Microsoft To Charge Phone Makers a Licensing Fee

angry tapir writes "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee, but in exchange vendors get at least one important benefit: protection from intellectual property worries. 'Microsoft indemnifies its Windows Phone 7 licensees against patent infringement claims,' the company said. 'We stand behind our product, and step up to our responsibility to clear the necessary IP rights.'" In related news, Windows Phone 7 will be exclusive to AT&T at launch, and it seems Microsoft is counting on Xbox Live integration to be the "hook" that gets people interested in the new devices.

Comments

You get what you pay for.

[LostCluster]

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue. What Microsoft is offering here is a classic part of their business plan... if somebody comes up with a submarine patent they'll take the legal pain so their customers don't have to.

Remember the lesson of SCO and Darl McBride.... even though the claims had no legal merit, they still were messy enough that it was cheaper to pay the settlement price than fight them and win the case. When faced with such a problem, any sane business man will take the less expensive option even if it's not the one that's good for the world.

So, this license fee can be seen as an insurance policy against such patent claims that could bite the handset maker for a mistake the software writers made.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Dan667]

you have to pay the mortgage first, the second check you write is the insurance. Who cares if you have great insurance if you are hamstung with terrible software from microsoft that does not allow your business to make any money?

Re:You get what you pay for.

[mcmonkey]

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue.

Yes, because Microsoft came to dominate its industry by paying out on lawsuits. Those deep pockets are more likely to go for paying for lawyers to fight your lawsuit.

As for protection from IP claims, this is the textbook definition of FUD. And it's a lie. Weren't customers of MS subject to lawsuits a few years ago based on IP in SQL Server?

Re:You get what you pay for.

[getNewNickName]

How does that protect you from patent trolls who force you to stop sales of your handset until the patent dispute is resolved with MS? Never underestimate the deviousness of patent trolls to cause maximum pain and suffering for their own profit.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[LostCluster]

Microsoft will provide their army of lawyers to argue against that injunction. Sure, it's not a foolproof solution, but it's the best one money can buy.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Missing.Matter]

Probably 90% of corporations out there making money are using Microsoft software.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yeah, clearly no one makes any money using Microsoft software. That's why everyone ditched Microsoft and moved to Linux back in 1995, right?

Re:You get what you pay for.

[shutdown -p now]

Who cares if you have great insurance if you are hamstung with terrible software from microsoft that does not allow your business to make any money?

The ultimate investment strategy from /. experts: buy stock only in those companies which run Linux!

Don't forget to get back to us in 2-3 years to tell the story of your success.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[poetmatt]

bwahahahaha what a troll. What a deliberate, obvious troll. You should have used republican talking points.

SCO/Darl Mcbride never won any case. Nobody has settled with SCO either, in fact SCO is in bankruptcy. Why again? Because of all that stuff they "owned"? Is that where the "people will settle" BS comes from? Because patent trolls rarely win, as recent studies have shown. So there is a reason to not settle: you can save more money by going through the courts, because the more you cost the competitor (microsoft), the less they're going to be willing to go after you again.

Have a patent of theirs invalidated and they can't go after anyone else for it either. expose the company as a subsidiary of microsoft. Either of these are retaliatory options.

So lets get to #2, the only reason anyone has any issues of "idenmnity" is because Microsoft is suing their competitors through subsidiaries. However, there is still a second important factor: do you have to pay anything to create your own implementation of android? No. Do you have to pay for indemnification? no.

what you're stating is almost along the same lines as trying to claim x264 is free, which might be true if people didn't look for more information.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[TheCRAIGGERS]

I haven't seen any patent lawsuits in recent memory for smartphone software.

I have seen lots of patent lawsuits in recent memory for smartphone hardware. And somehow, I don't see Microsoft coming to your rescue when Apple sues you for abusing a touch screen patent, or NTP sues you because you use the wrong chip in you phone.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[mlts]

And RedHat doesn't have legal representation? I'm sure if a patent troll started hammering RedHat, other people in the supply chain whose futures are tied to the OS will join the fray, such as IBM.

Personally, I'd worry about other factors such as if the OS and platform are up to the task at hand. This generally is far more important than worrying about patent trolls as the primary reason to choose an application stack.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time, Microsoft was a major player in the smartphone OS market. But when something better came along (Android, iOS), the entire market jumped ship because they could easily do so. They couldn't do that with desktop Windows.

Now Microsoft's foothold in the mobile market is a fucking joke, even with this Windows Phone 7 stuff.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[migla]

So, this license fee can be seen as an insurance policy against such patent claims that could bite the handset maker for a mistake the software writers made.

In other words: "Nice handset you got there, it would be a shame if it burnt down..."

Re:You get what you pay for.

[UnknowingFool]

The cell phone market is much more competitive. In such a market, you have to distinguish yourself from your competitors. While makers have some technical differences, why they like Android is the ability to configure it. MS has gone in the other direction giving makers less flexibility.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's EULA prevents suits against them. No user has ever sued MS despite their cruddy OS costing industry billions each year fighting virii, trojans and malware. Let's stop the silly myth PHBs chose MS because they think they can sue them. The reality is simpler. MS court the execs that make the final call.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[obarthelemy]

the main reason big business loves MS is lack of choice. Business loves having no choice, ie no risk. My brother works in IT for a very large firm, and was recently on a kinda tricky remoting/virtualization project. His main wish ? that "MS had decimated the market, so that I wouldn't have to choose something".

big business would not sue MS, their lawyers know it''s a lost cause. they may sue their consultants (including MS if MS is doing the consulting), but not the hardware/software suppliers.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Zero__Kelvin]

"One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue. "

That cannot possibly be one of the reasons, since your claim is ridiculous and untrue. The bigger businesses that tolerate Microsoft do so because they recognize that they have long since fallen victim to lock-in, and even they are trying their best to make the transition. Smaller businesses like Microsoft, but only because they think their only other choice is Apple. I doubt you can show me a business that is not run by complete morons where they love Microsoft. Many, Many, Many big businesses far prefer Linux to Windows, and any claim to the contrary is a bald faced lie.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Dan667]

which ones are making money using the microsoft mobile os? Interesting people are trying to deflect the discussion.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[jank1887]

according to wikipedia, that myth didn't begin until 2000.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[SuseLover]

Big business not interested in Linux??

At my current employer (and my previous employer), Linux servers now outnumber Windows systems and is growing at MS expense. Things couldn't be running smoother.

I'd say there's plenty of interest, we're just waiting for more apps available to the platform.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Sinisterduck66]

MS court the execs that make the final call.

Much like Cisco and all other big players. Its just the way of the world. Fight for change if you want I wish anyone who does so luck.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[digitig]

I bet most of them are using some open-source, too.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[woboyle]

And they could give their bottom lines a nice boost if they just stopped paying the Microsoft Tax and went with open source software. Just moving to OOo would add at least a couple hundred USD per year per workstation to the bottom line.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[DrXym]

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue. What Microsoft is offering here is a classic part of their business plan... if somebody comes up with a submarine patent they'll take the legal pain so their customers don't have to.

Are you saying Google, HP, Nokia or Apple who all have their own phone operating systems don't have deep pockets? In two cases the Linux kernel is powering the OS and in another it's a BSD variant.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares if you have great insurance if you are hamstung with terrible software from microsoft that does not allow your business to make any money?

The ultimate investment strategy from /. experts: buy stock only in those companies which run Linux!

Don't forget to get back to us in 2-3 years to tell the story of your success.

A Linux portfolio would be nearly indistinguishable from a generic tech portfolio. Snarkiness aside, you should do reasonably well in the market with a spread of competent tech companies over the next 3 years.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Dragonslicer]

I haven't seen any patent lawsuits in recent memory for smartphone software.

Less than a year is beyond recent memory? Apple v. HTC

Re:You get what you pay for.

[shutdown -p now]

A Linux portfolio would be nearly indistinguishable from a generic tech portfolio

The way GGP put it, any company that uses Windows in any capacity whatsoever is already suspect. So we aren't just talking about buying into "companies that use Linux somewhere" here (heck, under that rule, you'd end up buying MSFT!), but rather "companies which use Linux exclusively".

Re:You get what you pay for.

[TheCRAIGGERS]

I guess I thought that whole lawsuit was mostly about the hardware of capacitive touchscreens- I didn't realize there were like 13 patents listed in the lawsuit.

And while many were hardware patents, you are right in that some were entirely software.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just moving to OOo would add at least a couple hundred USD per year per workstation to the bottom line.

Where did you get that number? For a corporate licensed install of MS Office you don't pay anywhere NEAR a couple of hundred US dollars per year. Of course, since we run our entire business (it seems like) on Excel apps and macros, we could spend millions of dollars getting everything converted to OO and then paying some more people to write actual apps for the things that Excel does that OO doesn't do. All in all not so much the bargain that people who use OO at home would make it out to be.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[BlueStraggler]

Like Google? Amazon? Or every other successful company of the last 10-15 years?

