It won't. Like Aero and Aqua it will fundamentally assume the application graphics buffer and the video card buffer are shared. The application protocol will not be robust enough to break that connection safely.
The Wayland team is working with KDE and Gnome who are going to implement something like RDB for their respective GUIs. That's going to be how networking is going to be handled at the GUI level.
The reason X11 is slow (or rather seems slow) is because X11 is an asynchronous API.
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis though it is well argued. asynchronous is generally preferable, but scheduling of asynchronous events needs to carefully considered. Synchronous programming for I/O is much easier. As an aside Aqua, Aero and Metro are asynchronous as well.
They disgust you so what? That doesn't change the facts of what they do.
As for busting down the door of a journalist, Jason Chen had a warrant issued against him by a judge for theft. I happen to agree that the judge never should have issued the warrant against Chen under the Privacy Protection Act . But the party responsible here for violating the law is the state of California. It is not Apple's job to enforce the Privacy Protection Act.
You can't modernize away the big problem with local performance. The application buffer and the video buffer can't be shared. On a 5m screen that's 20m of data, minimum. As 60 frame / sec that 1.2g of data crossing over the bus per second for highly intensive graphics. While we have busses that under best case that can handle 1.2g / sec, they can't do it under suboptimal conditions.
Sure because after all, Apple is a well known for being a bland company with no strong opinions that's just interested in quick profits and not a long term strategy.
Why are you so nuts when it comes to Apple? Apple has clear speeches and policies about why they do things. Their actions are consistent with their claims. So generally one would take what they say at face value. The fact you may disagree with their policies doesn't mean they disagree with their policies.
I think it is the older crowd who hates change. People such as yourself who are set in their ways.
I think the are younger. Probably guys in the 30s. People who missed the 1990s tech boom and spent their entire careers in a world of stagnant IT.
If we had a time machine and showed these comments to slashdotters in 2002 I wonder what the reaction would be?
In terms of stagnation I suspect they'd have the "I will become my parents" the/. crowd has become the mainframe crowd that was just replaced in 2002. I think they would be thrilled that Linux is still around and has huge server market share. Shock that Unix systems (Android, iOS) dominate what's replacing the desktop / laptop. Thrilled that open source software like Firefox and Chrome went on to win the browser wars. Thrilled that Open Office has substantial market share.
In 2014 we can ignore these users and they will find out the hard way when they get hacked, cant browse websites, or open files in newer programs.
They have no idea how fast Microsoft can move the eco system when they want to, since they are used to a Microsoft that is conservative. Heck this might be something like Y2K where there is lots of money spent suddenly.
There is actually a pretty good way to handle that. You have two agencies that are staffed very differently.
A is a pro business commerce group that is involved and coordination B is an hostile agency that goes after the worst offenders
For example on environmental regulation of coal A is staffed by people from the coal industry and people from West Virginia, Ohio... B is staffed by people from wildlife preservation from California, New York....
That way in terms of regulation A plays good cop and B plays bad cop.
That would be the strategy if the goal was a slow win of money from Android. Apple genuinely believes Android infringed and their primary goal was to force Android to start forking their look and feel design away from Apple. That's likely been achieved as the systems are forking more and there is less copying.
Reread your post. Your argument was the interface of Windows 8 was such a radical departure that the cost... Which isn't an argument against upgrading to Windows 7.
If you are saying the licensing costs of Windows are the issue, then you are a customer who isn't spending very much on IT. In which case why would Microsoft care.
Well that sounds like a vendor problem. They created a piece of software with deep ties to a specific OS version which is now unsupported.
That being said, Windows drivers don't know if they are talking to a USB port or a virtual USB port. Something like a virtual dongle server will work you just inject it into the stream. I know there a dongle servers that allow for dongles to be shared on the network (defeating the whole point) and those are quite successful.
Goog point. My thinking is if you have a BYOD infrastructure you need to treat the corporate desktops are untrusted. You don't care if they follow policy because other than services like anti-virus they don't matter. So for example they run client apps but computations are done on the servers. You just pull the infrastructure back like you would if you were serving stuff up on the open internet.
It was always easy to train on people on Unix systems. The issue was with office / clerical staff who had already developed a windows culture. There the conversions were really hard. The only companies that have realized how addicted to Microsoft they are those that have made a serious attempt to move away. Which is why I don't think Windows 8 poses any challenge.
In terms of replacement clients. I think Linux has been ready for a decade. And I think its success in: server, embedded, super computing and even being #3 desktop in popularity show that.
OTOH now I own a business (small) so I can do what I want, and my business uses OSX. Our custom stuff ends up as much as possible being rather generic Unix. GUIs we try and keep lightweight. Where they aren't in all fairness more often than not I end up tying them to proprietary technologies myself just to save 40% or so on development. Much as I'd rather be using Linux widgets like Qt. But at least if/when I swap them out I won't whine I didn't know.
