However, at the time Microsoft WAS the first mouse which had the guts in the mouse. Other mice at the time communicated to a special controller. Apple later copied MS and put a regular serial interface (ADB) into the mouse and all the operating logic as well.
Microsoft was the first with that. I've read the story (beleive it or not I've got a programming for the microsoft mouse book, from the early 90s sitting on the shelf). MS went to a japanese company and told them what they wanted built into the mouse; and they were told it was impossible. A week or two later the company came back with a design.
My company (Atacomm) sells voice over IP products, another company (@COMM) sells hotel call billing systems. For the past year they have been sending us cease and desist notices. Their trademark is on @COMM. There is another company with a service mark on ATCOM, meaning I doubt they were able to get the full blown spelling; but they are constantly threatening us for having ATACOMM. Its not like the name causes any confusion either.
True. But some tech's are just unwilling to cooperate.
I've got a cable modem through Comcast. There are two lights on it that show whether the modem has locked onto a signal from the Coax cable. One night (as often happens) the signal disappeared, the lights went out, and I called Comcast. Took me 45 minutes to get the guy to stop having me check through network settings on my computer and check the damn local circuits for a problem.
I'm sorry, but if those lights are out, its not a problem with my computer.... its narrowed down to the modem, my coax, or their local network. Some techs, not all, but many.....are absolutely clueless if they don't follow their pre-determined question line.
I would doubt it.. Much has changed in OSX since NextStep. The graphics APIs have advanced, it no longer does PostScript but PDF rendering. I doubt GNUStep would be able to run many of your modern OSX apps.
OS-X won' have anything to do with porting to Linux. The architecture is way different, the APIs are different, the multi-media capabilitis are better integrated and more fluent because Apple designs everything, you dont have one component from one organization, another from this one, etc. Its all designed to work together, you can't get that as effectively on Linux...and probably NEVER will.
OS-X applications using Carbon or Cocoa will probably never find a direct port to Linux. Infact, OS-X applications really do not make use of POSIX under pinnings at all, and rely on OS-X APIs.
POSIX falls short on usability, reuse, and completeness. This is why OS-X's Cocoa and MS's.NET are storming the market right now....you can develop applications in a fraction of the time of other platforms. Look at Linux. Pick a Window Manager. Pick a Tool Kit. Now, the person running on the end machine must have the exact same items installed, or it won't work. Even worse, each toolkit/window manager has a different look and feel, and a different API, making it impossible to let EVERY ONE running Linux run your application without serious changes to either your program, or their system configuration.
You want to know why Linux applications suck, or why no body uses them? THAT is your reason.
I completely agree with you. I don't know the internals of Linux, nor do I wan't to take time to learn them. I don't learn the internals of any OS. I can setup a network on a windows box with barely reading any documentation the first time.... I can update the operating system with little more than a click.
Windows hardware compatibility is the one to beat. Until Linux can get the out of the box experience that Windows has it will not make it on the desktop.
Re:no manufacturing costs for windows?
on
Is Windows Worth $45?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Have you ever seen Microsoft's testing labs? Didn't think so. As a beta tester I have been able to access video showing the whole production cycle of Windows XP. They have rooms upon rooms upon rooms of PC hardware, different configurations, constantly stress testing each new build.
If a machine isn't working right, they have to figure it out, and debug that particular situation because there is obviously a driver problem with one, or maybe more hardware elements that in that combination blows up.
Obviously its impossible for them to get it perfect, but there is millions upon millions of dollars of equipment, I would bet they spend tens of millions of dollars a year on man hours if not much more just on identifying issues that cause the fabled blue screen of death.
Mundane code for opening wordpad is not where money is being spent, its the innerworkings which get very complicated when you have tens of thousands of potential hardware configurations, usually running drivers supplied both by MS and drivers supplied by the vendor that even MS doesn't have source code to. It makes the situation very complicated. This is why in XP it is difficult to install a driver that is not certified by Microsoft....of course difficult means Windows will piss and moan, its easy to ignore the warnings. But if the machine crashes, its YOUR FAULT, not microsofts. Atleast, thats the spin. But it generally is the case with driver crashes anyways.
On the other hand Intel doesn't reinvent the entire microprocessor between revisions. Give me a break.
So the new P4E has so many more pipeline stages....they didn't redesign each stage from scratch, they found the appropriate place, broke it in half, and threw some buffers in between.