Or did you mean companies that *sell* Linux, which obviously you should not expect killer profits from.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[arivanov]

Exactly.

There has not been a single case when someone has successfully sued Microsoft for "something going wrong". I have not heard of a single case of it settling either.

That is not the reason businesses like Microsoft. Microsoft is extremely good at catering to Joe Average Middle Manager needs. It may be a resource hog, it may be unstable, it may be utterly non-scalable, but it is what the middle management needs and wants. From there on, it does not matter what the top brass want or what the grunts want. There is no way to turn a company around to want something different from powerpoint, microsoft word and most importantly excel and project.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

...if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue.

Very funny. If my company sued successfully Microsoft everytime some crap happened with one of their products, it would be much richer.
I've been trough many problems with Microsoft products, if I get any kind of support from them I consider myself lucky. Not to mention their's months late security patches.

Did anyone here, on Slashdot, sued Microsoft and won when any of their products failed?

Re:You get what you pay for.

[schon]

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue.

Yup, that's why the London Stock Exchange sued MS after the entire fscking exchange went down in flames, right?

Oh, wait - no they didn't. They licked their wounds and switched to Linux.

Methinks your premise is flawed.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they make money despite using MS software.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[h4rr4r]

Says the man who can't even get the shutdown command right and don't tell me it's from AIX cause that would only prove it.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[_Sprocket_]

Remember the lesson of SCO and Darl McBride.... even though the claims had no legal merit, they still were messy enough that it was cheaper to pay the settlement price than fight them and win the case. When faced with such a problem, any sane business man will take the less expensive option even if it's not the one that's good for the world.

Yet oddly enough, the very few businesses who did actually see legal action from SCO did fight and win. And those few cases were less about Linux (despite all the noise in the press) and more about actions of specific companies. SCO vs. IBM was about breach of contract and didn't even touch on Linux until much later in the course of the case. SCO vs. Autozone was about alleged re-use of specific SCO libraries when migrating applications to Linux. SCO vs DaimlerChrysler was about Chrysler's a stipulation in the Unix source license they took out from AT&T decades previously that SCO tried to invoke. Indemnification from Microsoft would not have covered any of these lawsuits.

The real lesson here is being careful who you do business with. SCO's lawsuits were against former customers. Meanwhile, Microsoft helped make SCO's foray possible. If we're going to use SCO as a FUD case against Linux solutions, then it stands as an equally valid FUD case against Microsoft solutions.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[poetmatt]

eh, I hate to agree with this, but it's pretty true.

MS is known for buying out an issue if necessary, and that includes lawsuits. I mean how many people were originally parties to the samba case, and how many were bought out? All but 1. It's not the first time, either.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[migla]

So what has that got anything to do with anything?

Some percentage of people making money wear pants from Schleissburger. Or whatever.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[dbcad7]

You say that as if using the software = making money, and therefore MS deserves a cut.. Autodesk is perhaps one of the worst offenders of this frame of mind.. People use pens and phones and other tools to conduct business. They are just tools.. The tools don't make you money.. the people who use the tools make you money.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[LostCluster]

Many people don't write a separate check for the insurance, they pay into an escrow account with their loan holder that pays for the insurance, taxes, and other required homeowner expenses. If you can't pay the insurance or taxes, you're already in default of your mortgage.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[AK Marc]

People bought irrelevant licenses from SCO (not a settlement, but that's obviously what he meant). And trolls win more than they lose. They may lose in court, but only because the people sure to win take it that far, everyone else settles. A settlement is a win, and the vast majority of patent trolls get to settle rather than have a judgment.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Zak3056]

Where did you get that number? For a corporate licensed install of MS Office you don't pay anywhere NEAR a couple of hundred US dollars per year.

If you're a shop with > 1000 workstations, and you have an enterprise agreement (which offers Office Enterprise + Software Assurance), "a couple of hundred bucks per year" sounds just about right--and I am just talking the office suite.

FWIW, I do agree with your point that it is foolish to spend a whole lot of money in the interest of saving less money--but this is a calculation that every business has to do for themselves... not everyone is built around 10,000 excel/VBA "applications."

Re:You get what you pay for.

[shutdown -p now]

Educate yourself.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[LostCluster]

You misread. Red Hat is a business built around giving the Microsoft-like treatment to Linux. They'll train, support, and give you somebody to complain to when it's not working.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[seeks2know]

Probably 90% of corporations out there making money are using Microsoft software.

And 90% of corporations out there making money have servers running Linux. What's your point?

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue.

This has to be a reason why business is horrible, because they're run by boneheads. I'm not saying Linux is necessarily the best choice, but people using that reasoning to justify making a certain choice must have forgotten that those deep pockets can also pay for defense too. Also, software licenses usually disclaim any liability for anything, so unless you can somehow invalidate that disclaimer, the lawsuit would be pointless.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[rawler]

I know one. Specialising in supporting Sharepoint. It's shamelessly profitable business.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[h4rr4r]

Oh I forgot about the 3 bsd servers out there. The OS is great but stuff like that proves why it still is not catching on.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

In other news, "pop star" Lilly Allen is suing Apple because her MacBook was hacked.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[numbski]

That's fine - I'll tell you what I've told everyone else.

If you want to put a Windows server into a production in my data center, here's your liability waiver paperwork. If that server goes down, is hacked, virus infected, etc, etc, etc - it's not my responsibility. If you want reliability, you don't use Windows. If you want someone to sue if something goes wrong, you use Windows.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[I_Wrote_This]

I hope you're not attributing effect to cause there. For a start, it's very difficult to buy PC hardware without a Microsoft OS already on it, since MS is free to bribe hardware suppliers. Many of that 90% of corporations will also be using MacOS X, Solaris, Linux as well.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know much about corporations do you.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[sjames]

But of course, the moment the bean counters at MS figure out that they come out a nickle to the better, they will drop kick you directly into the shark tank without a second thought.

Re:You get what you pay for.

[alfielee]

This sounds great but if you have the choice of using an OS for nothing on your phone & it has been proven to work versus one which is not guaranteed by the company (M$) & costs you money, then why would you join. M$, the mother of all useless things...

finally!

[asiansteev]

without concern for infringing on intellectual properties, i can finally create that simpsons soundboard app.

Re:finally!

[LostCluster]

Sorry. The protection is against mistakes Microsoft makes, not your own legal stupidity.

Re:finally!

[Comboman]

Doh!

MOTHERFUCKER!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T again? After my cell contract is up, I'm done with cellphones.

This is nothing new

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Microsoft has never not charged a license fee. It's pretty steep too.

But they keep pushing this indemnification clause as if it provides some kind of true advantage. It does not. First, it only covers the technology in the OS which MS would necessarily have to protect itself from anyway. Second, if a handset maker were to get sued and lose, they would in turn sue MS for damages. And finally, no one has successfully sued a handset maker for infringed patents in operating systems like Linux.

What this tells me is that they haven't changed their selling strategy one bit, and they haven't got the slightest idea how to change it. Whoever is in charge of their mobile division needs to be replaced. They have a technology that is late to the game and a selling strategy that is worthless to anyone with any experience with other operating systems.

Re:This is nothing new

[UnknowingFool]

MS is trying to go after their true competitor in the space which is Android. While everyone talks about Apple being their biggest threat, it's really Android because Microsoft's partners and former partners might choose a free and configurable OS over their licensed and increasingly restrictive one. Also considering how MS has screwed over their partners in recent years, some of them might be wary to stay in a partnership with MS. If more and more partners abandon the Windows Mobile framework, there isn't a lot that MS can do except develop their own hardware. Considering their recent history with hardware design, that can't look good. The only success in MS recent history (Xbox, Zune, Kin) has been Xbox but also at the same time it has been unprofitable.

Re:This is nothing new

[blind biker]

Microsoft has never not charged a license fee.

Almost true, but not completely: when Bill G. asked from Jack Tramiel (of Commodore), for a per-unit royalty fee, he was told to get bent (not necessarily with those words). A few days later Bill G accepted the lump sum and that was that.

Re:This is nothing new

[Sir_Sri]

For of it's faults the MS does a decent job of providing the tools to make a platform anyone can write for, linux does too, and in the mobile space that's going to become more an more an issue. Too much porn on phones and someone is going to step in to regulate business (and apple has done a good job trying to keep under the radar here) but eventually the restrictive nature of apples store should be trumped by a more open Windows/Android set of stores. Those two can compete on who makes the better tools, hardware, UI etc. But I don't see Apple as a long term competitor to MS in the phone business if MS plays it's cards right. Ultimately it's the same problem as the PC world, for all it's faults MS doesn't care if you use a $7000 or $700 computer, it tries to give developers as much access to the hardware as it can either way, and users (and developers) can manage their own application specific requirements. If I really want a smartphone that doesn't have a camera, MS (and android) will have operating systems for one, but apple doesn't. If I want to spend 7000 bucks on a cell phone that has internals worth that much, apple won't sell it to me, but MS and Google will, and that gives them, IMO a much better market in future as people stratify much more on what they want.

