of course it's old news, but i thought i should mention...
DVD-R and DVD-RAM has been around here in Oz for a while. DVD-R burners are 8 times more expensive than DVD-RAM, which is the wrong way around. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the rewritable DVD-RAM's won't read in a standard DVD-ROM drive, making it much more expensive to pirate
it was the same with CD-R and CD-RW when they first hit the scene, but it wasn't long before standard CDROMs could read CDRW as well as CDR so I'm guessing DVDROMs will read DVDRAM before long. Standalone DVD units (ie. for your TV) are another story...
that would be like recording a CD to WAVs using analog playback instead of ripping the WAV right off the CD. use decss to get the raw vobs/ifos/etc. and then burn the suckers onto the DVD-R.
MS actually runs conventions, gathers developers and manufacturers together in the same room, has people present papers, and say: What do you want in the API?
Ah, bullshit. Those conventions are all about the FREE FOOD!!!:)
Breaking up Microsoft into one OS vendor and one Applications company won't prevent Microsoft from adding stuff like TCP/IP or DirectX to it's OS! They're OS components, I don't think anyone would claim they're applications in the normal thoughts of the user (or the DOJ, surely).
I have two words for you: Trumpet Winsock
Networking used to be an addon application to Windows, but we're so used to being networked now we don't give it a second thought. As a comparison, networking is still technically an addon component in OS/2 (Warp 4 included) along with a lot of other software in the OS/2 package, presumably because of the government restrictions on IBM. Sure, it's great that you can easily replace your networking subsystem, but you're not going to, and the disjointed way it works because it's not part of the OS, blows IMO.
I'm sure if MS integrated a HTML/XML/WHATEVER-ML renderer into Windows properly, and got away with it without anyone noticing, 5 years later we'd all be wondering how we ever got along without it. Including such a renderer to most people = browser, MS have offered to hide the browser IIRC, keeping the renderer because it's rather useful (even for lowly help files). But certain people just cant accept that hypertext is useful for anything but a browser..
Obviously, this is less than appealing to Apple, but unfortunate nonetheless:)
why? if Apple had a deal with Be, offering access to G* specs, as long as Be dropped all Intel support (IIRC, Be weren't interested in Intel anyway, until Apple gave them the finger), that would be GOOD for Apple..
aren't Apple a hardware company? attracting software (including OS') cannot hurt Apple's sales at all - Be aren't allowed to make clones, just an OS for the hardware only Apple sell.
Slashdot Mirror
er, did you mean to say MVS? VMS is by Digital for Alphas, AFAIK, not IBM for their _real_ mainframes
FWIW: VMS sucks. I can't put my finger on why, but it just does, k?
of course it's old news, but i thought i should mention...
DVD-R and DVD-RAM has been around here in Oz for a while. DVD-R burners are 8 times more expensive than DVD-RAM, which is the wrong way around. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the rewritable DVD-RAM's won't read in a standard DVD-ROM drive, making it much more expensive to pirate
it was the same with CD-R and CD-RW when they first hit the scene, but it wasn't long before standard CDROMs could read CDRW as well as CDR so I'm guessing DVDROMs will read DVDRAM before long. Standalone DVD units (ie. for your TV) are another story...
that would be like recording a CD to WAVs using analog playback instead of ripping the WAV right off the CD. use decss to get the raw vobs/ifos/etc. and then burn the suckers onto the DVD-R.
MS actually runs conventions, gathers developers and manufacturers together in the same room, has people present papers, and say: What do you want in the API?
:)
Ah, bullshit. Those conventions are all about the FREE FOOD!!!
Breaking up Microsoft into one OS vendor and one Applications company won't prevent Microsoft from adding stuff like TCP/IP or DirectX to it's OS! They're OS components, I don't think anyone would claim they're applications in the normal thoughts of the user (or the DOJ, surely).
I have two words for you: Trumpet Winsock
Networking used to be an addon application to Windows, but we're so used to being networked now we don't give it a second thought. As a comparison, networking is still technically an addon component in OS/2 (Warp 4 included) along with a lot of other software in the OS/2 package, presumably because of the government restrictions on IBM. Sure, it's great that you can easily replace your networking subsystem, but you're not going to, and the disjointed way it works because it's not part of the OS, blows IMO.
I'm sure if MS integrated a HTML/XML/WHATEVER-ML renderer into Windows properly, and got away with it without anyone noticing, 5 years later we'd all be wondering how we ever got along without it. Including such a renderer to most people = browser, MS have offered to hide the browser IIRC, keeping the renderer because it's rather useful (even for lowly help files). But certain people just cant accept that hypertext is useful for anything but a browser..
Obviously, this is less than appealing to Apple, but unfortunate nonetheless :)
why? if Apple had a deal with Be, offering access to G* specs, as long as Be dropped all Intel support (IIRC, Be weren't interested in Intel anyway, until Apple gave them the finger), that would be GOOD for Apple..
aren't Apple a hardware company? attracting software (including OS') cannot hurt Apple's sales at all - Be aren't allowed to make clones, just an OS for the hardware only Apple sell.
Nah, he must be a perl script too. According to Netcraft, "www.zdnet.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Solaris" not NT/IIS
what about that ugly thing on UserFriendly?