Slashdot is turning very conservative and is is weird. Don't you agree?
Yes! I think it is very weird. I'm shocked particular with the IPv6 conversations. I kinda think this is an example of behavior changes belief. You and I both got into IT in the 80s / 90s when things moved fast. I think the younger guys have never seen IT infrastructure turnover rapidly, so they believe it is impossible. I think they believe it is impossible that desktops could have ever been improving at the rate smartphones are today and what the implications were for corporate IT. Do you remember the mainframe guys back when we started who had the same attitudes?
To them IPv6 is impossible. I look at it like ripping out the Novell and DECNet networks and replacing them with NetBIOS/ NetBEUI. To them flipping the desktop to an entirely different OS like moving away from curses terminals to Windows is impossible. You have I have done it, they haven't I suspect that's the difference.
When everyone sits and stops the clock it does the opposite and encourages to halt innovation.
I agree. I was very upset when Microsoft and Cisco allowed the pace of change to crawl in 2001. They've created an entire generation of stagnation. That's why I'm so thrilled to see Microsoft taking the lead again to drive progress with Windows 8.
But the cost accountants and PHB sure as hell intended to and plan to run it forever.
Absolutely but I'm confident Microsoft can now that they so choose break them of that. They are in for a shock about how unpleasant it will be to stay on old systems once Microsoft wants to move. Like the people who were completely isolated on XYWrite with a dot matrix printer running DOS well into the 1990s the choice is going to be almost total isolation or rapid progress (fingers crossed).
When XP was released they tried that. Though it wasn't $5/yr but I think 3% of software costs per month, so it might have been something like $1.20 / mo for XP, and you never had to "buy" software. Companies decided they would rather save the money and upgrade when they had to.
Microsoft's fees are a tiny percentage of GDP, multiply them by 10 and they don't matter.
I agree with you that free trade hasn't worked to the US's advantages. We've allowed a system to be created where the benefits of trade in terms of prices are broadly shared but the disadvantages in terms of wages are concentrated. We've combined that with a tax system which is anti-progressive. The result is the creation of an Oligarchy.
That's easy to fix though by taxing wealth, creating a VAT and making domestic wages count against the VAT.
Maybe. First Microsoft owns the copyright. If they want to play hardball they can do a lot more than just not sign drivers, though I don't think they'll do that.
Second the reason OEMs can create hardware that supports a full range of devices is because Microsoft has a very good QA facility for them to test in. Once XP is gone from that facility, and it already is, it gets harder to create hardware that support XP as it exists in the field. But again there are hundreds of millions of used systems that run XP fine, so that's not a huge problem.
More likely though, they'll do exactly what they say they will. The new versions of updates on all their server products won't support XP clients. So for example Office 2013 doesn't work on XP and VIsta. There is a new Exchange virus and the upgrade doesn't work with XP.... It just gets increasingly painful to use XP and the customers do migrate.
And remember Windows 7 ships with XP in virtual mode. So the cost of upgrading is comparatively low. Sure the really stubborn stay on XP for years after support expires but that is a vanishing share of the market and mostly irrelevant.
Why will they need to? Lots of business deal with vendors that set terms that business don't like. I'm sure business would prefer to not have to keep paying their electric vendor month after month and just get electricity for free. I'm sure business would prefer to not have to keep paying their facilities rent. So what? Microsoft sells a product and sets the terms.
Microsoft has been unequivocal that their operating systems were limited life from the time they founded the company. During the time XP was being sold they were advising companies to get on a support plan and rent not own all their Microsoft software.
Microsoft's customers will pay their bills just like they pay everyone else's.
Why would they expect that? As for customers not checking. I agree Microsoft in being so generous about support has encouraged this complacency. Apple by contrast with rapid and aggressive upgrades doesn't have this problem.
I'm not sure how your evidence even supports your theory.
Netbook XP was specifically sold by Microsoft at the time as an obsolete OS designed to run on underpowered hardware and was a not recommended configuration that they reluctantly offered.
Microsoft never advertised XP as an embedded system. Not once. They never asked hardware devices to lock themselves into XP. They have repeatedly year after year after year advised people on appropriate migration paths. They have published numerous articles asking their OS customers to pressure their vendors to upgrade their systems.
Lost trust in what? That Microsoft is going to support you even if you ignore everything they tell you to do?
Slashdot Mirror
It won't. Like Aero and Aqua it will fundamentally assume the application graphics buffer and the video card buffer are shared. The application protocol will not be robust enough to break that connection safely.
It is a real trade off.
