I don't want to pay for a physical CD I would never use. Nor do I want to pay for someone at Microsoft to be in charge of such a thing. Nor do I want to pay for the additional Microsoft tech support required for others to use the non-Microsoft products.
Let me know when someone finds a way to make a modern PC BIOS video card look like an Open Firmware card without flashing the firmware. If it's as easy as converting an ATI Radeon 7000 PCI, it might be worthwhile (assuming something similar can be done with the BIOS).
My feeling is that a minimal virtual machine solution that emulates OF might be the way to go here (although CoreVideo might run like teh suck).
Development on new releases from Microsoft is because of the anti-trust mess worldwide,
Not Linux-related.
lack of incentive due to lack of competition,
Since desktop Linux has been in the game since 2000 or earlier, your statement implies one of the following: a) Linux is not competition for Windows || b) Linux has no effect on speeding up Windows development.
and security hole patching is eating up precious developer resources.
Not Linux-related.
Also, as time goes by, a given code base gets larger and more complex, making it more difficult to maintain.
Not Linux-related.
If anything, Linux pressure is causing Microsoft to get Longhorn to market faster.
That's a nice link to make, but can you support it with facts? The timeline in my previous post, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows suggests a conclusion opposite to yours.
BTW, in a general response to all the other discussions, I don't believe Apple said it would use the ATX or BTX architecture, did it?
History says that on their desktop towers, Apple will use a BTX power connector with swapped pins (cheap to source, additional 12V rails required by P4), PCI-E connectors (implement Macness in firmware as with current video and *ATA controllers), pin-swapped mini-PCI or its descendant for 802.11n expansion (if it's not on board).
Just processors. Also, they'd have been much better off adopting AMD...
Not necessarily. Intel's mobile and server roadmap was more suited to Apple's needs in the last five years. AMD seemed to focus much on debunking Intel's MHz myth by (counter-intuitively) trying to achieve a 1 GHz processor before Intel did, and by continuing the silly 2XXX+ branding system that was supposed to be mistaken for clock speed. Intel, meanwhile, experimented with various desktop, workstation, server and mobile processors, tightly-coupled chipsets/platforms like Centrino (hello Apple), and other processor technologies that met with mixed success.
Also, we don't know where Intel or AMD will go in the next year with technology. Recall that Apple is a hardware company, that is, they want control over as much of the hardware as possible. A CPU with an integrated northbridge could very well appear less sexy to Apple than to us geeks since that would lessen their control of the hardware stack.
If they can port from PowerPC to X86 without much effort, they can certainly port from Intel's X86 to AMD's X86 down the line.
It is just in the same way that Linux forced Microsoft to improve. If you don't believe me see Windows 3.1 and compare it to windows 95 - 98. And now compare it with Windows 2000 and 2003.
That's like comparing fruits and vegetables.
1990: Windows 2 to Windows 3 was revolutionary. 1993: NT 3.1 was new 1994: NT 3.5 became good-ish 1995: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 honored some interesting Mac OS ideas (LFN, Start menu) and was a significant change. 1996: NT4 remained solid for more than 5 years because it just worked. 2000: NT gets rewritten and hasn't much changed in the last five years. Win32 finally dies as Windows Me, which bears more similarities with Windows 95 than Windows 95 did with WFWG 3.11. 2005/2006: Brand new Longhorn will be fantabulous, or something.
To me, this seems like Microsoft on a 4-5 year rewrite cycle. Notice that at around 2000, when desktop Linux first became viable, MS dropped their entire Win32 line, and development of the next generation of Windows seems to actually slow down.
If there is a relationship between Linux and Windows (the link is sketchy at best), it seems that Linux slows product releases or development at MS. This seems marginally like a bad thing for consumers.
I'd be happy to entertain an argument that suggests slackware or yggdrasil in any way affected Win32 or WinNT in the mid-90s.
Also, reason prefers the link from angry Windows customers leading to fewer blue screens of death, than the link from Windows opponents and non-users to positive action by Microsoft.
I see the lawyers have adequately corrupted your lexicon. Why would one bother to introduce "unreasonable" doubt to reasonable people?
You are, of course, more accurate in your verbosity than I in my morning haste. Be cautious, however, that no party to any court proceeding can reliably expect to be assured of any particular outcome, save in corrupt regimes.
In most Common Law jurisdictions, the burden of proof is on the accuser to demonstrate the strength of their evidence and charges. The accused need not prove that the officer is neglegent as it is sufficient to merely introduce doubt.
The PPC chip is the only bad part about Macs right now.
That's quite a statement when you consider that most other bits of non-CPU-related hardware inside computers from Apple are identical to those in commodity PCs.
I'll assume you're not trolling since you've used the +1 bonus...
