The one point that keeps coming up is the Removal of IE from the desktop. The facts on this point are clear if you stay away from Microsoft's spin doctors.
Windows originally came out as v4.xx.xxxx. Obviously it was the next step after Windows v3.x. Soon after the release of the original Windows 95 there was the often mentioned OSR2. Then after that there was the little used, mostly by OEMs, OSR3. For the sake of simplicity these versions were given the names, Win95a, Win95b, and Win95c.
Win95a came with NO BROWSER. It was an OS that had some other programs that came standard but if you wanted to browse the Internet you had to install a browser.
Win95b came with IE v3.0, this was the beginning of the "integration" that is often brought to point.
Win95c was basically Win95b with some more patches and IE was upgraded to v4.0.
Win95a was a viable operating system (if you can call it that) without the instillation of any browser. You could install an office package, games, or whatever you needed on this OS and functioned just fine without a browser.
Could Microsoft have developed IE and shipped it on a separate disk to new users? Sure. Why didn't they? Because that would allow ppl to choose what they wanted on their computer. I dare someone to do a clean install of Win95b and try to get IE off without breaking something. It's possible, but not fun and surely 95% of the users would not even know where to begin. Moreover, during the installation process of all versions of Windows since Win95b, there is no option to not install IE. However if you don't want WordPad you can remove that.
It's clear that Microsoft, while may have not have "harmed" customers, was intent on forcing its way into the browser market. Yet their arguments about IE being a part of Windows is simply a lie. While if this is enough to warrant the breakup of Microsoft, they surely should be penalized for lying under oath.
Uh, I think I need to patent stupidity...Whoops, looks like you beat me too that one!
Sorry about that but I couldn't resist...I think your missing the point about this article. The title was clearly making a point that some patents are "silly" and not worthy of patent status.
I'm not sure what you mean about 95% of open source projects being in permanent beta. Considering that MS's software takes 3 revisions in gold to get it right I would think that open source stuff is doing pretty good.
It seems to me that the source of this information needs to be considered. Todd Spangler of Interactive Week? This guy writes for ZDNet and probably wouldn't know a true daemon if it bit him in the ass.
More than likely this guy was talking to some buddy at an ISP who was tossing around some geekspeek and saw an angle for a story. Consider his thoughts on the subject of modem to user ratios; he brings up the old 40:1 ratio. How does that relate at all to cable, DSL, or Tx lines, the users who will be the ones that really change the amount of bandwidth that ISPs require, and their impact on pricing?
Go back to writing such articles as "Feeling the Spam" and leave the tech stuff to people who know what they are talking about.
Problems:
1. They were doing it without the knowledge of the users. The Nielson Rating Corp pays the ppl who are a part of their research project. They sign wavers to their rights that allow this private company, Neilson Rating, to use the information they gather.
2. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or a free internet connection. My tax dollars support public schools which in turn pay for their internet access. My tax dollars also pay for the software that filters they internet connection. If the software had been supplied in exchange for the rights to sell "Class Clicks" then this would not be an issue. This was not the case.
Bottom line, from what I read N2H2 was selling infomation that it never had a moral right to sell. They got caught and now will claim to stop doing it.
I'm surprised you did'nt add, "And Intel Rulz!" on your post.
If you had read anything about the diffrences between the AMD and Intel chips you would unerstand that Mhz. is not the end all be all of a PC's speed.
Go check out that site and come back and post when you have an understanding of how things work rather than regurgitating Intels marketing hype.
It's also worth mentioning that freedom of speech is not a right that Australians have, or for that matter anyone outside of the US (and of the evidence of the average bland, conservative mainstream output of the American media, it could be argued that they drastically fail to appreciate the principle anyway).
American "free speech" has never been free in that sense. The FCC regulates, with the total approval of the US Gov, everything that the media says.
The only place there is currently any real "free speech" is on the inet and the clock is ticking as to how long that will last.
IE, Please don't judge America by what comes out of our mass media.
