Not really. So long as you have your media, you could still buy a new machine with an XP license, wipe it, and install Window 95 on it...I think. Microsoft licensing currently allows this back-revisioning thing. Which is why when we buy new PCs with Windows XP Pro on them, they are quickly wiped and Windows 2000 Pro is installed instead. This is perfectly legit.
Not that anyone would WANT to install Windows 95 at this point...
Well, I don't know about his defrag problems, but I run Windows 2000 Pro on my work desktop and I find 128MB doesn't cut it. I know how to optimize W2K...I have shut down every unnecessary service...I have taken many other steps to minimize resource waste.
I run IIS5 (*gasp*), and use Visual InterDev, Visual Basic (eek!), Delphi Enterprise, Corel PhotoPaint, DreamWeaver UltraDev, FireWorks, and MS Outlook on a regular basis, although generally not all simultaneously.
I also have a few Perl scripts running constantly in the background.
When I boot my machine, without even IIS5 running, close to 90 MB is already gone.
Once I spark up a few apps, the remainder is used and the swap-fest begins (or at least it used to). I up'ed the machine to 256 MB and have to push a little harder (generally PhotoPaint with a few TIFs open alongside UltraDev and Outlook will do nicely) but on occassion, I still have more RAM allocated than physically available.
Granted, I am not your typical office app user, but still RAM MATTERS.
I am familiar with MSDE. I think this, along with the JET engine and the Exchange version of JET is part of why it makes sense for MS to do this. From their perspective, you gotta figure it makes sense to simplify and have one scalable storage solution.
I think:
enough people who know a thing or two more about this than me are talking about it
now MS is talking about creating an Object File System
and we know SQL Server research has been going into making it handle less structured data more effectively
I think it all points to credibility. That's not to say there won't be some add-on for additional SQL Server functionality, but I think it's believable that the core functionality of storing and retrieving objects in OFS will come from SQL Server.
That's interesting, because Citrix wrote a BIG check to license Microsoft's codebase for OS/2 and NT when it first started. Citrix basically "went to bed" with Microsoft and created a multi-user version of OS/2 (Citrix Multi-user) then further created a multi-user NT with WinFrame.
Then Microsoft decided there was something to this Citrix thing and decided to put the technology directly into the OS.
Citrix was wise enough to take the money and license their code back to Microsoft rather than go head to head against them. (After all, they kind of need MS, don't they?)
At that point, Citrix repositioned themselves to be an add-on provider and started working on ways to diversify their "thin-client" mission.
They're doing well at it. And frankly, just like most other Microsoft initiatives, Terminal Services SUCKS without MetaFrame.
For the Citrix spin on where they've been: read me
It didn't upgrade any OS DLLs because it didn't HAVE to. The CODE IT NEEDS IS ALREADY THERE.
If Microsoft ships the OS with HALF of the OFFICE CODE already EMBEDDED in SYSTEM DLLs, you still can't USE OFFICE without the other HALF...which is what you installed when you loaded Office XP.
That's why it LOADS faster, RUNS faster, and has SMALLER executables. The code for office, much like every other Microsoft product is being MIGRATED into the OS itself.
The OFS initiative will EMBED SQL Server INTO the OS itself.
Bye bye RDMBS competition.
Got a browser competing with you, embed IE into the OS. Got Citrix competing with you, embed terminal services into the OS. Got Oracle competing with you, embed the DB.
But if it did that, then the DLLs would still be considered a part of the app (or suite of apps in this case). By embedding the functions needed in system DLLs that get loaded by the OS at boot because the OS itself needs some function of that DLL, you can claim the DLL is not part of the app, but part of the OS. Then, your APP can be smaller, load and run faster, and you lock your app into your OS.
When will we see this in Linux? Surely, if Microsoft can do this, so can the people working on Linux. Riiight?
If you mean: when will Linux-folk create a better file system than currently existing file systems? The answer is now. There are any number of folks working on newer, better file systems today.
If you mean: When will Linux-folk create software that can read from and write to Microsoft's new FS? The asnwer is: a long time after Microsoft finishes OFS. If Microsoft can do it, then yes, so can anyone else.
But, you must remember: once Microsoft is done creating OFS, it will take a good while for a good number of good people to reverse engineer OFS to a point where you can have good Linux-based code for OFS i/o.
I imagine only Microsoft Partners will get the info needed to make their products compatible. And they'll just get some API or something. I can't think of any reason Microsoft would give anyone outside the full specs.
Don't think for a second Microsoft is going to publish the full specs to OFS for anyone else to mimic.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. So long as you have your media, you could still buy a new machine with an XP license, wipe it, and install Window 95 on it...I think. Microsoft licensing currently allows this back-revisioning thing. Which is why when we buy new PCs with Windows XP Pro on them, they are quickly wiped and Windows 2000 Pro is installed instead. This is perfectly legit.
Not that anyone would WANT to install Windows 95 at this point...
Perhaps at times like those, you have to heed the sage advice of The Humungus:
Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror...
CmdrTaco is allowed to be an ass every day. What's your point?
I just said he was: a) unfunny, and b) self-righteous for complaining about the complainers.
If one agrees with the Taco, she is cool. If one disagrees, she is clueless?
So be it. It's his place.
Or is it?
ditto
It never ceases to amaze me how pompous and self-righteous, yet utterly clueless CmdrTaco can be despite the blatant lameness of his jokes.
I think the real April Fool's Joke is that all the stories posted by CmdrTaco aren't *really* from CmdrTaco. It's someone else masquerading as him...
Perhaps it's The Satanic SysAdmins
Now that would be funny. I think that's the best thing I've read on /. all day...
thanks
...I'm not paying to read these stories...