The Nokida Vertu series is sort of along those lines, but a bit too much diamond encrusting and not enough dual socket dual core internals sort of product for my taste.

Re:This is nothing new

[canajin56]

And finally, no one has successfully sued a handset maker for infringed patents in operating systems like Linux.

If you read TFA, Microsoft has been threatening Android makers, saying Android, being Linux, violates Microsoft patents, and telling them they need to buy licenses to MS patents or their customers will be sued. HTC has already folded for an undisclosed retroactive royalty on all of their Android phones. Verizon forces users to use Bing by forcefully blocking Google and Yahoo on their Samsung Android phones, so they might have taken matters into their own hands after Samsung refused to pay MS protection money. Microsoft, by talking up their indemnity, is making a not so subtle threat "You are safe with us. If you make an Android phone, we WILL sue your customers individually, not just you. You will be ruined".

Re:This is nothing new

[Trelane]

there isn't a lot that MS can do except develop their own hardware.

And extort patent protection money from Android vendors, e.g. HTC.http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/microsoft-says-android-infringes-on-its-patents-licenses-htc/

Indemnification already offered on Linux

[PlanetX 00]

A quick search revealed that at least one embedded Linux vendor offers this too without per-phone royalties:

"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."

Just more FUD IMHO

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux

[LostCluster]

In Microsoft's bank accounts we trust.... and just who is MontaVista?

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Montavista tools are also extremely expensive and restrictive, well beyond what MS licenses cost. As sales volume increases, this gap may invert, though.

So the decision is between low startup costs but high fixed costs or high startup costs and no fixed costs. For a low volume manufacturer, the MS license really isn't that bad.

Of course, we're no longer talking about Windows Mobile. Montavista's software is equivalent to WinCE.

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux

[Dancindan84]

I'm sure there were people who said the same thing about investing with big banks rather than smaller credit unions a couple years ago...

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux

[MikeBabcock]

If you believe Microsoft doesn't have a backdoor in that protection clause, you haven't seen them in court.

Microsoft isn't going to stand up for you or me or anyone else. They'll drop you like they dropped the PlaysForSure suckers.

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux

[Grond]

"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."

You're comparing apples and oranges. As best I can tell, MontaVista's indemnification only extends as far as GPL disputes in which MontaVista is at fault, not software patent claims or even GPL disputes in which an upstream contributor screwed up. From this page:

Legal risk - reduces legal risk by providing indemnification from open source licensing issues
...
Reduce legal risk - MontaVista indemnifies all active subscribers. This means that in the case of a GPL dispute where MontaVista is at fault, then MontaVista and not the MontaVista licensee, will bear the legal and financial burden.

Microsoft is offering a lot more than MontaVista. GPL disputes are rare; patent suits or the threat thereof are comparatively common (~3000 suits per year, although only a fraction of those are software-related).

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. I guess there IS a sucker born every minute.

in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Dan667]

and charging a fee is grasping at a branch on the way down.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[LostCluster]

Yep. That damn Windows desktop license fee will surely lead to Linux on the desktop right about... uh, okay, give it time.. uh, keep waiting. It'll finally be this year..... uhm.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Dan667]

maybe you missed the part that this is about microsoft moble os.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[AvitarX]

Considering android with Google is not free I doubt it's an issue.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[drodal]

yeah, right, have you noticed that apple computer (they make mobile devices, don't they) has passed Microsoft in both Stock value and Gross revenues.....

So you're right, it was this year.....

you probably bought a zune, didn't you.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[alen]

almost every iPhone and Android device sold you pay the Microsoft tax. it's called activesync. just like the old DOS days

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Eponymous Coward]

Not really a fair comparison. You are comparing a hardware company with a software company.

Maybe combine MSFT + DELL and compare that with Apple.

Microsoft charging a license fee for their new mobile OS is actually a bit surprising to me. I was actually expecting them to subside handset makers who chose their OS.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[icegreentea]

You are aware that Android also "kinda" has a licensing fee? The Google app stack (including the Marketplace) is only accessible if you pay Google and extend a branch for them as they keep fall- wait, what?

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Missing.Matter]

[quote]apple computer ... has passed Microsoft in ... Gross revenues[quote]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Q3 2010 income statements, where Apple posted 6B on 15.7B revenue, and Microsoft posted 12B on 16.0B revenue. So for every dollar Apple makes Microsoft makes about 2.

Let's talk about yearly earnings. Let's be generous and say Apple makes 10B profit this quarter. That still only brings their yearly profit to a little over half Microsoft's.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[schlachter]

huh? MS makes a product, charges for it, and people are up in arms? Are you all crazy? It's just good business. Get over it. If you prefer a free solution like Android, fine, but don't bemoan a company trying to recoup a huge investment in software development, etc. and make a business out of it.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. M$ Mobile market share == Linux desktop market share.

Except Linux is going up...

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Anonymous Coward]

> don't bemoan a company trying to recoup a huge investment in software development

Dude, this is capitalism, not socialism.

You invest, you may gain or lose. Depends on the product/software. Theirs was bad and they lost. There's no recouping.

If they can't sell and others can, maybe it's time to seek new opportunities like in good ol' entrepreneurship.

What next? Dachas for company presidents?

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[cj_nologic]

Not really a fair comparison. You are comparing a hardware company with a software company.

Apple are not a hardware company. I believe they write some software, but apart from that they buy hardware from partners in the far east and concentrate on brand development.

Oh, yes - they did venture into antenna development recently. Look how good they were at that.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war

[Eponymous Coward]

Dell also buys hardware from partners in the far east.

AT&T exclusive?

[Nadaka]

Great. Now I don't even have to consider Windows Phone 7 based on its merits against android devices.

AT&T is crap, and they already have IPhone locked in.

Who in their right mind at Microsoft thinks this is a good idea?

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's part of their brilliant marketing strategy based on the idea that as Apple have been succesful, that therefore if they just do their best to copy Apple then they must be succesful too. It's a bit pathetic really.

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[confused one]

I'm confused by this as well... So the release is initially with GSM radios and one of their manufacturer's is HTC. Why not include T-Mobile in the release?

Message to Microsoft: I feel left out. I was looking forward to the release, to update my ageing WM 6.1 phone and maybe try porting some of my code. If you think I'll change network, to AT&T, just to buy that Windows Phone 7 device, you've lost your mind.

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[whoop]

Now we see why AT&T was making a Google-unbranded Android phone. They had the bright idea to not just make Bing (or was it Yahoo?) the default search engine, but then to lock any way to change it as well. Double-fun!

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, if i could tolerate AT&T I already would have bought an iphone!

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[AK Marc]

It wasn't MS's choice. They wanted more, and the others didn't care enough to come to the plate. Maybe they are waiting until service pack 2. MS didn't give AT&T exclusivity. No one else wanted the initial release, so only AT&T has it, not because they paid them lots of money like they did with Apple.

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[cbhacking]

I'll ask around, but nothing I've heard from anybody at MS or on other techsites (until I saw this just now) suggests that T-Mobile *won't* be a launch partner. In fact, I was under the very distinct impression they would be, given how much they're partnering with MS elsewhere.

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

You imply someone at Microsoft is in there right mind..........

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[mojomarc]

My understanding from press reports is that you're correct--it is GSM only. That means T-Mobile can be in on the launch party, and if the rumors are true they will be with the HD7. http://www.intomobile.com/2010/09/23/htc-hd7-specs-windows-phone-7-t-mobile/

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[confused one]

'twas in response the the WSJ article which said

Microsoft will receive the marketing support of AT&T, which will be the initial exclusive U.S. carrier to sell the Windows Phone 7 smartphones.

I assume T-Mobile will likely come later, as will Verizon once they release the CDMA radio version. Someone else did post a link to the T-Mobile / HTC HD7 phone spec, which looks good. I question the exclusivity though, even if short term. You think they'd have learned something listening to all the complaints from the iPhone crowd -- or perhaps Microsoft is stupid enough to say "If it's good enough for Apple, then it's good enough for us." while ignoring the facts that (1) lots of people jailbreak the iPhone just to use it on T-Mobile's network and (2)Apple is about to release the CDMA version of the iPhone on Verizon's network.

I find it annoying.

Re:AT&T exclusive?

[confused one]

Thanks for that. Looks like what I want. It is re-assuring to know the platform won't be exclusive to the Death Star network (or if it is, only for a few weeks).

So when somone with a valid patent...