1) Wired infrastructure is not free of operational costs. Bandwidth costs money, no matter how you distribute it. Upgrading a wireless concentrator is on the same magnitude of expense as upgrading a wired concentrator, even on eBay.
3) Africa is not a homogeneous zone of people "who almost never go farther than a quick walk [from] their home[s]". The various metropolises of the continent's northern coast are each different from Capetown. Mining and river towns of the eastern interior certainly have different communications needs than the coastal port cities on the western half of the continent, or the fishing communities of the north who need to deal with international markets on a daily basis. And yes, there are some Africans who, for various reasons, will never want or need any kind of telephone.
Please don't let your cultural baises and lack of information prejudice your viewpoints in this manner.
Thanks for this thread. You've just spawned a few more gigabytes worth of crappy fan-fiction pages.
The editors at Doubleday or Pocketbooks (or whomever publishes the Trek novels) thank you also for the reams of unsolicited manuscripts based on these and other fantastic stories.
Emmerich and Devlin are wonderfully talented individuals who make mostly good films (ID4, 13th Floor, The Day After Tomorrow) so I'd like to see where they intended to go with one of my favourite movies.
He almost made of for the in "revenge of the sith"...
Have standards stooped so low that we're thankful for a non-crappy movie?
It might be time to put Star Trek and Star Wars away for a while to see what else can make the jump to the big screen. After all, they both have decades of wear at this point and aren't really doing anything new. B5, Firefly, Lexx, and Stargate (non-SG-1) 2 and 3 come to mind as modern SF that deserve a chance at the theatres.
I don't remember that being the case and can't find any traces of IE on my Win95 SP0 CD cabs. On the plus side, the MS version of history agrees with my memory...
In July 1995, Microsoft released the Windows 95 operating system, which included built-in support for dial-up networking and TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol), key technologies for connecting to the Internet. In response to the growing public interest in the Internet, Microsoft created an add-on to the operating system called Internet Explorer 1.0. When Windows 95 with Internet Explorer debuted, the Internet became much more accessible for many more people.
Internet Explorer technology originally shipped as the Internet Jumpstart Kit in Microsoft Plus! For Windows 95.
In almost every other case, software that goes to great lengths to handle malformed input in a graceful way is viewed in a positive light.
By incorporating IE, Netscape will lessen the pressure on developers to write standards-compliant code.
The code very often complies to standards--the standards just don't happen to be among those you support. If there was no IE standard, no one would be able to complain that developers are writing IE-only code.
At the same time, the reliance on IE destroys the cross-platform nature of the browser, and by proxy, the web itself.
Well now, that's a bit of a stretch. If the 10% firefox usage number is correct, the web is already past the point of maximum reliance on IE and the web seems quite the opposite of being destroyed.
It's a valid question because the white CRT iMac has a fairly smooth surface all around and no handle or obvious way of gripping it. Picking it up about as difficult as picking up a wet watermelon with about 1.5 times the expected density.
You do pay for the delivery truck, it's rolled into the cost of the subscription or paper at the stand by NYT. On-line, none of the fee your ISP collects from you goes to NYT.
I'd take Fox over most random blogger wankfest sites, but your point is well taken.
There will soon come a point when people realize the value of good writing, and that such cannot generally be found for free on the Internet. Well read papers such as NYT WSJ and the Economist will always command a loyal, paying audience because of the significance and quality of their work.
Unfortunately, the battle for profitability is made difficult by posers such the ones elsewhere in this thread who miss the message completely to complain about paragraph length and elitism instead.
Mammals have had several million years to evolve an effective way to deal with glucose/fructose/lactose in a relatively non-destructive way. The other two are by functional definition unable to be processed by the body.
This reminds me of another discussion about bundling computer things. Oh, I remember:
It's all right for a big manufacturer of a central piece of hardware essential to almost every computer to kill the market for smaller manufacturers of add-on hardware by integrating common features for free because you can just ignore/disable those, but it's immoral for a manufacturer of a central piece of software essential to almost every computer to bundle common add-on software for free because that would kill the market for the smaller manufacturers'. This, despite the fact that in both cases the integrated stuff is good enough and which use can be trivially disabled by the end-user.
Slashdot Mirror
Time is not free.
The NeoOffice/J UI looks almost as good as interfaces for the last generation of high-end pro products such as QuarkXPress and Adobe *. Although http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/S-co mp-sw-aid-work.jpg">InDesign CS isn't strictly a word processor...
Someone set him up the foe !!
I don't want to pay for a physical CD I would never use. Nor do I want to pay for someone at Microsoft to be in charge of such a thing. Nor do I want to pay for the additional Microsoft tech support required for others to use the non-Microsoft products.
I don't want to pay more for Windows. Get it?