Infact in the olden days you could almost identify the previous core on a newer processor, with the newer capabilities being added around it. Processor designs change about as rapidly as software. Many legacy components barely change over the years on their internals, its only the external interface to other parts of the CPU that change to allow for signalling changes, parts being moved around, etc. There are only so many ways to add a 32-bit number together.
To this I say their capabilities included with the OS go MUCH further than that of most UNIX vendors. Where is Sun on multimedia? Ease of use? Hardware support? So don't go spoutng bullshit how MS charges more than other vendors for an OS without acknowledging that dollar for dollar, you get a heck of a lot more included in the OS. Whether what is included is of value to a particular user...aka you, thats a totally different story:)
Thats just fine and dandy. However I feel sorry for the poor student who went and wrote a paper on the subject, quoted that "fact" from Wikipedia, and then got in trouble for it. Then to prove himself right, points back to Wikipedia 2 weeks later and its gone from the reference.
I'm sorry, when doing research, I would rather trust something that went through review in PRIVATE and is not in public view when blatently incorrect.
Actually.NET automatically compiles a native version and caches it the first time it is ran. The only time it ever recompiles is if it detects an updated byte code binary.
Its not much of a hack considering you have to be licensed to play the music to begin with, so it has to be your own. It just intercepts the AAC stream after decryption before its converted into PCM audio.
However, last night I watched Reloaded again. You have to pay great attention during Reloaded to find your answers to the Matrix. They dont make sense if you've only seen movies 1 and 2, but they do if you've seen all 3. In particular, listen to what the architect says.
While some may say reloaded is about reloading the Matrix....note that the Matrix never did get reloaded....but something the architect says makes me think different. And it explains Neo's sudden ability to interact with the machine world outside of the Matrix.
Well, first, that is wrong because laptops would become bigger not smaller.
And 2...you are wrong, its not PCI-X. PCI-X is an extension of PCI's parallel bus for high-speed server applications. PCI Express is a high-speed (even faster) redesign of PCI that is backwards compatible in register design, but serial in signalling.
Infact, what you probably don't know is CardBus is a PCI-based standard. It allows for a chip (modem, network interface, etc) to be designed once with both desktop and portable usage in mind. The registers in the CardBus standard are a subset of the PCI registers, and so is the device signalling.
Big Deal.......I've been selling this stuff online for months....much greater variety than their single SIP phone, which happens to be a very budget oriented phone. There are much better phones to chose from in the SIP world. http://voipstore.atacomm.com (Yes, a lil shameless self promotion).
Shows how long its been since you have programmed for Windows. This may have effected Windows 95, I seem to remember a problem they had protecting lower memory, however 98+ and NT/2k/XP never had this problem and you are definately showing your ignorance.
This will crash the application, just as under any other protected memory space operating system, whether its Linux, BSD, MacOS X, BeOS, or anything else. It will not crash the box.
In reality, admins running enterprise systems must remember to check what the patch fixes and weigh it against known issues it may cause. In Microsoft's case, their admins would be sure to know the service release is out. My guess is compatability testing indicated they should wait for a future patch, or until they changed something in their setup that would make any problems from the patch a non-issue.
Re:Managing large numbers of servers
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 1
Have you managed Windows servers in mass?
With Microsoft's Management Console, not only can you connect to multiple machines with it, but it doesn't require remote desktop. MMC handles services, file system/volumes, hardware drivers, security, etc.
If you want to do something that MMC wasn't created for, write a script, or use Remote Desktop. And WinVNC is definately crap...if you are using WinVNC no wonder you aren't very thrilled.
MS and SUN settled, hence the latest contract where Sun terminated MS's license on Java, and stated that they could only distribute their old version of Java for a specified length of time.
ZDNews is claiming that all products from MS that include.NET runtime must supply Sun Java.......this is ass-backwards..NET is a runtime enviroment (as is java of course).....if an application uses.NET at its core, for example Visual Studio.NET, they need to include the runtime. Seriously, why not say if it includes MFC you must include Borland OWL?!?
That broad ranging declaration by the judge is key to getting this thrown out.
