Read enough ' sarcastic/scathing/vitriolic typical/. comments' and you'll get really sick of it. Your comments are very refreshing. Thanks for your post:)
Yes, open. There wasn't a 'PC' company a prospective hardware vendor had to license from to put out a new product. ATI, Nvidia, IBM, 3Com, etc etc could innovate and put out newer, cheaper products and didn't have to get anyone's permission to do so. The openness and competition in the atmosphere drove the technology forward. Microsoft provided software that ran on the heterogenious platform (it's also the cause of many of Windows' stability problems).
If a vendor signed a contract with Microsoft to get cheap prices on software, then that's one thing. They could've easily just bought boxed software though.
Part of what makes x86 special is that mom-and-pop shops can sell PC's as they see fit, and don't have to adhere to Apple's (Sun's, SGI's, IBM's) rather strict rules.
Microsoft is a big player, but Intel, AMD, and hundreds of companies that write software also have a big stake in it. This includes hardware companies--changing architecture requires redesigning most of their products. Industries develop standards, and x86 has grown into the IT (desktop) industry standard.
Think about VHS: everyone made VHS products because everyone else made VHS products (and that's what the consumers were used to). Betamax was a superior standard. DVD has emerged victorious, but it took _years_ for it to grow beyond a niche market. Economic forces kept the superior technologies from flowering.
Changing the infrastructure for an entire industry is very time consuming and expensive. Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in x86--they have an interest in keeping the market happy, stable, and profitable. We'll eventually move away from it, but it can't happen overnight. Microsoft will be happy to oblige when it happens.
And I disagree that Apple can really compete with x86. It can on a technical level, and win over individual users, but it cannot become the next desktop standard. It's awful tough for something to become a _standard_ when one party controls all aspects of it, and refuses to open it up to the market for innovations.
Microsoft is on top today because the PC has been open to the industry, and Microsoft embraced and pushed that concept. All other proprietary architectures (like Apple) are sitting with %3 market share. The server market is still significantly proprietary, but x86 is growing by leaps and bounds there too. That's been made possible by Microsoft and open-source Unix derivatives.
I'm not defending x86 on a technical level. I hate working with x86 assembly, and I think it's horribly antiquated. But it's the way this industry works at the moment, and we'll have to live with that for the next few years. Honestly, I'd like to see IA-64 become the next standard (just my opinion).
As the article observes, Linux (and open-source software in general) is not locked into the x86 architecture like Windows is.
The Windows source is actually quite portable. You mention NT running on PPC, MIPS and Alpha. I remember reading that Microsoft had NT running on Intel's i960 during early development as well, though I cannot find a link (googling for 'i960' and 'windows' turns up hundreds of pages about RAID cards). MS currently ships Windows for Itanium, and x86-64 Windows is almost upon us.
The Windows team has worked pretty hard to maintain their platform-generic coding. That's the smart thing to do--they can quickly jump on a new architecture to make $$, or easily shift gears with the market (if everyone moves from x86).
If the Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 code tree turns out to not be portable enough, Microsoft could beef up Windows CE to a desktop operating system pretty quick. It runs on all kinds of crazy architectures:)
For that matter, let's stop development of all radio technology! Computers too! They'll all increase the likelihood of cheap RFIDs being used in stores. The world will end!
If you're looking for quiet power supplies, I'd recommend you check out www.siliconacoustics.com. I bought a quiet Zalman PSU from them a long time ago (and it was very quiet). Now they sell a completely fanless 350 Watt PSU.
As manly as it is too sleep with a hoover humming away in your room all the time, you should try to go somewhere completely silent, and see if your ears ring. That's called tinitus, and it's permanent damage to your hearing.
Since the XBox itself is sold at a loss, that'd be the end of the whole platform.
Thank you for mentioning this. Once a console company can't control what's run on its console, it has two options: sell them for what they are (PC's for $500), or stop selling them.
caffinated beverages are consumed for their stimulating properties, alcoholic beverages are consumed for their alcoholic properties and water is consumed for its thirst quenching properties. some how i think this shit's here for a reason.
I think people eat chocolate because they like it. Not for its stimulating and blood-sugar elevating properties. Same can be said for coffee.
You joke about alcohol free beer, but folks have made beer seasoning, which could eventually make it into beer flavored chips, for example. Folks really can like something for what it is, rather than its biochemical properties.