[John Hasler]

...demands $1000 per phone and a Federal judge says she will start issuing permanent injunctions in 30 days Microsoft will pay?

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

They will first get a stay from the superior court if that is not possible, they will buy the company or the Judge. Or the US Govt. will invalidate that Patent for MS. So you think some crap company can easily dictate what ever the price they want and established company will sit around and let it happen. It is in best interest for the company to negotiate and make a deal and get whatever they could. The great EUs and USAs couldn't do anything for MS's blatant illegal practices.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

What it means is that Microsoft will fight the legal battle for the OEM, and if the code is found to be infringing MS will replace that code to remove the patent dependency.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[John Hasler]

...if the code is found to be infringing MS will replace that code to remove the patent dependency.

Patents don't apply to code. They apply to inventions. They'd have to remove the functionality.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[AusIV]

That was my thought. Microsoft can't very well indemnify against injunctive relief. If Windows mobile violates a patent, and the patent owner is granted an injunction, the manufacturers would still find themselves unable to ship phones with the OS.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[Nikker]

If a company the size of MS is going to pull a move like this they will already have their bases covered. A major part of their business is not only writing software but filing and buying patents, this is the reason MS hasn't had lawsuits against them for their OS's. If a patent troll had anything on them they would be all over them as we speak cause I can guarantee they would be able to get more out of them then RIM and all the other combined could pony up. Companies that size look at patents the same way most look at sports cards they know which ones are valuable and which ones will be valuable in time, the only thing they think about is what will you accept in trade or is their anything they can use to make you give it up. I predict to back up the value of their claim you will start to see lawsuit after lawsuit as frivolous as it may seem pop up in the near future against everyone and anyone with anything that resembles a mobile phone right down to the classic cans and string. You heard it here first people.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[jank1887]

yeah, remember that 'click to activate this control' crap? thats the type of fix you'll pay for.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent...

[BadAnalogyGuy]

In other words, they would replace the code so that it would not have a dependency on the patent. Which is what I said.

A leopard never changes its spots

[UnknowingFool]

First MS hints that Linux infringes on patents.. Then it says it loves Open Source. Now it levels a thinly veiled patent threat against open source Android. Translation: MS loves open source as long as it doesn't compete with them. All we are missing is the horse's head.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[Penguinisto]

Patent threats (no matter how subtle) are pretty much all they have left. They've already indicated that their product won't be able to compete on merit. Sure, they've got gimmicks and branding (Zune and XBox), but there's nothing backing those up anytime soon (Zune is just a fancy name for media player, and I sincerely doubt that XBox Live has nearly as many playable-on-the-phone games as Android and iPhone has at this time).

Long story short, Microsoft is in the hole insofar as mobile goes, it's their own damned fault (they've had at least 7 frickin' years of lead time), and they're desperately casting about for anything and everything to remain relevant.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[jpmorgan]

You're misplacing your anger. Microsoft's not the one that sued HTC for patent infringement over Android.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[UnknowingFool]

Apple has sued 1 maker. That's one. Looking at the patents, I don't think they have much of a case but that's for a court to decide. MS on the other hand is thinly threatening all makers especially those that use both Windows and Android. "If you don't stay with us, *ahem*, there might be patent issues later." Which is worse in your opinion, suing someone for what you've think they've done or threatening to sue someone because they won't use your products anymore?

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[Anonymous Coward]

So in your world form > function.

The appearence of being "evil" (threatening) is far worse than acutally *being* evil...and suing.

Perception trumps Reality.

Yeah...you're an Apple user alright. The RDF is fully engaged.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[Richard_at_work]

People need to stop thinking that 'loving Open Source' *always* has to equate with 'take whatever you need, whats mine is yours'.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[straponego]

No, they're the one that sued Motorola for patent infringement over Android.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots

[jpmorgan]

I'll point out that I made that original comment before the announcement.

Eheh, so how often has this happened?

[SmallFurryCreature]

This argument keeps coming up. That somehow, when you pay MS for their "software" you get Bill Gates at your beg and call, ready to deliver an emergency patch at your request.

For normal business, this is far from the case. MS doesn't even know you exist, HP or Dell is your point of contact. You would have to buy MS software worth millions of dollars to get them to notice you and even then, support is far from snappy. With open source I have had routine contact with the lead developers over the years.

And as for sane business men just buying off SCO and the like. Eh, no. That is exactly what did NOT happen. A hint to this might have been that SCO went bankrupt. There were a handful of payoffs and they could all be traced back to MS backing. And even that wasn't enough.

A SANE business man knows that if you start paying of left and right you will soon be out of business.

In fact a sane business man will look at this license and stay the FUCK away from it unless he was paying payed to get close to it. Why? Because apparantly, MS is willing to SUE people who it thinks don't pay it enough. So if next year you decide to dumb MS as your tech partner, will they then turn around and sue?

Go ahead, come into my house. I promise you that if you come into my house, I won't kill you... why are you running away?

Re:Eheh, so how often has this happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

"beck and call"

On the desktop, perhaps

[Rix]

Maybe a few hobbling along on their anaemic server products.

No one takes their smartphone OS seriously.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe a few hobbling along on their anaemic server products.

This might be the dumbest thing anyone has ever said.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

In what ways in Server 2008 R2 "anaemic"?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[gstoddart]

No one takes their smartphone OS seriously.

I do. I seriously would never buy a phone with a Microsoft OS on it. Because I have a great, irrational fear (based on almost 20 years of Microsoft products) of something going horribly wrong or generally not being what I'd hoped.

For the same reason that I cringe when I see Ford commercials touting a Window experience in my car.

They have gotten better over the years, but there are certain kinds of consumer devices I'd rather not leave to Microsoft just yet.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[adonoman]

There's an almost complete lack of hemoglobin in it.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[obarthelemy]

I partly agree. I have an HD2, which uses WinMob 6.5. It's by no means perfect, but way more open than anything Apple (imagine ! drag-and-drop music/movies upload from any PC ! No need to use one specific media player/manager !), is reasonably stable and has the handful of apps I need (browser, media, ereader, RSS).

Winphone7 actually looks worse than 6.5, with Jobsian levels of user lockout and playpenning, and certainly Microsoftian levels of ergonomy and reliability. Talk about best of both worlds...

My bet is MS is once again shooting themselves in the foot by aping Apple instead of going after another market, namely users who actually want a hint of freedom, even at the cost of a smidgen of complexity.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[jank1887]

almost?!?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Nadaka]

It is windows, the occasional virgin sacrifice is required to keep the system uptime at 5 nines.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Rix]

How do you configure it, using the command line only?

Yes, you *can* use it as a server, but it's a huge pain in the ass.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[adonoman]

At least the last computer I assembled has a bit, thanks to an excessively sharp case edge.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[adonoman]

Using Powershell. Windows 2008 Server Core barely even has a GUI - it's all command line and remote management.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[TheLink]

No wonder so many virgin slashdotters choose Linux...

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[treeves]

My complaint with WinMo 6.5 is with the UI. You seem to have to use a stylus to do a lot of things.
I would have gone with an Android smartphone, but I have to use Lotus Notes (another choice I would not make myself) for email, and so far Lotus Notes doesn't work with Android.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Nadaka]

There is more than one way to sacrifice a virgin.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[djp928]

Why do you need to configure it using the command line only?

That sounds to me like showing someone a car with an automatic transmission, then having them ask "Nice. But how do you shift from third to fourth?"

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[randallman]

In the same ways Windows generally is lame compared to Linux/Unix. No forking. Spawning processes is slow. CLI is an afterthought because the default CLI sucks and Power Shell doesn't offer much over a Perl install. Remote access is very anemic compared to SSH (no tunneling, it uses SOAP, ..) and what's the point of a remote shell if the shell sucks.

I've learned that the ability to script anything and everything on a server and to be able to do it from anywhere should be essential for an administrator. I say should be because after you've done it for a while, the Windows way feels so, what's the word ... oh yea, anemic, yet Microsoft has serious "not invented here" syndrome and doesn't include this ability by default and the installable options don't compare to those on a base Linux/UNIX install.

And even if you can point at Unix tools for Windows to enable awk, sed, grep or install perl and bash or ssh whatever, it's not the "Windows Way" and the way that nearly all Windows admins run Windows servers. As I'm writing this, I'm frustrated with a Windows admin because they can't write a script to watch a Tomcat log for errors and email the log entry. You know, something simple like grep ERROR logfile | mail -s "to_address".

So yes, Windows Server is anemic.

--Randall

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[h4rr4r]

For the same reason your wrong about the automatic.

With a server people don't need extra crap that stands in the way of real control.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Rix]

Automatic transmissions are inefficient and require more maintenance than standard transmissions.