But fart jokes are funny...
Are moderators too obtuse or am I too ambiguous?
Let me elaborate so we all understand:
- I think
/. has pretty much been CrapDot today. - I think the post with the idea to name it CrapDot was interesting, insightful, and informative
- I knew people would mod it as funny
- I don't think it's meant to be funny
- April Fool's Day jokes are supposed to be funny
- No AFJ on
/. today has been funny IMO - The word "This" is too vague for moderators to know what it refers to
- I have karma to burn
This is flamebait: Bite me...Now if only I had mod points today. +1 Interesting, +1 Insightful, +1 Informative...
This is not even funny.
Not to mention: all your keys are insecure
...or should I say, all your keys are belong to us?
Well, I don't know about his defrag problems, but I run Windows 2000 Pro on my work desktop and I find 128MB doesn't cut it. I know how to optimize W2K...I have shut down every unnecessary service...I have taken many other steps to minimize resource waste.
I run IIS5 (*gasp*), and use Visual InterDev, Visual Basic (eek!), Delphi Enterprise, Corel PhotoPaint, DreamWeaver UltraDev, FireWorks, and MS Outlook on a regular basis, although generally not all simultaneously.
I also have a few Perl scripts running constantly in the background.
When I boot my machine, without even IIS5 running, close to 90 MB is already gone.
Once I spark up a few apps, the remainder is used and the swap-fest begins (or at least it used to). I up'ed the machine to 256 MB and have to push a little harder (generally PhotoPaint with a few TIFs open alongside UltraDev and Outlook will do nicely) but on occassion, I still have more RAM allocated than physically available.
Granted, I am not your typical office app user, but still RAM MATTERS.
Oh...my...must...catch...breath...someone...mod... up...
...whew, that was funny.
This is news for nerds because it helps them decide whether they want to go ahead and d/l it from usenet or not.
I know. Thanks for the REASSURANCE that it WORKED.
Actually, I find the typing of l33t h4x0r5 to be very annoying as well.
But I guess they're just trying to be k3wl.
I think:
- enough people who know a thing or two more about this than me are talking about it
- now MS is talking about creating an Object File System
- and we know SQL Server research has been going into making it handle less structured data more effectively
I think it all points to credibility. That's not to say there won't be some add-on for additional SQL Server functionality, but I think it's believable that the core functionality of storing and retrieving objects in OFS will come from SQL Server.Actually, Windows DLLs do have versioning. It's just that not all apps check versions. They just load SOMETHING.DLL and assume it's the right version.
As others have indicated, the ^H indicates a CTRL+H character (ASCII 8) which is a backspace/delete on old VT100 and I believe ANSI terminals.
When someone writes something, follows it with some ^H^H stuff, then writes a different word, it's like saying:
Potential Sucker...er...ummm...I mean...uhh...Customer.
That's interesting, because Citrix wrote a BIG check to license Microsoft's codebase for OS/2 and NT when it first started. Citrix basically "went to bed" with Microsoft and created a multi-user version of OS/2 (Citrix Multi-user) then further created a multi-user NT with WinFrame.
Then Microsoft decided there was something to this Citrix thing and decided to put the technology directly into the OS.
Citrix was wise enough to take the money and license their code back to Microsoft rather than go head to head against them. (After all, they kind of need MS, don't they?)
At that point, Citrix repositioned themselves to be an add-on provider and started working on ways to diversify their "thin-client" mission.
They're doing well at it. And frankly, just like most other Microsoft initiatives, Terminal Services SUCKS without MetaFrame.
For the Citrix spin on where they've been: read me
It didn't upgrade any OS DLLs because it didn't HAVE to. The CODE IT NEEDS IS ALREADY THERE.
If Microsoft ships the OS with HALF of the OFFICE CODE already EMBEDDED in SYSTEM DLLs, you still can't USE OFFICE without the other HALF...which is what you installed when you loaded Office XP.
That's why it LOADS faster, RUNS faster, and has SMALLER executables. The code for office, much like every other Microsoft product is being MIGRATED into the OS itself.
The OFS initiative will EMBED SQL Server INTO the OS itself.
Bye bye RDMBS competition.
Got a browser competing with you, embed IE into the OS. Got Citrix competing with you, embed terminal services into the OS. Got Oracle competing with you, embed the DB.
It's a proven successful tack and it makes sense.
But if it did that, then the DLLs would still be considered a part of the app (or suite of apps in this case). By embedding the functions needed in system DLLs that get loaded by the OS at boot because the OS itself needs some function of that DLL, you can claim the DLL is not part of the app, but part of the OS. Then, your APP can be smaller, load and run faster, and you lock your app into your OS.
Genius.
We don't all live in countries ruled by the MPAA, RIAA, or similar corporations and their silly laws...yet.
If you mean: when will Linux-folk create a better file system than currently existing file systems? The answer is now. There are any number of folks working on newer, better file systems today.
If you mean: When will Linux-folk create software that can read from and write to Microsoft's new FS? The asnwer is: a long time after Microsoft finishes OFS. If Microsoft can do it, then yes, so can anyone else.
But, you must remember: once Microsoft is done creating OFS, it will take a good while for a good number of good people to reverse engineer OFS to a point where you can have good Linux-based code for OFS i/o.
I imagine only Microsoft Partners will get the info needed to make their products compatible. And they'll just get some API or something. I can't think of any reason Microsoft would give anyone outside the full specs.
Don't think for a second Microsoft is going to publish the full specs to OFS for anyone else to mimic.
Perhaps. I thought there weren't any bugs in Windows, only FEATURES.
All the problems you are having are due to third part bugs. Prove otherwise.