sure, what about the reams of paprework you have to go throught in order to sell a real car, let alone the taxes you have to file. not only do you have to pay tax on the price of the car, but you probably have to pay each year just to drive it, and that's on top of the tax on gas. don't even think about selling it out of state - what a nightmare!
All versions of windows shipped since win3.1 have BSoDs. A BSoD occurs when there's an unhandled exception in ring-0 code (on x86). The only thing you can do after a BSoD is reboot. That's the point, to run any more code in such a situation is dangerous (read: corrupt disk), in Linux terms it's equivalent to a kernel panic.
the brazil (3-disk) criterion collection special addition has two full-length cuts of the film, plus commentaries, plus two full-length documentaries and more...
don't be fooled, they're milking it for all they can.
interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately it's not based on fact. netcraft statistics show linux replacing Sun on the server, windows usage is rising, too.
I wonder, how many non-MS patents cover technologies within DirectX? I'm sure MS has got to be pretty careful exercising their patents, patents are kinda like nukes: they're nice to have in an emergency, but you really don't want to use them if you can avoid it, 'cos the other guy's probably got a bunch, too.
yeah, DirectX was just a natural extension of the WinG libraries that provided fast but abstract bitmap access to the framebuffer (and that's basically what the 2d DirectX stuff still does). they also bought the rendermorphics stuff for (initially software) 3d support and provided a somewhat generic driver interface so IHVs could support their cards. they already had a mini-driver-based OpenGL system for NT (primarily to support SoftImage on NT, I think) but that didn't work well on Win95. They did acually have a version of the OpenGL mini-client-drivers for Win95, but I don't think they were ever shipped - it was up to the IHVs to provide their own implementation.
they did, Microsoft wrote OS/2 (versions up to, and including 1.3). Up until the internal rollout of NT3.51 most, if not all of the servers (email, file, print, RAID, etc...) inside MS were OS/2 1.3.
it's really unnecessary to optimize in the compiler, the difference between optimized bytecode & unoptimized bytecode is insignificant, but more importantly a decent JIT should be able to optimize both outputs to similar native code anyway.
I want to find out how the droids (3po/r2) completely forget to mention to luke in ep.4 that they were on tatooine a few years back, that 3po was built by luke's father, oh and that he's the same guy they're all running from. maybe ben reprograms them.
joking aside, Microsoft does use external beta testers, I believe the win95 beta program included about 500,000 testers.
I worked on the Visual Studio team a while back and we used three main methods of formal testing during product development:
manual testing. each feature team had a parallel team of testers that were responsible for testing that team's part of the product. the testers wrote manual test scripts driven both by the 'spec', requests from developers and regressions. these test scripts were used for generating the next two testing methods:
'sniff' tests. the sniff tests were a small suite of automated tests - sometimes using point-and-click automation, sometimes using internal code hooks or exposed automation (eg COM) interfaces - that were a requirement for check-in. ie before checking new code back into the source control system (microsoft's internal 'SLM', or later, SourceSafe) the developer had to run the sniff tests and ensure that they passed. they weren't particularly thorough (they had to run pretty quickly), they basically ensured that the product was usable and that other developers/testers would not be blocked by breakage. if the sniff tests did not pass, it was the responsibility of the developer to either fix his code, or grab the tester responsible for the test in question and update the test to reflect the altered functionality.
BVTs (build verification tests). these were a much more thorough superset of the sniff tests that run on the build-lab's machines after the nightly build had completed. for example the compiler BVTs included iterations and combinations of self-building the compiler and libraries with the new code. the developers had little interaction with these test, unless they failed, of course.
For me as a developer the sniff tests were the most important, I could come in in the morning, sync up, build and continue working without worrying about whether or not some guy down the hall in a completely unrelated part of the product had broken the 'file open' dialog, for example.
I imagine the main reason they're including the JVM is because they'll also be including the.NET runtime in SP1. They lawyers probably told them that it wouldn't look so bad if they were to also bundle a version of a competitor's runtime in with the upgrade. When people turn round and say 'hey you're bundling.NET, too' they can shrug it off because they're uncluding Java support as well.
what voodoo? all you have to do is go to windowsupdate.com and click on 'scan', 'review' & 'install'. or you can have the critical update wizard do it for you.
Slashdot Mirror
speaking of monopolies...
yeah, let's hope they tweaked that f1 video game code before they installed it in the car.