Slashdot Mirror
The one point that keeps coming up is the Removal of IE from the desktop. The facts on this point are clear if you stay away from Microsoft's spin doctors.
Windows originally came out as v4.xx.xxxx. Obviously it was the next step after Windows v3.x. Soon after the release of the original Windows 95 there was the often mentioned OSR2. Then after that there was the little used, mostly by OEMs, OSR3. For the sake of simplicity these versions were given the names, Win95a, Win95b, and Win95c.
Win95a came with NO BROWSER. It was an OS that had some other programs that came standard but if you wanted to browse the Internet you had to install a browser.
Win95b came with IE v3.0, this was the beginning of the "integration" that is often brought to point.
Win95c was basically Win95b with some more patches and IE was upgraded to v4.0.
Win95a was a viable operating system (if you can call it that) without the instillation of any browser. You could install an office package, games, or whatever you needed on this OS and functioned just fine without a browser.
Could Microsoft have developed IE and shipped it on a separate disk to new users? Sure. Why didn't they? Because that would allow ppl to choose what they wanted on their computer. I dare someone to do a clean install of Win95b and try to get IE off without breaking something. It's possible, but not fun and surely 95% of the users would not even know where to begin. Moreover, during the installation process of all versions of Windows since Win95b, there is no option to not install IE. However if you don't want WordPad you can remove that.
It's clear that Microsoft, while may have not have "harmed" customers, was intent on forcing its way into the browser market. Yet their arguments about IE being a part of Windows is simply a lie. While if this is enough to warrant the breakup of Microsoft, they surely should be penalized for lying under oath.
Uh, I think I need to patent stupidity...Whoops, looks like you beat me too that one!
Sorry about that but I couldn't resist...I think your missing the point about this article. The title was clearly making a point that some patents are "silly" and not worthy of patent status.
I'm not sure what you mean about 95% of open source projects being in permanent beta. Considering that MS's software takes 3 revisions in gold to get it right I would think that open source stuff is doing pretty good.
It seems to me that the source of this information needs to be considered. Todd Spangler of Interactive Week? This guy writes for ZDNet and probably wouldn't know a true daemon if it bit him in the ass.
More than likely this guy was talking to some buddy at an ISP who was tossing around some geekspeek and saw an angle for a story. Consider his thoughts on the subject of modem to user ratios; he brings up the old 40:1 ratio. How does that relate at all to cable, DSL, or Tx lines, the users who will be the ones that really change the amount of bandwidth that ISPs require, and their impact on pricing?
Go back to writing such articles as "Feeling the Spam" and leave the tech stuff to people who know what they are talking about.
Problems: 1. They were doing it without the knowledge of the users. The Nielson Rating Corp pays the ppl who are a part of their research project. They sign wavers to their rights that allow this private company, Neilson Rating, to use the information they gather. 2. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or a free internet connection. My tax dollars support public schools which in turn pay for their internet access. My tax dollars also pay for the software that filters they internet connection. If the software had been supplied in exchange for the rights to sell "Class Clicks" then this would not be an issue. This was not the case. Bottom line, from what I read N2H2 was selling infomation that it never had a moral right to sell. They got caught and now will claim to stop doing it.
I'm surprised you did'nt add, "And Intel Rulz!" on your post.
If you had read anything about the diffrences between the AMD and Intel chips you would unerstand that Mhz. is not the end all be all of a PC's speed.
Go check out that site and come back and post when you have an understanding of how things work rather than regurgitating Intels marketing hype.
It's also worth mentioning that freedom of speech is not a right that Australians have, or for that matter anyone outside of the US (and of the evidence of the average bland, conservative mainstream output of the American media, it could be argued that they drastically fail to appreciate the principle anyway).
American "free speech" has never been free in that sense. The FCC regulates, with the total approval of the US Gov, everything that the media says.
The only place there is currently any real "free speech" is on the inet and the clock is ticking as to how long that will last.
IE, Please don't judge America by what comes out of our mass media.
I'd like to think that Twister would be such a game. And damn fun with a few chicks and some beer.