The Wayland team is working with KDE and Gnome who are going to implement something like RDB for their respective GUIs. That's going to be how networking is going to be handled at the GUI level.
The reason X11 is slow (or rather seems slow) is because X11 is an asynchronous API.
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis though it is well argued. asynchronous is generally preferable, but scheduling of asynchronous events needs to carefully considered. Synchronous programming for I/O is much easier. As an aside Aqua, Aero and Metro are asynchronous as well.
They disgust you so what? That doesn't change the facts of what they do.
As for busting down the door of a journalist, Jason Chen had a warrant issued against him by a judge for theft. I happen to agree that the judge never should have issued the warrant against Chen under the Privacy Protection Act . But the party responsible here for violating the law is the state of California. It is not Apple's job to enforce the Privacy Protection Act.
That article is about applications using old APIs. The Metro / Win8 stuff scales fine.
You can't modernize away the big problem with local performance. The application buffer and the video buffer can't be shared. On a 5m screen that's 20m of data, minimum. As 60 frame / sec that 1.2g of data crossing over the bus per second for highly intensive graphics. While we have busses that under best case that can handle 1.2g / sec, they can't do it under suboptimal conditions.
Make that multi monitor and game over, too slow.
Sure because after all, Apple is a well known for being a bland company with no strong opinions that's just interested in quick profits and not a long term strategy.
Why are you so nuts when it comes to Apple? Apple has clear speeches and policies about why they do things. Their actions are consistent with their claims. So generally one would take what they say at face value. The fact you may disagree with their policies doesn't mean they disagree with their policies.
I think it is the older crowd who hates change. People such as yourself who are set in their ways.
I think the are younger. Probably guys in the 30s. People who missed the 1990s tech boom and spent their entire careers in a world of stagnant IT.
If we had a time machine and showed these comments to slashdotters in 2002 I wonder what the reaction would be?
In terms of stagnation I suspect they'd have the "I will become my parents" the /. crowd has become the mainframe crowd that was just replaced in 2002. I think they would be thrilled that Linux is still around and has huge server market share. Shock that Unix systems (Android, iOS) dominate what's replacing the desktop / laptop. Thrilled that open source software like Firefox and Chrome went on to win the browser wars. Thrilled that Open Office has substantial market share.
In 2014 we can ignore these users and they will find out the hard way when they get hacked, cant browse websites, or open files in newer programs.
They have no idea how fast Microsoft can move the eco system when they want to, since they are used to a Microsoft that is conservative. Heck this might be something like Y2K where there is lots of money spent suddenly.
There is actually a pretty good way to handle that. You have two agencies that are staffed very differently.
A is a pro business commerce group that is involved and coordination
B is an hostile agency that goes after the worst offenders
For example on environmental regulation of coal
A is staffed by people from the coal industry and people from West Virginia, Ohio...
B is staffed by people from wildlife preservation from California, New York....
That way in terms of regulation A plays good cop and B plays bad cop.
That would be the strategy if the goal was a slow win of money from Android. Apple genuinely believes Android infringed and their primary goal was to force Android to start forking their look and feel design away from Apple. That's likely been achieved as the systems are forking more and there is less copying.
Reread your post. Your argument was the interface of Windows 8 was such a radical departure that the cost... Which isn't an argument against upgrading to Windows 7.
If you are saying the licensing costs of Windows are the issue, then you are a customer who isn't spending very much on IT. In which case why would Microsoft care.
Well that sounds like a vendor problem. They created a piece of software with deep ties to a specific OS version which is now unsupported.
That being said, Windows drivers don't know if they are talking to a USB port or a virtual USB port. Something like a virtual dongle server will work you just inject it into the stream. I know there a dongle servers that allow for dongles to be shared on the network (defeating the whole point) and those are quite successful.
Goog point. My thinking is if you have a BYOD infrastructure you need to treat the corporate desktops are untrusted. You don't care if they follow policy because other than services like anti-virus they don't matter. So for example they run client apps but computations are done on the servers. You just pull the infrastructure back like you would if you were serving stuff up on the open internet.
That's embedded effectively not desktop. Its the vendor's job to replace the technology or not. I don't count that as the hospital's problem.
It was always easy to train on people on Unix systems. The issue was with office / clerical staff who had already developed a windows culture. There the conversions were really hard. The only companies that have realized how addicted to Microsoft they are those that have made a serious attempt to move away. Which is why I don't think Windows 8 poses any challenge.
In terms of replacement clients. I think Linux has been ready for a decade. And I think its success in: server, embedded, super computing and even being #3 desktop in popularity show that.