Let me know when someone finds a way to make a modern PC BIOS video card look like an Open Firmware card without flashing the firmware. If it's as easy as converting an ATI Radeon 7000 PCI, it might be worthwhile (assuming something similar can be done with the BIOS).
My feeling is that a minimal virtual machine solution that emulates OF might be the way to go here (although CoreVideo might run like teh suck).
Development on new releases from Microsoft is because of the anti-trust mess worldwide,
Not Linux-related.
lack of incentive due to lack of competition,
Since desktop Linux has been in the game since 2000 or earlier, your statement implies one of the following: a) Linux is not competition for Windows || b) Linux has no effect on speeding up Windows development.
and security hole patching is eating up precious developer resources.
Not Linux-related.
Also, as time goes by, a given code base gets larger and more complex, making it more difficult to maintain.
Not Linux-related.
If anything, Linux pressure is causing Microsoft to get Longhorn to market faster.
That's a nice link to make, but can you support it with facts? The timeline in my previous post, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows suggests a conclusion opposite to yours.
BTW, in a general response to all the other discussions, I don't believe Apple said it would use the ATX or BTX architecture, did it?
History says that on their desktop towers, Apple will use a BTX power connector with swapped pins (cheap to source, additional 12V rails required by P4), PCI-E connectors (implement Macness in firmware as with current video and *ATA controllers), pin-swapped mini-PCI or its descendant for 802.11n expansion (if it's not on board).
Just processors. Also, they'd have been much better off adopting AMD...
Not necessarily. Intel's mobile and server roadmap was more suited to Apple's needs in the last five years. AMD seemed to focus much on debunking Intel's MHz myth by (counter-intuitively) trying to achieve a 1 GHz processor before Intel did, and by continuing the silly 2XXX+ branding system that was supposed to be mistaken for clock speed. Intel, meanwhile, experimented with various desktop, workstation, server and mobile processors, tightly-coupled chipsets/platforms like Centrino (hello Apple), and other processor technologies that met with mixed success.
Also, we don't know where Intel or AMD will go in the next year with technology. Recall that Apple is a hardware company, that is, they want control over as much of the hardware as possible. A CPU with an integrated northbridge could very well appear less sexy to Apple than to us geeks since that would lessen their control of the hardware stack.
If they can port from PowerPC to X86 without much effort, they can certainly port from Intel's X86 to AMD's X86 down the line.
It is just in the same way that Linux forced Microsoft to improve. If you don't believe me see Windows 3.1 and compare it to windows 95 - 98. And now compare it with Windows 2000 and 2003.
That's like comparing fruits and vegetables.
1990: Windows 2 to Windows 3 was revolutionary.
1993: NT 3.1 was new
1994: NT 3.5 became good-ish
1995: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 honored some interesting Mac OS ideas (LFN, Start menu) and was a significant change.
1996: NT4 remained solid for more than 5 years because it just worked.
2000: NT gets rewritten and hasn't much changed in the last five years. Win32 finally dies as Windows Me, which bears more similarities with Windows 95 than Windows 95 did with WFWG 3.11.
2005/2006: Brand new Longhorn will be fantabulous, or something.
To me, this seems like Microsoft on a 4-5 year rewrite cycle. Notice that at around 2000, when desktop Linux first became viable, MS dropped their entire Win32 line, and development of the next generation of Windows seems to actually slow down.
If there is a relationship between Linux and Windows (the link is sketchy at best), it seems that Linux slows product releases or development at MS. This seems marginally like a bad thing for consumers.
I'd be happy to entertain an argument that suggests slackware or yggdrasil in any way affected Win32 or WinNT in the mid-90s.
Also, reason prefers the link from angry Windows customers leading to fewer blue screens of death, than the link from Windows opponents and non-users to positive action by Microsoft.
I see the lawyers have adequately corrupted your lexicon. Why would one bother to introduce "unreasonable" doubt to reasonable people?
You are, of course, more accurate in your verbosity than I in my morning haste. Be cautious, however, that no party to any court proceeding can reliably expect to be assured of any particular outcome, save in corrupt regimes.
In most Common Law jurisdictions, the burden of proof is on the accuser to demonstrate the strength of their evidence and charges. The accused need not prove that the officer is neglegent as it is sufficient to merely introduce doubt.
How many hundreds of millions of units have you shipped of your operating system?
A flop indeed.
The PPC chip is the only bad part about Macs right now.
That's quite a statement when you consider that most other bits of non-CPU-related hardware inside computers from Apple are identical to those in commodity PCs.
I'll assume you're not trolling since you've used the +1 bonus...
1) Wired infrastructure is not free of operational costs. Bandwidth costs money, no matter how you distribute it. Upgrading a wireless concentrator is on the same magnitude of expense as upgrading a wired concentrator, even on eBay.