On to the next item......everyone claims MS shafted Java. Lets see: 1) MS signs Java agreement 2) MS produces better runtime 3) MS adds extensions for Windows only development, which are optional to developers depending on their target market (HINT: Apple has Cocoa extensions in Java......samething......they are optional) 4) Sun sues Microsoft 5) Sun offers settlement...terminate future licenses, puts a deadline on distributing the old java 6) Microsoft removes old Java well before deadline 7) Sun complains, puts large advertisements out showing disgruntlement with Microsoft 8) Microsoft decides.NET runtime is ready for primetime in WinXP SR1.....includes.NET runtime and the only version of Java they have licensed, although the license is soon to expire. 9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version. 10) Judge grants sun's wish......for now.
This will be overturned. You can't sign an agreement which you wrote, which specifically states what you can and cannot do regarding terminating a license, and say hey, this didn't work out how we wanted.
And the fact is, most of the average users, including myself, don't run into client side java all that often........and the only ActiveX control I ever see is Flash..NET? Its a great platform, I develop both client side and server side.....and its being cloned by various open source projects. Sun shot themselves in the foot by requiring Microsoft to cancel their distribution of Java......infact, what Sun should have done was work with Microsoft and others for CROSS PLATFORM UI and multimedia libraries that WORKED well....Microsoft's customizations were designed for mainly UI elements.....so are Apples. Whereas.NET was built ground up for GUI applications as well as web applications, and is much more what developers like myself want to deal with.
On the client side Java is becoming irrelivent.....and I for one do not want to be forced to see the Java icon flashing me from my tray. This is not furthering choice what-so-ever. I think if this settlement would take effect, Microsoft should counter Sun needs to carry.NET with Solaris and StarOffice, as they both include Java. (And MS has a BSD runtime now...for developers, not fully completed libraries yet).
Um, that contractual obligation was superceeded by a short-sighted settlement drafted by sun's lawyers bonehead.
It obligation was removed, but the limitation that MS could no longer create new versions of java, and that MS would only be allowed to distribute the old version for a few more years.
Hey Dummy, that agreement was superceeded by an agreement that Microsoft could not include the latest and greatest versions of Java as part of a settlement, and that Microsoft was only allowed to distribute their older java runtime for a few more years. It never said they were required to carry anything, and Microsoft is currently obiding by that settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
However, at the time Microsoft WAS the first mouse which had the guts in the mouse. Other mice at the time communicated to a special controller. Apple later copied MS and put a regular serial interface (ADB) into the mouse and all the operating logic as well.
Microsoft was the first with that. I've read the story (beleive it or not I've got a programming for the microsoft mouse book, from the early 90s sitting on the shelf). MS went to a japanese company and told them what they wanted built into the mouse; and they were told it was impossible. A week or two later the company came back with a design.
Wish I could get that... :)
My company (Atacomm) sells voice over IP products, another company (@COMM) sells hotel call billing systems. For the past year they have been sending us cease and desist notices. Their trademark is on @COMM. There is another company with a service mark on ATCOM, meaning I doubt they were able to get the full blown spelling; but they are constantly threatening us for having ATACOMM. Its not like the name causes any confusion either.
However it sure would cost SCO more now wouldn't it?
True. But some tech's are just unwilling to cooperate.
I've got a cable modem through Comcast. There are two lights on it that show whether the modem has locked onto a signal from the Coax cable. One night (as often happens) the signal disappeared, the lights went out, and I called Comcast. Took me 45 minutes to get the guy to stop having me check through network settings on my computer and check the damn local circuits for a problem.
I'm sorry, but if those lights are out, its not a problem with my computer.... its narrowed down to the modem, my coax, or their local network. Some techs, not all, but many.....are absolutely clueless if they don't follow their pre-determined question line.
I would doubt it.. Much has changed in OSX since NextStep. The graphics APIs have advanced, it no longer does PostScript but PDF rendering. I doubt GNUStep would be able to run many of your modern OSX apps.
OS-X won' have anything to do with porting to Linux. The architecture is way different, the APIs are different, the multi-media capabilitis are better integrated and more fluent because Apple designs everything, you dont have one component from one organization, another from this one, etc. Its all designed to work together, you can't get that as effectively on Linux...and probably NEVER will.
.NET are storming the market right now....you can develop applications in a fraction of the time of other platforms. Look at Linux. Pick a Window Manager. Pick a Tool Kit. Now, the person running on the end machine must have the exact same items installed, or it won't work. Even worse, each toolkit/window manager has a different look and feel, and a different API, making it impossible to let EVERY ONE running Linux run your application without serious changes to either your program, or their system configuration.