OTOH now I own a business (small) so I can do what I want, and my business uses OSX. Our custom stuff ends up as much as possible being rather generic Unix. GUIs we try and keep lightweight. Where they aren't in all fairness more often than not I end up tying them to proprietary technologies myself just to save 40% or so on development. Much as I'd rather be using Linux widgets like Qt. But at least if/when I swap them out I won't whine I didn't know.
Slashdot is turning very conservative and is is weird. Don't you agree?
Yes! I think it is very weird. I'm shocked particular with the IPv6 conversations. I kinda think this is an example of behavior changes belief. You and I both got into IT in the 80s / 90s when things moved fast. I think the younger guys have never seen IT infrastructure turnover rapidly, so they believe it is impossible. I think they believe it is impossible that desktops could have ever been improving at the rate smartphones are today and what the implications were for corporate IT. Do you remember the mainframe guys back when we started who had the same attitudes?
To them IPv6 is impossible. I look at it like ripping out the Novell and DECNet networks and replacing them with NetBIOS/ NetBEUI. To them flipping the desktop to an entirely different OS like moving away from curses terminals to Windows is impossible. You have I have done it, they haven't I suspect that's the difference.
When everyone sits and stops the clock it does the opposite and encourages to halt innovation.
I agree. I was very upset when Microsoft and Cisco allowed the pace of change to crawl in 2001. They've created an entire generation of stagnation. That's why I'm so thrilled to see Microsoft taking the lead again to drive progress with Windows 8.
But the cost accountants and PHB sure as hell intended to and plan to run it forever.
Absolutely but I'm confident Microsoft can now that they so choose break them of that. They are in for a shock about how unpleasant it will be to stay on old systems once Microsoft wants to move. Like the people who were completely isolated on XYWrite with a dot matrix printer running DOS well into the 1990s the choice is going to be almost total isolation or rapid progress (fingers crossed).
When XP was released they tried that. Though it wasn't $5/yr but I think 3% of software costs per month, so it might have been something like $1.20 / mo for XP, and you never had to "buy" software. Companies decided they would rather save the money and upgrade when they had to.
Microsoft's fees are a tiny percentage of GDP, multiply them by 10 and they don't matter.
I agree with you that free trade hasn't worked to the US's advantages. We've allowed a system to be created where the benefits of trade in terms of prices are broadly shared but the disadvantages in terms of wages are concentrated. We've combined that with a tax system which is anti-progressive. The result is the creation of an Oligarchy.
That's easy to fix though by taxing wealth, creating a VAT and making domestic wages count against the VAT.
I doubt it will be extended. They've extended the date several times already.
Maybe. First Microsoft owns the copyright. If they want to play hardball they can do a lot more than just not sign drivers, though I don't think they'll do that.
Second the reason OEMs can create hardware that supports a full range of devices is because Microsoft has a very good QA facility for them to test in. Once XP is gone from that facility, and it already is, it gets harder to create hardware that support XP as it exists in the field. But again there are hundreds of millions of used systems that run XP fine, so that's not a huge problem.
More likely though, they'll do exactly what they say they will. The new versions of updates on all their server products won't support XP clients. So for example Office 2013 doesn't work on XP and VIsta. There is a new Exchange virus and the upgrade doesn't work with XP.... It just gets increasingly painful to use XP and the customers do migrate.
And remember Windows 7 ships with XP in virtual mode. So the cost of upgrading is comparatively low. Sure the really stubborn stay on XP for years after support expires but that is a vanishing share of the market and mostly irrelevant.
Why will they need to? Lots of business deal with vendors that set terms that business don't like. I'm sure business would prefer to not have to keep paying their electric vendor month after month and just get electricity for free. I'm sure business would prefer to not have to keep paying their facilities rent. So what? Microsoft sells a product and sets the terms.
Microsoft has been unequivocal that their operating systems were limited life from the time they founded the company. During the time XP was being sold they were advising companies to get on a support plan and rent not own all their Microsoft software.
Microsoft's customers will pay their bills just like they pay everyone else's.
Windows 7 is the current OS they sell. How is that an argument for staying with XP?
Why would they expect that? As for customers not checking. I agree Microsoft in being so generous about support has encouraged this complacency. Apple by contrast with rapid and aggressive upgrades doesn't have this problem.
I'm not sure how your evidence even supports your theory.
Netbook XP was specifically sold by Microsoft at the time as an obsolete OS designed to run on underpowered hardware and was a not recommended configuration that they reluctantly offered.
Microsoft never advertised XP as an embedded system. Not once. They never asked hardware devices to lock themselves into XP. They have repeatedly year after year after year advised people on appropriate migration paths. They have published numerous articles asking their OS customers to pressure their vendors to upgrade their systems.
Lost trust in what? That Microsoft is going to support you even if you ignore everything they tell you to do?