Decaffinated coffee was discovered acctidentally (around the turn of the century, if I recall) when a ship loaded with coffee beans from South America was caught in a nasty storm. Its deck and hold were awash with sea water for 8+ hours. The owners of the cargo, attempting to salvage the beans, made coffee with it anyway. The taste was different, and analysis showed that it had less caffeine. They marketed it as "decaffeinated" coffee, and a product was born.
There are several chemicals that dissolve caffeine, and I assume sea water has some of them. Read up here for modern methods of decaffeination.
Personally, I like the taste of coffee, and it'd be kinda nice to have a no-caffeine variant that tasted the same as full-octane stuff. Great for having a cup before bed.
I would really like a phone to sync to my PC's PIM. I've seen a demo of a smartphone, and that was the coolest features by far...the dude just grabbed his entire contact list from outlook. I use my phone as my contact list, with no back up, because I'm too lazy to retype the whole thing. I could also see it's usefulness to send quick emails.
I'll agree with you on the games/camera/web browsing though.
But with XBox day, we all get to sit on the couch, and everyone isn't looking at their own monitor. It has a different ambience, and feels more social.
The big XBox party experience isn't the same as the LANing experience.
Occasionally we have XBox day at work, where we set two 7 ft wide projector screens back to back, and pipe XBoxes through some LCD projectors at them. Stick some folks in nearby conference rooms, and some 12 player Halo love commences. That experience simply can't be had with PCs.
I'll probably get both versions. XBox gaming lends itself to parties (that is, large groups of people playing and having a good time) much easier than PC's. If Doom3 has a similar multiplayer setup to Halo, then it'd be a blast to play with your buddies. It's sure easier than hauling your whole rig around for LAN gaming.
is just another example of the company trying to create a meme that is misleading
Do you realize how paranoid and conspiracy theorist that sounds? If you worked with SQL Server all the time, or read about it much, then it's very convenient to not say "SQL Server {2000}" anytime you want to refer to it. Folks don't use "GNU/Linux", or "Red Hat Linux 8.0", or "Microsoft Windows XP Professional"--they say "Linux", "Red Hat" and "Windows". Linguistically, it's perfectly natural.
Microsoft offers that logo to products that maintain a certain level of usability and quality. It's no different than after-market products for cars. Ford isn't going to allow a manufacturer of carburetors to use its logo if Ford can't vouch for the quality of the product. Ensuring quality of software that claims "Designed for Windows" is vital to the perception and marketability of the platform.
Has something changed that they no longer charge to go through Microsoft testing labs to get the logo?
I don't see a way around this. To ensure product quality, someone has to test it. Unfortunately, software testing costs money, and a lot of it. I assume that the costs are as low as possible, since it is in Microsoft's interests (as far as copies of Windows sold) to have as many "Designed for Windows" products on the market as possible. Microsoft doesn't make its $20 billion a year on logo licenses.
I'll politely disagree with your statement about Microsoft's viewpoints on user experience. I know quite a few Microsoft employees, and they work hard on usability and specific user scenarios (e.g. user experience). I'll also dispute your claim to Microsoft's creativity. Those same folks don't sit around all day looking at everyone else's products thinking about the best way to copy them. Features arise from customer requests, proposals from other teams, and old-fashioned brainstorming and innovation.
I could quote examples of original features all day--as you could name examples where Microsoft copied Apple. Our respective views on Microsoft are largely subjective, and I doubt we'll convince each other.
How is this different for you and your company?
As for the Win32 API and logo compliance: yes it's a pain in the ass. The first example (for the product I develop) that comes to mind was the transition to Unicode. Pre-Win2K didn't support it, so there's a bunch of code in the product that handles both cases. I think that the Unicode extension of Win32 is A Good Thing however, and it was worth doing the work. Work is required for logo compliance, but I think the logo requirements are worth striving for--they define behaviors for a "good app" that users expect.
As bad as the stability of Win32 may be, it's better than the Java spec:)
You don't have to get logo certification to develop or sell software. If your aim is to set up retail distribution of a product to Office Depot (or Circuit City, Best Buy, WalMart, etc), then $400 is probably the least costly of the investments you'll have to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Read enough ' sarcastic/scathing/vitriolic typical /. comments' and you'll get really sick of it. Your comments are very refreshing. Thanks for your post :)
Yes, open. There wasn't a 'PC' company a prospective hardware vendor had to license from to put out a new product. ATI, Nvidia, IBM, 3Com, etc etc could innovate and put out newer, cheaper products and didn't have to get anyone's permission to do so. The openness and competition in the atmosphere drove the technology forward. Microsoft provided software that ran on the heterogenious platform (it's also the cause of many of Windows' stability problems).