Much like graphical interfaces.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[do0b]

Using Subsystems for Unix Applications gets you a nice csh and ksh combo with vi, grep and an outdated gcc.
It feels weird to edit files in /dev/fs/c/windows/ but it's doable.
You can compile the necessary stuff to do grep ERROR logfile | mail -s "to_address" in a few minutes.
SUA
(Why yes, I hate myself a little for this comment)

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Richard_at_work]

Good for you. For those of us that know what we are doing, we can admin a Windows Server system without ever seeing its desktop.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Tsar]

You must be new here.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[AK Marc]

But what does "anemic" mean? That Windows servers don't have much iron in them? It sounds like you are picking a line of related features and targeting them as a weak point. But if you are spending that much time remotely administering your servers, you are incompetent. So, you are apparently arguing from the perspective of an incompetent administrator. If you assume a competent administrator who wants the server to actually do something, rather than sit there being remotely administered 24/7, how does it do? Not that I'm arguing you are wrong or right, but that you didn't address server performance at all, and I still have no idea what "anemic" means in this sense. Given the same hardware it's "harder" to administer. That's unrelated to the actual performance. Install VNC to control the GUI on a Linux and Windows server and who's faster? I'm not implying that Windows is, but I'm arguing that if you are attacking one, at least be fair about it. There are enough valid reasons to dislike Windows or Microsoft that making up reasons isn't necessary and just further convinces people that Windows is just fine and it's a fringe of nutters that have a problem with it.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[hairyfeet]

So in other words the CLI gives you mystical gonad powers? It would be a different story if you'd said, ohhh, the data we are processing needs every scrap of power we can throw at it so I don't want the overhead, or we want this thing pulling absolute least watts when not in use so we don't want a GUI using the GPU, but when you trot out that "real control" BS with nothing to back it up? smells a little like BS from here.

As for TFA? MSFT standing between your company and patent trolls ain't cheap, and with all the lawsuits and trolls I'd feel safer letting MSFT take the bullet over my company. FOSS is great if you are just gonna use it internally, but if some SCO style patent troll comes after you is the FSF gonna pay your lawyer fees? While personally I'd prefer software patents to go the way of the 8-track, as long as they exist you are gonna have to worry about getting hit by one. With these court cases taking damn near a decade, as another said its like insurance. How many corps other than the big boys like Google, MSFT, and Apple, can afford to pay top notch lawyers for a decade, maybe more counting appeals?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

You could start with not being able to apply patches without taking it down.

The obvious follow up is the need for most of them to be rebooted at least weekly or more often if there is a lot of change to DS. We won't even talk about exchange.

There is also the complete nightmare of DS and replication, who builds a server OS where the default is that any machine can become the master?

Now for the obligatory get off my lawn story,
I have a novell server and shadow at a client site that I built in 1994 that is still supporting a single mission critical legacy application with no maintenance other than hot-swapping out the drives a few times, (mirrored, replace one re-mirror it then when that's done replace and re-mirror the other) The only time the shadow server has ever been activated is when testing the failover plan, which it does flawlessly, the users never even know and it text messages all the admins and myself both when it promotes and demotes, ya it does all that by itself, data sync included.

According to my logs the last time it was rebooted was in 2005 due to a power failure that lasted longer than the UPS. The system shut itself down gracefully and restarted without intervention when power was restored.

The windows servers next to it needed all of directory services rebuilt and the corrected copy manually propagated because a corrupted copy became the master copy.

I know that most of you grew up with MS servers and yes, 2008 IS better than it's previous versions.
HOWEVER just because the shit is now wrapped in a crispy deep fried egg-roll skin, that dosen't make it better than a real egg-roll.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

You show me someone that claims 5 9's out of an MS server and I'll show you a liar.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[lowlymarine]

Manual transmissions are more difficult to use and require more attention be paid to them, leading to more accidents. Much like command-line interfaces. This goes both ways. Use whatever works better for YOUR needs and stop pointlessly bickering over it.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

Most of that reduces down to "I don't know the tools, I am not going to learn to use the tools but I am going to blame the vendor for my own lack of knowledge"

You say the shell "sucks" yet do not tell us why that is.  Simply saying It isn't Bash is simply not a good reason.

Get-Content \\SAMPLE\LOGS\sample.log -wait | where {$_ -match "test"} |
foreach {
    Send-MailMessage -SmtpServer server -From user@example.org -To
admin@example.net  -Subject "Test Found"

}

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[ffreeloader]

This is a ridiculous claim. Anyone who drives a manual shift transmission for any amount of time shifts by feel. It's an automatic response that happens without thinking, and as such is not a distraction of any kind. The only people who would claim it is a distraction are those who have never driven them and are lost getting into a vehicle with a standard transmission.

The same goes for command line usage. Once you know how to use it, it's a more powerful, more flexible, faster, and more efficient way to get things done. Using the text based tools in Linux becomes habitual and easy over time, and you get more work done in a shorter amount of time.

A case in point. I worked for a guy that just hated text-based tools. He had a project on which he had spent parts of 2 days getting about 1/2 the job done using gui-based tools. I told him to email me the files and finished the job in 30 minutes using sed.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[cj_nologic]

But what does "anemic" mean? That Windows servers don't have much iron in them? It sounds like you are picking a line of related features and targeting them as a weak point. But if you are spending that much time remotely administering your servers, you are incompetent.

I agree anemic is a poor choice of word in this context. Inflexible might be better. However, calling someone incompetent because they would prefer to be emailed when an error appears in a log file than have to open the log file and look at it periodically, or whatever the alternative is on windows, is just rude.

For that matter, is there even an alternative such as "tail -f" or less with shift-F on windows?

So, you are apparently arguing from the perspective of an incompetent administrator. If you assume a competent administrator who wants the server to actually do something, rather than sit there being remotely administered 24/7, how does it do? Not that I'm arguing you are wrong or right, but that you didn't address server performance at all, and I still have no idea what "anemic" means in this sense. Given the same hardware it's "harder" to administer. That's unrelated to the actual performance. Install VNC to control the GUI on a Linux and Windows server and who's faster?

Again, here windows is inflexible. You *must* use the GUI, therefore you must be near a terminal with a large enough screen and fast enough network connection to draw those extraneous pixels. However, with a Linux box, that transient error appearing in my log file can be emailed to my smartphone while I'm watching my kid play football, and I can ssh onto the server from the phone and check whatever I need to check. If I happen to be at my desk, I can use VNC. My choice.

I'm not implying that Windows is, but I'm arguing that if you are attacking one, at least be fair about it. There are enough valid reasons to dislike Windows or Microsoft that making up reasons isn't necessary and just further convinces people that Windows is just fine and it's a fringe of nutters that have a problem with it.

Windows is fine as long as everything is working. However when something does break there are very few diagnostic facilities built in, and no remote management capability to speak of.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[don.g]

Preach it, brother!

Trying to automate things on Windows Server consumes a large part of my time at work. Some of the managment stuff is kind of nice but all of it is complicated, fragile and inconsistent. For example: you can view BUT NOT CHANGE the IIS configuration via the WMI API. A lot of stuff can be changed via WMI, though, so I spent a good few hours trying to use it before giving up and spawning the IIS command line tools to change configuration.

And don't get me started about Visual Studio; I had to develop a large chunk of ruby code to fix up VS projects so that Microsoft's command line tools will build what their own IDE created.

The Unix/Linux way is great: everything is in text files and everything is a process/file. The Windows way means everything has one of several APIs you have to learn, and even then it might not work right. No wonder most people just use the GUI while yearning for some way to automate what they're doing after going through the same set of steps on the 5th out of 20 servers.

Powershell is OK but lives in that awkward space where it's not a real programming language, but still has too many shell-isms. Somewhere between bash and perl with a neat way of piping objects around and a whole lot of inconsistencies to make things confusing.

(oh, yeah: "automate stuff" is a large part of my job description)

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[IshmaelDS]

If that happened due to a simple power outage then the server wasn't built right. I have 10 servers running a variety of MS Server os's. 2K-2K8, We have really crappy power here and have outages that outlast our UPS's all the time. I have never had to rebuild anything when my servers power down, they all power gracefully off and then back on.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[djp928]

What's magic about a command line that gives you super powers, anyway? Maybe it's just what you're used to?

Anyhow, Windows has a command line interface. What's the problem?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[minister of funk]

I think they meant, "Nein Nein Nein Nein Nein!"

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[h4rr4r]

Try using it and see.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[h4rr4r]

MSFT will not stand up to them for you. Look around read what they have done.

