samples. As you said, MSRDS focuses on the wrong thing, because NQC (or even the built-in Lego software!) was a lot more fun.

      --
      gcc: no input sig
  48. Re:bad quote by soppsa · · Score: 1

    In this thread: lots of people who don't understand the differences in the way different operating systems allocate/report memory usage!

    (Which OS is reporting 3MB of mem usage for vi??? Even in BSD I'm only seeing about a meg...)

  49. You've got it backwards. by hey! · · Score: 1

    Honestly people, there are more than enough valid reasons to dislike MS without adding imaginary ones.

    Actually, you have that backwards. Once you have enough real reasons to hate Microsoft, there's really no practical purpose served by avoiding imaginary ones.

    For example: I hate the Microsoft Office UI team because it is my belief they sodomize puppies. It's a job perk for them. Now should it prove that this particular belief is not entirely factual, there's no harm done. It wouldn't really change how I feel about them.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  50. What great timing! by Dracker · · Score: 1

    There's a Burger King ad on TV now featuring a robot-version of The King, clad in Iron Man armor, who gives someone a burger then starts shooting everywhere.

    Obviously, that robot must be running MS's new robotics software.

    I don't have Flash at work, but I believe you can see the commercial here.

  51. Re:Give stuff away = still evil? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

    Microsoft giving away stuff, and it's something they could not sell, and there are still restrictions and patents lurking in the background

    Business as normal

    NB This project will die when no-one bites ...

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  52. Re:OH MY GOD!!! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Just wait till they port Clippy to one of them...

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  53. The Flaw of Robotics, the 3 Fates by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Logistics, Multi-Programmable, and the 3 hour battery are the Fates.

  54. Lego Mindstorms NXT by alexo · · Score: 1
  55. Another typical Microsoft License by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    First of all, IANABCL. That having been said, I have been reading these licenses for as long as Microsoft has been around. This license is written carefully to allow no significant rights except to run this version. The license states that if you use the software, you have agreed to the license. That in and of itself is shaky. I don't believe that will stand in court. Now they have a license that doesn't even require you to push a button. There is no protocol by which they assure you have even read the license. Not even a button at the bottom of the license that would require you to at least scroll through it. The license is specifically written to preclude any development by the users that would be covered with GNU licenses. This is yet another llcense that allows Microsoft to change the terms whenever they like without notification. It is clear to me that by giving it away for free they would like to contaminate the user base with Microsoft ideas that they will later claim patent rights to, and developers that participated in early use may be precluded from independent development later, much as BIOS authors could not have seen IBM code previously. This software should not be touched with a ten foot pole, unless you think it is good that microsoft should own the robotics space like they do the operating systems space, and we can only hope there are less bugs and viruses in their robotics code, but I wouldn't put money on it.