All versions of windows shipped since win3.1 have BSoDs. A BSoD occurs when there's an unhandled exception in ring-0 code (on x86). The only thing you can do after a BSoD is reboot. That's the point, to run any more code in such a situation is dangerous (read: corrupt disk), in Linux terms it's equivalent to a kernel panic.
yeah, but you only get 15 seconds and then you have to go buy another one... oh, man! was that a waste of money?
don't be fooled, they're milking it for all they can.
UK top-selling dance track of '98...
interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately it's not based on fact. netcraft statistics show linux replacing Sun on the server, windows usage is rising, too.
I wonder, how many non-MS patents cover technologies within DirectX? I'm sure MS has got to be pretty careful exercising their patents, patents are kinda like nukes: they're nice to have in an emergency, but you really don't want to use them if you can avoid it, 'cos the other guy's probably got a bunch, too.
yeah, DirectX was just a natural extension of the WinG libraries that provided fast but abstract bitmap access to the framebuffer (and that's basically what the 2d DirectX stuff still does). they also bought the rendermorphics stuff for (initially software) 3d support and provided a somewhat generic driver interface so IHVs could support their cards. they already had a mini-driver-based OpenGL system for NT (primarily to support SoftImage on NT, I think) but that didn't work well on Win95. They did acually have a version of the OpenGL mini-client-drivers for Win95, but I don't think they were ever shipped - it was up to the IHVs to provide their own implementation.
the USB reboot is requested by the 3rd party driver, not the windows kernel.
they did, Microsoft wrote OS/2 (versions up to, and including 1.3). Up until the internal rollout of NT3.51 most, if not all of the servers (email, file, print, RAID, etc...) inside MS were OS/2 1.3.
it's really unnecessary to optimize in the compiler, the difference between optimized bytecode & unoptimized bytecode is insignificant, but more importantly a decent JIT should be able to optimize both outputs to similar native code anyway.
I want to find out how the droids (3po/r2) completely forget to mention to luke in ep.4 that they were on tatooine a few years back, that 3po was built by luke's father, oh and that he's the same guy they're all running from. maybe ben reprograms them.
yup, you can be sure that games released for the xbox in the future will not run on modded boxen.
all the US channels want to do is sell you something, and all the spanish channels want you to do is to learn some spanish.
i watched them take the cup, and i didn't understand the word they were saying, but at least they weren't trying to sell me shoes.
he should also check his NDA from his previous job.
does anyone know of any small motherboards that have DVI capability built in?
I worked on the Visual Studio team a while back and we used three main methods of formal testing during product development:
- manual testing. each feature team had a parallel team of testers that were responsible for testing that team's part of the product. the testers wrote manual test scripts driven both by the 'spec', requests from developers and regressions. these test scripts were used for generating the next two testing methods:
- 'sniff' tests. the sniff tests were a small suite of automated tests - sometimes using point-and-click automation, sometimes using internal code hooks or exposed automation (eg COM) interfaces - that were a requirement for check-in. ie before checking new code back into the source control system (microsoft's internal 'SLM', or later, SourceSafe) the developer had to run the sniff tests and ensure that they passed. they weren't particularly thorough (they had to run pretty quickly), they basically ensured that the product was usable and that other developers/testers would not be blocked by breakage. if the sniff tests did not pass, it was the responsibility of the developer to either fix his code, or grab the tester responsible for the test in question and update the test to reflect the altered functionality.
- BVTs (build verification tests). these were a much more thorough superset of the sniff tests that run on the build-lab's machines after the nightly build had completed. for example the compiler BVTs included iterations and combinations of self-building the compiler and libraries with the new code. the developers had little interaction with these test, unless they failed, of course.
For me as a developer the sniff tests were the most important, I could come in in the morning, sync up, build and continue working without worrying about whether or not some guy down the hall in a completely unrelated part of the product had broken the 'file open' dialog, for example.Sorry, I was implying that those that download or use pirated copies are also pirates. Does that help?
I imagine the main reason they're including the JVM is because they'll also be including the .NET runtime in SP1. They lawyers probably told them that it wouldn't look so bad if they were to also bundle a version of a competitor's runtime in with the upgrade. When people turn round and say 'hey you're bundling .NET, too' they can shrug it off because they're uncluding Java support as well.
the dipshit that would like to pay Microsoft for their copy of Windows, as opposed to half of it going to pirates.
No, but they could try Oracle. They might even get a kickback while they're at it ;-)
and which pages are those that are so important and that don't render correctly on IE?
and how exactly is this relevant to your argument?
what voodoo? all you have to do is go to windowsupdate.com and click on 'scan', 'review' & 'install'. or you can have the critical update wizard do it for you.