The reality is the more software you are running the more places vulnerabilities could be, not having X is one less place. By real control I meant editing files yourself instead using a wizard or the rest of the magical fucking kingdom.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

I answered your question 15 or so minutes before you posted that http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1805678&cid=33765860 Again you do not have to use a GUI just because you aren't up to date on Windows Server doesn't mean it hasn't improved. Same goes for your statements about diags and remote mgmt.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[porl]

it looks like there is a beta version of IBM's 'Lotus Notes Traveler' for Android. Have you had a look at that? Apparently the final version is due out this year.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

find "error" C:\path\to\file.log >> results.txt
if %errorlevel% = 1 goto END
copy headers.txt email.txt
type results.txt >> email.txt
move email.txt C:\path\to\mail\drop_folder

:END
del results.txt

--
Save as a .bat and add to scheduled tasks.
Then populate headers.txt and you're good.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[sjames]

Configure enough servers through a GUI rather than scripts and text and you start bleeding from your eyes...

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[randallman]

'Get-Content' is not recognized as an internal or external command ...

You helped make my point. Get-Content is part of Power Shell, which is not part of a default install on Windows Server. Not being included in the default install is a big deal because it means it's not intended to be part of the core system and an admin can't count on it being there when they need it.

Also Power Shell is relatively new compared to other shell languages. That's an important point because it takes time to build a skill set and it's a tremendous help to be able to build on previous knowledge. Who knows if Power Shell skills will be relevant in 5 to 10 years. And the skills are portable only between versions of MS Windows. Someone who learned UNIX fundamentals 10 years ago has a very relevant skill set today applicable to many different systems. Windows admins from 10 years ago when confronted with the Windows today will ask Mondad, I mean Power Shell what? Oh and I have to install it.

The list titled "Mike Gancarz: The UNIX Philosophy" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy pretty much outlines what drew me to Linux/UNIX. These were really good ideas to stand the test of time as they have. Windows doesn't have this level of vision and consistency. If it does, please inform me. Because to me it looks like a mish-mash of technologies that change whenever MS needs some more cash flow.

-Randall

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

"Version 1.0 was released in 2006 for Windows XP SP2/SP3, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista. For Windows Server 2008, it is included as an optional feature. Version 2.0 is integrated with Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 and is released for Windows XP with Service Pack 3, Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 2, Windows Vista with Service Pack 1, and Windows Server 2008.[8]" Then dl / test / install if you have 2k3 or install the optional feature if you have 2k8. 2k8R2 comes with it standard. "Windows doesn't have this level of vision and consistency." Like Linux does? Surely you jest. You keep making these definitive statements that are simply not correct.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[randallman]

Like Linux does? Surely you jest. You keep making these definitive statements that are simply not correct.

I don't mean for things to get heated, but did you not read the UNIX philosophy section of my post? You know, "Make each program do one thing well", "Store data in flat text files" and I think it's missing that everything is a file, which is one of my favorites. So no, I don't "jest". I'm quite serious. And these statements are correct.

-Randall

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

KDE and GNOME would like to have a word with you.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[jimicus]

The big thing the CLI gives you is automation.

With a GUI, if you need to do something complicated that it doesn't already provide a quick, easy way to do, you're generally stuck mindlessly clicking buttons. If you need to do this on a regular basis or you need to do it predictably when something in particular happens, it gets very old very quickly. (Tools like AutoIT help but they can break horribly with minor upgrades and fundamentally, you're trying to add scripting to an interface that was never designed to be scriptable).

With a proper scriptable CLI, you've got all the tools at your disposal to ensure you never find yourself stuck mindlessly clicking buttons.

It's the difference between a flatpack Ikea bookcase and a bunch of planks, screws, table saw, power drill and set of screwdriver bits. Either can build you a bookcase, and the Ikea one's a lot quicker if you've never used the power tools, but it may be totally unsuitable if you need to fit the bookcase in a particular alcove.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[hairyfeet]

What does that have to do with whether the server has a desktop GUI or not? Nobody here is arguing that on a server being able to automate is a must, but I'd argue you have been able to do the same thing for ages with Powershell and before that good old batch files. That doesn't change the fact that if I'm up on the mountain visiting my GF's family and I get a "OMG! Something didn't run OMG!" I can walk someone through launching a script on the desktop. Trying to get them to feed a bunch of commands in Bash and not fuck them up? Not so much.

It doesn't change the fact that MANY here argue that simply having lots of CLI makes things better like it'll make your ePenn grow or something, whereas I'd argue that if you have no choice but to go CLI then the app was written by a shitty coder that doesn't know how to design a proper UI. I have NO problem with having a choice to use CLI it is when that is the ONLY way to get anything done that I have a problem with. I thought FOSS is all about choice, right?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[cj_nologic]

I think you were referring to PowerShell in your other post. PowerShell looks to me like an afterthought to windows to deal with the lack of a shell, not a fundamental cornerstone of the OS.

But you are right, I don't care because I have nothing to do with Windows servers.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

The only way you can say that is if you haven't even looked into what powershell is.

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

In PowerShell, administrative tasks are generally performed by cmdlets (pronounced command-lets), specialized .NET classes implementing a particular operation. Sets of cmdlets may be combined together in scripts, executables (which are standalone applications), or by instantiating regular .NET classes (or WMI/COM Objects).[3][4] These work by accessing data in different data stores, like the filesystem or registry, which are made available to the PowerShell runtime via Windows PowerShell providers.

Windows PowerShell also provides a hosting mechanism with which the Windows PowerShell runtime can be embedded inside other applications. These applications then leverage Windows PowerShell functionality to implement certain operations, including those exposed via the graphical interface. This capability has been utilized by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007[3][5] to expose its management functionality as PowerShell cmdlets and providers and implement the graphical management tools as PowerShell hosts which invoke the necessary cmdlets. Other Microsoft applications including Microsoft SQL Server 2008[6] also expose their management interface via PowerShell cmdlets. With PowerShell, graphical interface-based management applications on Windows are layered on top of Windows PowerShell. In the future all Microsoft applications running on the Windows platform are to be PowerShell aware.

Another concept used by PowerShell is that of a pipeline. Like Unix pipelines, PowerShell pipelines are used to compose complex commands, allowing the output of one command to be passed as input to another. A pipeline is set up by piping the output of one command (or pipeline) to another command, using the | operator. But, unlike its Unix counterpart, the PowerShell pipeline is an object pipeline; that is, the data passed between cmdlets are fully typed objects, rather than character streams. When data is piped as objects, the elements they encapsulate retain their structure and types across cmdlets, without the need for any serialization or explicit parsing of the stream, as would be the need if only character streams were shared. An object can also encapsulate certain functions that work on the contained data. These also become available to the recipient command for use.[13][14] For the last cmdlet in a pipeline, PowerShell automatically pipes its output object to the Out-Default cmdlet, which transforms the objects into a stream of format objects and then renders those to the screen.[15][16]

Because all PowerShell objects are .NET objects, they share a .ToString() method, which retrieves the text representation of the data in an object. Windows PowerShell uses this method to convert an object to text. In addition, it also allows formatting definitions to be specified, so the text representation of objects may be customized by choosing which data elements to display, and how. However, in order to maintain backwards compatibility, if an external executable is used in a pipeline, it receives a text stream representing the object, and does not integrate with the PowerShell type system.

The PowerShell Extended Type System (ETS) is based on the .NET type system, but with extended semantics (e.g. propertySets and 3rd party extensibility) . For example, it enables the creation of different views of objects by exposing only a subset of the data fields, properties, and methods, as well as specifying custom formatting and sorting behavior. These views are mapped to the original object using an XML-based configuration files.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[cj_nologic]

Posting lots and lots of copied text doesn't really help you prove a point, it just makes you look like a dick.

I'll just quote you the bits you missed:

Windows PowerShell is Microsoft's task automation framework, consisting of a command-line shell and associated scripting language ...

So far so good ... only one shell, and one scripting language - but still, I suppose it's better than none, which is what we had 10 years ago when I cared.

... built on top of, and integrated with, the .NET Framework.

Ah - so it is just a bolt-on afterthought.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps

[DAldredge]

Forgive me for actually giving people enough information to reach their own conclusions. But you should know that .NET is a somewhat important part of Windows. I sure miss the old /.

However...

[Junta]

You missed the part where every major WinMo manufacturer of significance already ships more Linux based (Android) phones. If they were that desperate for indemnification, they would have avoided Android completely rather than releasing on both platforms.

Re:However...

[Hope Thelps]

If they were that desperate for indemnification, they would have avoided Android completely rather than releasing on both platforms.

Or just talked to an insurance company. There are people who do this stuff professionally and you're not limited to off the shelf policies.

Many of the companies involved are of a scale to have their own offshore captive insurance companies that'll invest the 'premiums' on their behalf to have a pool to draw on if anything does ever happen, and keep the profits in house if it doesn't.

Subtext

[TheSpoom]

We bet the other mobile OSes violate some of our patents. Our OS is the only way to be sure you're not in violation.

Re:Subtext

[KarmaMB84]

or...
Apple is suing HTC, HTC is suing Apple
Nokia is suing Apple, Apple is suing Nokia
Kodak has sued Apple and RIM
RIM has sued Motorola, Motorola has sued RIM
NTP has sued everyone
Oracle is suing Google


Maybe they're just offering indemnification because the mobile space is overflowing with litigation.