If a vendor signed a contract with Microsoft to get cheap prices on software, then that's one thing. They could've easily just bought boxed software though.
Part of what makes x86 special is that mom-and-pop shops can sell PC's as they see fit, and don't have to adhere to Apple's (Sun's, SGI's, IBM's) rather strict rules.
Microsoft is a big player, but Intel, AMD, and hundreds of companies that write software also have a big stake in it. This includes hardware companies--changing architecture requires redesigning most of their products. Industries develop standards, and x86 has grown into the IT (desktop) industry standard.
Think about VHS: everyone made VHS products because everyone else made VHS products (and that's what the consumers were used to). Betamax was a superior standard. DVD has emerged victorious, but it took _years_ for it to grow beyond a niche market. Economic forces kept the superior technologies from flowering.
Changing the infrastructure for an entire industry is very time consuming and expensive. Microsoft doesn't have a vested interest in x86--they have an interest in keeping the market happy, stable, and profitable. We'll eventually move away from it, but it can't happen overnight. Microsoft will be happy to oblige when it happens.
And I disagree that Apple can really compete with x86. It can on a technical level, and win over individual users, but it cannot become the next desktop standard. It's awful tough for something to become a _standard_ when one party controls all aspects of it, and refuses to open it up to the market for innovations.
Microsoft is on top today because the PC has been open to the industry, and Microsoft embraced and pushed that concept. All other proprietary architectures (like Apple) are sitting with %3 market share. The server market is still significantly proprietary, but x86 is growing by leaps and bounds there too. That's been made possible by Microsoft and open-source Unix derivatives.
I'm not defending x86 on a technical level. I hate working with x86 assembly, and I think it's horribly antiquated. But it's the way this industry works at the moment, and we'll have to live with that for the next few years. Honestly, I'd like to see IA-64 become the next standard (just my opinion).
As the article observes, Linux (and open-source software in general) is not locked into the x86 architecture like Windows is.
:)
The Windows source is actually quite portable. You mention NT running on PPC, MIPS and Alpha. I remember reading that Microsoft had NT running on Intel's i960 during early development as well, though I cannot find a link (googling for 'i960' and 'windows' turns up hundreds of pages about RAID cards). MS currently ships Windows for Itanium, and x86-64 Windows is almost upon us.
The Windows team has worked pretty hard to maintain their platform-generic coding. That's the smart thing to do--they can quickly jump on a new architecture to make $$, or easily shift gears with the market (if everyone moves from x86).
If the Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 code tree turns out to not be portable enough, Microsoft could beef up Windows CE to a desktop operating system pretty quick. It runs on all kinds of crazy architectures
For that matter, let's stop development of all radio technology! Computers too! They'll all increase the likelihood of cheap RFIDs being used in stores. The world will end!
If you're looking for quiet power supplies, I'd recommend you check out www.siliconacoustics.com. I bought a quiet Zalman PSU from them a long time ago (and it was very quiet). Now they sell a completely fanless 350 Watt PSU.
As manly as it is too sleep with a hoover humming away in your room all the time, you should try to go somewhere completely silent, and see if your ears ring. That's called tinitus, and it's permanent damage to your hearing.
Since the XBox itself is sold at a loss, that'd be the end of the whole platform.
Thank you for mentioning this. Once a console company can't control what's run on its console, it has two options: sell them for what they are (PC's for $500), or stop selling them.
Yep. And happy too.
:)
Windows does everything I want it to. I'd rather not take the time to configure a distro to suit my needs.
And I won't ever go back to debugging with GDB
caffinated beverages are consumed for their stimulating properties, alcoholic beverages are consumed for their alcoholic properties and water is consumed for its thirst quenching properties. some how i think this shit's here for a reason.
I think people eat chocolate because they like it. Not for its stimulating and blood-sugar elevating properties. Same can be said for coffee.
You joke about alcohol free beer, but folks have made beer seasoning, which could eventually make it into beer flavored chips, for example. Folks really can like something for what it is, rather than its biochemical properties.
Decaffinated coffee was discovered acctidentally (around the turn of the century, if I recall) when a ship loaded with coffee beans from South America was caught in a nasty storm. Its deck and hold were awash with sea water for 8+ hours. The owners of the cargo, attempting to salvage the beans, made coffee with it anyway. The taste was different, and analysis showed that it had less caffeine. They marketed it as "decaffeinated" coffee, and a product was born.