OS-X applications using Carbon or Cocoa will probably never find a direct port to Linux. Infact, OS-X applications really do not make use of POSIX under pinnings at all, and rely on OS-X APIs.
POSIX falls short on usability, reuse, and completeness. This is why OS-X's Cocoa and MS's
You want to know why Linux applications suck, or why no body uses them? THAT is your reason.
I completely agree with you. I don't know the internals of Linux, nor do I wan't to take time to learn them. I don't learn the internals of any OS. I can setup a network on a windows box with barely reading any documentation the first time.... I can update the operating system with little more than a click.
Windows hardware compatibility is the one to beat. Until Linux can get the out of the box experience that Windows has it will not make it on the desktop.
Have you ever seen Microsoft's testing labs? Didn't think so. As a beta tester I have been able to access video showing the whole production cycle of Windows XP. They have rooms upon rooms upon rooms of PC hardware, different configurations, constantly stress testing each new build.
If a machine isn't working right, they have to figure it out, and debug that particular situation because there is obviously a driver problem with one, or maybe more hardware elements that in that combination blows up.
Obviously its impossible for them to get it perfect, but there is millions upon millions of dollars of equipment, I would bet they spend tens of millions of dollars a year on man hours if not much more just on identifying issues that cause the fabled blue screen of death.
Mundane code for opening wordpad is not where money is being spent, its the innerworkings which get very complicated when you have tens of thousands of potential hardware configurations, usually running drivers supplied both by MS and drivers supplied by the vendor that even MS doesn't have source code to. It makes the situation very complicated. This is why in XP it is difficult to install a driver that is not certified by Microsoft....of course difficult means Windows will piss and moan, its easy to ignore the warnings. But if the machine crashes, its YOUR FAULT, not microsofts. Atleast, thats the spin. But it generally is the case with driver crashes anyways.
On the other hand Intel doesn't reinvent the entire microprocessor between revisions. Give me a break.
So the new P4E has so many more pipeline stages....they didn't redesign each stage from scratch, they found the appropriate place, broke it in half, and threw some buffers in between.
Infact in the olden days you could almost identify the previous core on a newer processor, with the newer capabilities being added around it. Processor designs change about as rapidly as software. Many legacy components barely change over the years on their internals, its only the external interface to other parts of the CPU that change to allow for signalling changes, parts being moved around, etc. There are only so many ways to add a 32-bit number together.
To this I say their capabilities included with the OS go MUCH further than that of most UNIX vendors. Where is Sun on multimedia? Ease of use? Hardware support? So don't go spoutng bullshit how MS charges more than other vendors for an OS without acknowledging that dollar for dollar, you get a heck of a lot more included in the OS. Whether what is included is of value to a particular user...aka you, thats a totally different story :)
Thats just fine and dandy. However I feel sorry for the poor student who went and wrote a paper on the subject, quoted that "fact" from Wikipedia, and then got in trouble for it. Then to prove himself right, points back to Wikipedia 2 weeks later and its gone from the reference.
I'm sorry, when doing research, I would rather trust something that went through review in PRIVATE and is not in public view when blatently incorrect.
Actually .NET automatically compiles a native version and caches it the first time it is ran. The only time it ever recompiles is if it detects an updated byte code binary.
Its not much of a hack considering you have to be licensed to play the music to begin with, so it has to be your own. It just intercepts the AAC stream after decryption before its converted into PCM audio.
I was disappointed at first with Revolutions.
However, last night I watched Reloaded again.
You have to pay great attention during Reloaded to find your answers to the Matrix. They dont make sense if you've only seen movies 1 and 2, but they do if you've seen all 3. In particular, listen to what the architect says.
While some may say reloaded is about reloading the Matrix....note that the Matrix never did get reloaded....but something the architect says makes me think different. And it explains Neo's sudden ability to interact with the machine world outside of the Matrix.
Well, first, that is wrong because laptops would become bigger not smaller.
And 2...you are wrong, its not PCI-X. PCI-X is an extension of PCI's parallel bus for high-speed server applications. PCI Express is a high-speed (even faster) redesign of PCI that is backwards compatible in register design, but serial in signalling.
Infact, what you probably don't know is CardBus is a PCI-based standard. It allows for a chip (modem, network interface, etc) to be designed once with both desktop and portable usage in mind. The registers in the CardBus standard are a subset of the PCI registers, and so is the device signalling.