Re:Subtext

[rwven]

Obviously they just feel left out of the fun.

Wow, just wow.

[rsborg]

Android is free, and companies like RIM probably will license for less... so what benefit does Microsoft have in terms of actual technology? Probably little to none.

So they decide they're going to go patent-troll on manufacturers like HTC who produce both WinMo and Android phones, claiming the Android infringes on their IP... notice they didn't do this with any other manufacturer like Motorola, just HTC (who created the Nexus One). Funny that.

I see this working out really well for them (not).

Re:Wow, just wow.

[recoiledsnake]

You've got it bass ackwards. It's Apple that has sued HTC for patent violations and HTC is embroiled in a big suit that they need MS's help to defend. MS is saying that, hey, you won't have that issue with our OS, we'll take care of any software patents.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[KarmaMB84]

They've been in talks with the other Android manufacturers. They filed their ITC complain against Motorola today.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-complaint-against-motorola-over-alleged-andr/

and now, a word from SCOX :

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget your $699 licensing fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!

google charges for android as well

[alen]

the android OS code is free to use, but to put google apps on a phone you have to pay $15 to google. or something close to that. in return google shares advertising revenue from the handsets you license. apparently they can keep track or revenue for each android device.

Is everyone forgetting HTC?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, it got sued by Apple over, and ended up licensing Microsoft patents for, using Android, an OS put out by Google, in some of its phones. Patent trolls are one problem, Apple is something else entirely. I think handset manufacturers would like having Microsoft at their back when (if ever) Apple comes a-knocking.

No Xbox-Live

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no Xbox-Live in Sweden on WP7

Interdepartmental fees?

[Culture20]

I bet the iOS team charges the iPhone team interdepartmentally.

Re:Interdepartmental fees?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Male peacocks are more colorful than their female counterpart."

Just as relevant, twice as informative.

Re:Interdepartmental fees?

[Culture20]

"Male peacocks are more colorful than their female counterpart."
Just as relevant, twice as informative.

From TFS: "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee"
I'd say that talking about mobile phone operating system license fees is more relevant than discussions of plumage.

Windows Phone 7 will be exclusive to AT&T

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

Oh noes! I wanted so bad to enjoy their ultra fast network here in NYC...

Protection

[jIyajbe]

"Give us money, and we'll make sure you don't get sued."

Isn't there a legal phrase for that?

Read between the lines

[Rogerborg]

This is a signal that if WinCE 7 (or whatever) doesn't sell well, they're going to go after Android and iPhone handsets with patent claims. Switch to WinCE 7, or something bad might happen to your platform.

Re:Read between the lines

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah like in this article!!!!

Re:Read between the lines

[newviewmedia.com]

This is a signal that if WinCE 7 (or whatever) doesn't sell well, they're going to go after Android and iPhone handsets with patent claims. Switch to WinCE 7, or something bad might happen to your platform.

...already happening:

Re:Read between the lines

[Rogerborg]

Holy carp, how did I miss that one? I guess it's GAME ON for the patent wars.

GREEDY BASTARDS !! Go on Tour, Sell T-shirts, or

[Anonymous Coward]

Do something like ad-supported (Google), business leaks (RIM), or total control of the user (Nazipple). This charge-a-fee ifor something like this only shows how greedy those bastards are !!

Extortion

[Hairy1]

Thats nice software you have there. It would be a pity if something were to 'appen to it.

After examining the recent patent litigation it seems that Microsoft is the target of phone patents already, and another patent troll is not attacking Microsoft because they are owned by the co-founder of the company.Basically what they are saying is that you should use Windows ONLY because of patent protection. Innovation be damned, what matters is how many patents you and your allies have to throttle the competition. Gates was right; if software patents had been in common use when Microsoft started he wouldn't have stood a chance.

I am charging M$ a fee too

[kpainter]

for the crashing piece of shit Windows Mobile 6.1 that I can't update. The fee: I won't be buying a Windows 7 Mobile phone.

Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[Rix]

The rest of us will just keep using bash, thanks.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

Get smacked down in your own ignorance, then cry about it. Adonoman kicked your ignorant ass in two sentences, and your best retort is "yeah, well, so"

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[Richard_at_work]

I find it amusing that *no-one* has cottoned onto the fact that you say "Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel. The rest of us will just keep using bash, thanks." and *not* felt the need to point out that Bash was just such a reinvention of the wheel, it wasn't the first shell, it was an improvement on a shell that existed prior.

I will also point out that Bash was an improvement that was necessary for the environment it was to operate it - it brought added benefits to UNIX beyond that of the shells it replaced. Powershell does precisely that for cmd.exe and Windows and you deem it necessary to demean it.

But of course, troll away, its in your nature.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[Anonymous Coward]

You're bathing in ignorance it's not even funny. Rated -2 troll.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[sortius_nod]

While I'm no Windows fan, I have to agree. Powershell is a step up from cmd.exe. Not the best step up as you have to relearn everything, but it's a step up all the same.

Moving between bash and other *sh isn't that hard, there's a few minor differences in use but it's all pretty similar. The main problem I see with Powershell is that most admins won't use it, they rely on devs to come up with scripts to use it. This forces devs to be jack of all trades. At least this is my experience from working in IT.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[DAldredge]

How have you survived any length of time in the tech industry if you are so allergic to learning new things?

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[Rix]

I'm not demeaning Powershell. I'm demeaning shoehorning windows into the server closet.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[jimicus]

I'm not demeaning Powershell. I'm demeaning shoehorning windows into the server closet.

Thing is, while your argument may have made some sense in the Bad Old Days of NT 4 prior to service pack...ooh, about 3, I think, it doesn't make much sense today.

Today Windows can be a perfectly capable server OS. Granted, Microsoft have a bit of a habit of taking a concept that's perfectly simple and complicating the hell out of it just so they can slap a GUI on top and call it easy to use, but virtually all commercial software vendors are guilty of that to a greater or lesser extent.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[jimicus]

Well, one obvious way would be that there haven't been truly new things in the tech industry in years. Possibly decades.

There are new ways of doing the same old things, and what may have been a valid assumption 10 or 15 years ago may not be valid today, but databases are still databases, programming languages generally have fairly similar primitive types, loops and function call mechanisms (though they may describe them differently or use different syntax). And operating systems still need to provide a means of getting data to and from mass storage, a means of getting onto a network and a platform on which to run your applications.

Active Directory's a good example of this. Not a single technology within AD was particularly new at the time, but nobody had fully integrated it all at that point.

Re:Congratulations, you've reinvented the wheel

[Rix]

And a hammer can be perfectly suitable for driving in screws, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Yes, you can run windows as a server OS. But after all the extra work maintaining it, you'll just have something that's almost, but not quite, as serviceable as any of dozens of UNIX OSes that are designed for the task. And what will you be running on it? Either software that can be run on windows, but is really intended for UNIX, or Microsoft's half assed me-too clones of that software.

Coincidentally, MS launches attack on Android...

[guidryp]

Microsoft just launched an attack against Motorola over Android:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-complaint-against-motorola-over-alleged-andr/

So they are certain someone will sue you if you use Android...

Three letters for Windows Phone 7 ...

[kwandar]

D.O.A.

Re:Coincidentally, MS launches attack on Android..

[Anonymous Coward]

Android infringes on patents not just from MS. It infringes on patents from Apple, Oracle, Skyhook. All of these vendors have sued one or the Android handset maker. Apart from that, Android is a security nightmare for normal users. I think it is time for Google to wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:Coincidentally, MS launches attack on Android..

[MrSmith0011000100110]

An A/C post indicting Android as a security nightmare and Google as some sleepy eyed dreamers borrowing code...Typical. Everyone wants a piece of the Android pie Google is serving up. Just like when SCO tried to sue everyone and their grandmother, this too shall be laughed away

Re:Coincidentally, MS launches attack on Android..

[h4rr4r]

Why is this troll modded interesting?

Windows is a security nightmare for normal users, android is fine.

Fud against

[rasjani]

This is exact same pr bullshit they have pushed already. Only names are changed to protect the "innocent". What was once linux, is now MeeGo.

Re:Fud against

[rasjani]

And adroind ofcourse - forgot that its linux .. and "java" too.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is the only closed source mobile OS maker that doesn't also make their own hardware. Why wouldn't they charge a licensing fee for their OS? Did people expect them to give it away for free and make it up on volume?

Is that news?

[pinkeen]

I saw the title and wondered what is that *additional* license fee for. I read the TFA and realised that that handset manufacturers (or rather we) are just paying for using windows. How's that news? Shouldn't the title be rather something like "windows is the only non-free mobile os left".

"one of the only" argh!

[wcrowe]

...one of the only...