There are several chemicals that dissolve caffeine, and I assume sea water has some of them. Read up here for modern methods of decaffeination.
Personally, I like the taste of coffee, and it'd be kinda nice to have a no-caffeine variant that tasted the same as full-octane stuff. Great for having a cup before bed.
Dude, that's awesome. I'll get their EP once it's released :)
Because a mirror is better looking than an idle television.
I would really like a phone to sync to my PC's PIM. I've seen a demo of a smartphone, and that was the coolest features by far...the dude just grabbed his entire contact list from outlook. I use my phone as my contact list, with no back up, because I'm too lazy to retype the whole thing. I could also see it's usefulness to send quick emails.
I'll agree with you on the games/camera/web browsing though.
This is the most insightful comment I've read on this thread yet.
I'd rather not divuldge details in public, but I'll happily let you know if you send me your email address :)
lordsah[at]hotmail[dot]com
But with XBox day, we all get to sit on the couch, and everyone isn't looking at their own monitor. It has a different ambience, and feels more social.
The big XBox party experience isn't the same as the LANing experience.
Occasionally we have XBox day at work, where we set two 7 ft wide projector screens back to back, and pipe XBoxes through some LCD projectors at them. Stick some folks in nearby conference rooms, and some 12 player Halo love commences. That experience simply can't be had with PCs.
I'll probably get both versions. XBox gaming lends itself to parties (that is, large groups of people playing and having a good time) much easier than PC's. If Doom3 has a similar multiplayer setup to Halo, then it'd be a blast to play with your buddies. It's sure easier than hauling your whole rig around for LAN gaming.
is just another example of the company trying to create a meme that is misleading
Do you realize how paranoid and conspiracy theorist that sounds? If you worked with SQL Server all the time, or read about it much, then it's very convenient to not say "SQL Server {2000}" anytime you want to refer to it. Folks don't use "GNU/Linux", or "Red Hat Linux 8.0", or "Microsoft Windows XP Professional"--they say "Linux", "Red Hat" and "Windows". Linguistically, it's perfectly natural.
or...
B) You're opinion isn't mine and it makes me uncomfortable.
Is such a horrible, horrible day for viewing slashdot. I forgot until I just looked. See y'all tomorrow.
Not to steal your thunder, but I just picked up a copy of WinXP, and it does indeed have the logo on it.
Microsoft offers that logo to products that maintain a certain level of usability and quality. It's no different than after-market products for cars. Ford isn't going to allow a manufacturer of carburetors to use its logo if Ford can't vouch for the quality of the product. Ensuring quality of software that claims "Designed for Windows" is vital to the perception and marketability of the platform.
:)
Has something changed that they no longer charge to go through Microsoft testing labs to get the logo?
I don't see a way around this. To ensure product quality, someone has to test it. Unfortunately, software testing costs money, and a lot of it. I assume that the costs are as low as possible, since it is in Microsoft's interests (as far as copies of Windows sold) to have as many "Designed for Windows" products on the market as possible. Microsoft doesn't make its $20 billion a year on logo licenses.
I'll politely disagree with your statement about Microsoft's viewpoints on user experience. I know quite a few Microsoft employees, and they work hard on usability and specific user scenarios (e.g. user experience). I'll also dispute your claim to Microsoft's creativity. Those same folks don't sit around all day looking at everyone else's products thinking about the best way to copy them. Features arise from customer requests, proposals from other teams, and old-fashioned brainstorming and innovation.
I could quote examples of original features all day--as you could name examples where Microsoft copied Apple. Our respective views on Microsoft are largely subjective, and I doubt we'll convince each other.
How is this different for you and your company?
As for the Win32 API and logo compliance: yes it's a pain in the ass. The first example (for the product I develop) that comes to mind was the transition to Unicode. Pre-Win2K didn't support it, so there's a bunch of code in the product that handles both cases. I think that the Unicode extension of Win32 is A Good Thing however, and it was worth doing the work. Work is required for logo compliance, but I think the logo requirements are worth striving for--they define behaviors for a "good app" that users expect.
As bad as the stability of Win32 may be, it's better than the Java spec
You don't have to get logo certification to develop or sell software. If your aim is to set up retail distribution of a product to Office Depot (or Circuit City, Best Buy, WalMart, etc), then $400 is probably the least costly of the investments you'll have to make.