2) Wired infrastructure also obsoletes quickly and expensively. Google for new york obsolete telephone for some very costly examples.
3) Africa is not a homogeneous zone of people "who almost never go farther than a quick walk [from] their home[s]". The various metropolises of the continent's northern coast are each different from Capetown. Mining and river towns of the eastern interior certainly have different communications needs than the coastal port cities on the western half of the continent, or the fishing communities of the north who need to deal with international markets on a daily basis. And yes, there are some Africans who, for various reasons, will never want or need any kind of telephone.
Please don't let your cultural baises and lack of information prejudice your viewpoints in this manner.
Thanks for this thread. You've just spawned a few more gigabytes worth of crappy fan-fiction pages.
The editors at Doubleday or Pocketbooks (or whomever publishes the Trek novels) thank you also for the reams of unsolicited manuscripts based on these and other fantastic stories.
I take no quarrel with SG-1 or Farscape, or the forthcoming assimilation of the latter's lead actors by the former.
e ws.shtml
We've seen a lot of the MGM Stargate universe, but I'm curious about the other two movies in the Stargate triology:
http://www.gateworld.net/news/archive/0206_movien
Emmerich and Devlin are wonderfully talented individuals who make mostly good films (ID4, 13th Floor, The Day After Tomorrow) so I'd like to see where they intended to go with one of my favourite movies.
They'd have a much better chance of bringing a plane down with a hyperbole weapon.
He almost made of for the in "revenge of the sith" ...
Have standards stooped so low that we're thankful for a non-crappy movie?
It might be time to put Star Trek and Star Wars away for a while to see what else can make the jump to the big screen. After all, they both have decades of wear at this point and aren't really doing anything new. B5, Firefly, Lexx, and Stargate (non-SG-1) 2 and 3 come to mind as modern SF that deserve a chance at the theatres.
I don't remember that being the case and can't find any traces of IE on my Win95 SP0 CD cabs. On the plus side, the MS version of history agrees with my memory...
x
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.msp
In July 1995, Microsoft released the Windows 95 operating system, which included built-in support for dial-up networking and TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol), key technologies for connecting to the Internet. In response to the growing public interest in the Internet, Microsoft created an add-on to the operating system called Internet Explorer 1.0. When Windows 95 with Internet Explorer debuted, the Internet became much more accessible for many more people.
Internet Explorer technology originally shipped as the Internet Jumpstart Kit in Microsoft Plus! For Windows 95.
Perhaps we should also pour hot grits down the pants of a Naked and Petrified Chris Coldwell...
It also encourages sloppy markup.
In almost every other case, software that goes to great lengths to handle malformed input in a graceful way is viewed in a positive light.
By incorporating IE, Netscape will lessen the pressure on developers to write standards-compliant code.
The code very often complies to standards--the standards just don't happen to be among those you support. If there was no IE standard, no one would be able to complain that developers are writing IE-only code.
At the same time, the reliance on IE destroys the cross-platform nature of the browser, and by proxy, the web itself.
Well now, that's a bit of a stretch. If the 10% firefox usage number is correct, the web is already past the point of maximum reliance on IE and the web seems quite the opposite of being destroyed.
It's a valid question because the white CRT iMac has a fairly smooth surface all around and no handle or obvious way of gripping it. Picking it up about as difficult as picking up a wet watermelon with about 1.5 times the expected density.
You do pay for the delivery truck, it's rolled into the cost of the subscription or paper at the stand by NYT. On-line, none of the fee your ISP collects from you goes to NYT.
I'd take Fox over most random blogger wankfest sites, but your point is well taken.
There will soon come a point when people realize the value of good writing, and that such cannot generally be found for free on the Internet. Well read papers such as NYT WSJ and the Economist will always command a loyal, paying audience because of the significance and quality of their work.
Unfortunately, the battle for profitability is made difficult by posers such the ones elsewhere in this thread who miss the message completely to complain about paragraph length and elitism instead.
1. sugar. obesity. diabetes.
Mammals have had several million years to evolve an effective way to deal with glucose/fructose/lactose in a relatively non-destructive way. The other two are by functional definition unable to be processed by the body.
This reminds me of another discussion about bundling computer things. Oh, I remember:
It's all right for a big manufacturer of a central piece of hardware essential to almost every computer to kill the market for smaller manufacturers of add-on hardware by integrating common features for free because you can just ignore/disable those, but it's immoral for a manufacturer of a central piece of software essential to almost every computer to bundle common add-on software for free because that would kill the market for the smaller manufacturers'. This, despite the fact that in both cases the integrated stuff is good enough and which use can be trivially disabled by the end-user.
This moral position makes perfect sense now.