Right On. .NET's CLR will store a cached copy of the x86 native binary after first execution
Big Deal.......I've been selling this stuff online for months....much greater variety than their single SIP phone, which happens to be a very budget oriented phone. There are much better phones to chose from in the SIP world. http://voipstore.atacomm.com (Yes, a lil shameless self promotion).
Shows how long its been since you have programmed for Windows. This may have effected Windows 95, I seem to remember a problem they had protecting lower memory, however 98+ and NT/2k/XP never had this problem and you are definately showing your ignorance.
This will crash the application, just as under any other protected memory space operating system, whether its Linux, BSD, MacOS X, BeOS, or anything else. It will not crash the box.
In reality, admins running enterprise systems must remember to check what the patch fixes and weigh it against known issues it may cause. In Microsoft's case, their admins would be sure to know the service release is out. My guess is compatability testing indicated they should wait for a future patch, or until they changed something in their setup that would make any problems from the patch a non-issue.
Have you managed Windows servers in mass?
With Microsoft's Management Console, not only can you connect to multiple machines with it, but it doesn't require remote desktop. MMC handles services, file system/volumes, hardware drivers, security, etc.
If you want to do something that MMC wasn't created for, write a script, or use Remote Desktop. And WinVNC is definately crap...if you are using WinVNC no wonder you aren't very thrilled.
-Dan
Thats funny, i've had several Linux and Mac OS X servers crash or reboot for no reason. Must be a security flaw.
-Dan
Wrong........ARE MULTIPLE CONTRACTS.
MS and SUN settled, hence the latest contract where Sun terminated MS's license on Java, and stated that they could only distribute their old version of Java for a specified length of time.
Very typical response from slashdot.
.NET runtime must supply Sun Java.......this is ass-backwards. .NET is a runtime enviroment (as is java of course).....if an application uses .NET at its core, for example Visual Studio .NET, they need to include the runtime. Seriously, why not say if it includes MFC you must include Borland OWL?!?
.NET runtime is ready for primetime in WinXP SR1.....includes .NET runtime and the only version of Java they have licensed, although the license is soon to expire.
.NET? Its a great platform, I develop both client side and server side.....and its being cloned by various open source projects. Sun shot themselves in the foot by requiring Microsoft to cancel their distribution of Java......infact, what Sun should have done was work with Microsoft and others for CROSS PLATFORM UI and multimedia libraries that WORKED well....Microsoft's customizations were designed for mainly UI elements.....so are Apples. Whereas .NET was built ground up for GUI applications as well as web applications, and is much more what developers like myself want to deal with.
.NET with Solaris and StarOffice, as they both include Java. (And MS has a BSD runtime now...for developers, not fully completed libraries yet).
ZDNews is claiming that all products from MS that include
That broad ranging declaration by the judge is key to getting this thrown out.
On to the next item......everyone claims MS shafted Java. Lets see:
1) MS signs Java agreement
2) MS produces better runtime
3) MS adds extensions for Windows only development, which are optional to developers depending on their target market (HINT: Apple has Cocoa extensions in Java......samething......they are optional)
4) Sun sues Microsoft
5) Sun offers settlement...terminate future licenses, puts a deadline on distributing the old java
6) Microsoft removes old Java well before deadline
7) Sun complains, puts large advertisements out showing disgruntlement with Microsoft
8) Microsoft decides
9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version.
10) Judge grants sun's wish......for now.
This will be overturned. You can't sign an agreement which you wrote, which specifically states what you can and cannot do regarding terminating a license, and say hey, this didn't work out how we wanted.
And the fact is, most of the average users, including myself, don't run into client side java all that often........and the only ActiveX control I ever see is Flash.
On the client side Java is becoming irrelivent.....and I for one do not want to be forced to see the Java icon flashing me from my tray. This is not furthering choice what-so-ever. I think if this settlement would take effect, Microsoft should counter Sun needs to carry
Um, that contractual obligation was superceeded by a short-sighted settlement drafted by sun's lawyers bonehead.
It obligation was removed, but the limitation that MS could no longer create new versions of java, and that MS would only be allowed to distribute the old version for a few more years.
They followed that one by the letter.
Hey Dummy, that agreement was superceeded by an agreement that Microsoft could not include the latest and greatest versions of Java as part of a settlement, and that Microsoft was only allowed to distribute their older java runtime for a few more years. It never said they were required to carry anything, and Microsoft is currently obiding by that settlement.