Please remove this phrase from your lexicon. It is either "...one of only n..." or just "only". "One of the only" makes no sense.

wonder if they'll pay them 2x the licensing fee

[Locutus]

I wonder if pay them 2x the licensing fee for putting the Microsoft Windows Phone 7 sticker on the box and on their web pages? Microsoft has a great way of enticing companies to include their software when the market would generally not want it. It really helps when they make sure those selling the software are guaranteed profits for a few years. I could see them easily dumping .5 billion dollars into the marketing of Windows Phone 7 and doing so for two or three years to start.

So, does it really matter that they are charging a licensing fee when they are doing all these other packaged deals behind the scenes? It's like saying that I bought this car for $500 because that's what the tires cost. IMO

LoB

You'd think they'd take a hint...

[avatar139]

...That they aren't where they used to be in the mobile market given Verizon has already announced they are not going to be carrying any Windows Mobile devices for the rest of this year (http://goo.gl/TBYb). I mean they could have gotten away with it back when Palm was the only other major player and they were on the ropes, but I think if their smart, HP and Google will use Microsoft's practices to push handset makers towards alternate OS (namely WebOS and Android). As for carriers, with Verizon refusing to carry Windows Mobile 7 phones, that's one down, just 3 more to go!

Re:You'd think they'd take a hint...

[mojomarc]

The reason that Verizon won't carry them is not because of Microsoft's place in the mobile market, but because none of the manufacturers will have cleared the FCC with CDMA phones until later in the year. Verizon has said they will have them in January. Way to spread the FUD.

Re:You'd think they'd take a hint...

[avatar139]

The reason that Verizon won't carry them is not because of Microsoft's place in the mobile market, but because none of the manufacturers will have cleared the FCC with CDMA phones until later in the year. Verizon has said they will have them in January. Way to spread the FUD.

Actually I did state in my post above that Verizon "announced they are not going to be carrying any Windows Mobile devices for the rest of this year." I'm curious to know the source for your claim regarding manufacturers not clearing the FCC, as most of my reading actually indicated that because Microsoft refused to support CDMA in Windows 7 Mobile (good summary here: http://goo.gl/i6rN). As the article notes, strangely enough though the lack of support was a decision that was supposedly made early this year, the announcement for that came out right after Verizon came out with their press release about dropping Windows Mobile 7 devices. Also, given that Android devices with CDMA have been announced for release this year clearly the handset makers haven't had any reported problems clearing FCC approval. So while I freely admit I may have not included as much detail as I should have regarding certain specifics I think my main point in the post above is perfectly valid; Microsoft needs to understand that they are an underdog in the market now and need to be less arrogant and be prepared to start bending to other companies needs.

Stop with "one of the only" !

[tomhudson]

"Microsoft may be one of the only "

It's either "one of the few" or "the only".

I'm happy to learn new things

[Rix]

So long as they're useful.

Re:I'm happy to learn new things

[DAldredge]

Then tell me why learning how to manage 2k8 isn't useful.

For the same reason...

[Rix]

That it's not useful to learn to hammer in screws, even if it is possible.

Windows has a place on the desktop. It doesn't have a place in the server room.

Re:For the same reason...

[DAldredge]

Why? It is reliable, it doesn't randomly crash, it works like it should, etc.

But there are easier ways

[Rix]

All the software you're going to run on a server is written primarily for other systems. Sure, you can often run it on windows as well, but why swim against the current?

What benefit do you get from the extra work you have to put into it?

Re:But there are easier ways

[DAldredge]

"All the software you're going to run on a server"

How do you figure that?

I just hate Microsoft

[dogzdik]

And their shitty naziware.

.

when you can't win the argument...

[helios17]

When you can't win the argument, simply change the argument. As a long-time Linux advocate and Linux user, I know where the fight is. The common home desktop user is mind-locked into Windows. Many are the Charlie Brown's of computer users. "Trust me Charlie Brown...kick the football, I won't move it again". If they read the MS EULA, they would know differently. There's really no hope to change that outside of a small percentage of free-thinking people. Linux will dominate the mobile market...it's well on it's way to do so. There are just those MS apologists who cannot concede defeat on any level. Or so it would seem.

Software Patent Protection (scheme)

[QuestorTapes]

"We sells...Insurance, yeah."

"Nice operation yez got here; wouldn't want to see nothing 'happen' to it..."

A nice little extortion, oops, that's "protection" plan the patent office enables.

Part 2

[DAldredge]

Microsoft released PowerShell 2.0 with Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2. Windows PowerShell 2.0 is installed by default on Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7. [28] For older platforms it is available via the Windows Management Framework.[29] PowerShell V2 includes changes to the scripting language and hosting API, in addition to including more than 240 new cmdlets.[30][31]

A non-exhaustive list of the new features included in PowerShell V2 is: [32] [33] [34]

PowerShell Remoting: Using WS-Management, PowerShell 2.0 allows scripts and cmdlets to be invoked on a remote machine or a large set of remote machines.
Background Jobs: Also called a PSJob, it allows a command sequence (script) or pipeline to be invoked asynchronously. Jobs can be run on the local machine or on multiple remote machines. An interactive cmdlet in a PSJob blocks the execution of the job until user input is provided.
Transactions: Enable cmdlet and provider developers to perform transactional operations. PowerShell 2.0 includes transaction cmdlets for starting, committing, and rolling back a PSTransaction as well as features to manage and direct the transaction to the participating cmdlet and provider operations. The PowerShell Registry provider supports transactions.
ScriptCmdlets: These are cmdlets written using the PowerShell scripting language. NOTE: The preferred name for script cmdlets is now Advanced Functions.
SteppablePipelines: This allows the user to control when the BeginProcessing(), ProcessRecord() and EndProcessing() functions of a cmdlet are called.
Modules: This allows script developers and administrators to organize and partition PowerShell scripts in self-contained, reusable units. Code from a module executes in its own self-contained context and does not affect the state outside of the module. Modules can define a restricted runspace environment by using a script. They have a persistent state as well as public and private members.
Data Language: A domain-specific subset of the PowerShell scripting language, that allows data definitions to be decoupled from the scripts and allow localized string resources to be imported into the script at runtime (Script Internationalization).
Script Debugging: It allows breakpoints to be set in a PowerShell script or function. Breakpoints can be set on lines, line & columns, commands and read or write access of variables. It includes a set of cmdlets to control the breakpoints via script.
Eventing: This feature allows listening, forwarding, and acting on management and system events. Eventing allows PowerShell hosts to be notified about state changes to their managed entities. It also enables PowerShell scripts to subscribe to ObjectEvents, PSEvents, and WmiEvents and process them synchronously and asynchronously.
Windows PowerShell Integrated Scripting Environment (ISE): PowerShell 2.0 includes a GUI-based PowerShell host (formerly known as Graphical Windows PowerShell) that provides integrated debugger, syntax highlighting, tab completion and up to 8 PowerShell Unicode-enabled consoles (Runspaces) in a tabbed UI, as well as the ability to run only the selected parts in a script.
Network File Transfer: Native support for prioritized, throttled, and asynchronous transfer of files between machines using the Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS).[35]
New Cmdlets: Including Out-GridView, which displays tabular data in the WPF GridView object.
New Operators: -Split, -Join, and Splatting (@) operators.
Exception Handling with Try-Catch-Finally: Unlike other .NET languages, this allows multiple exception types for a single ca

Examples.

[DAldredge]

Stop all processes that begin with the letter p:

ps p* | kill

Find the processes that use more than 1000 MB of memory and kill them:

ps | ? { $_.WS -gt 1000MB } | kill

Determine whether a specific process is no longer running:

PS> $processToWatch = get-process notepad
PS> $processToWatch.WaitForExit()

Download a specific RSS feed and show the titles of the 8 most recent entries:

PS> $rssUrl = 'http://blogs.msdn.com/powershell/rss.aspx'
PS> $blog = [xml](new-object System.Net.WebClient).DownloadString($rssUrl)
PS> $blog.rss.channel.item | select title -first 8

Cast a .Net Namespace, and call a method exposed by the cast

PS> [System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox]::Show('Hello, World!')

Run a command line executable, with arguments.

PS> [Array]$arguments = '-h', '15', 'www.google.com'
PS> tracert $arguments

Because a SERIOUS admin, codes (not scripts)

[Anonymous Coward]

You continue writing your "Script Kiddie" crap in PERL (the province of dimwits), and the rest of us serious admins will write our own binary executables that knock the shit out of your script kiddie perl crap in performance and abilities (for instance, the day you can show me a driver built in PERL is the day you can even begin to compare it to the Win16/32/64 API).

You also made me LAUGH, hugely, on forking. Forking SUCKS compared to using threads, because forks "weigh" a hell of a lot more and are thus, less efficient.

Grow up, learn a thing or two, script kiddie, before you try to tell us "what's-what" here, ok?