A more wordy (but probably still not gramatically perfect translation might go like:
What's neat is that both Borland's Pascal and C++ IDE use the same compiler back-end. Because of this, porting changes between the two products doesn't require a lot of work on Borland's part. An added benifit is the ability to use both C++ and Pascal source files in the same project.
IIRC, you can only mix C++/pascal code with the C++Builder compiler, not Delphi.
You can be as technical as you want... While I agree with your definition of an operating system, the average consumer does not care. Windows has never been what you describe as an operating system. So what?
When Joe User turns on his computer, he expects it to work and provide whatever basic functionality for him or her to use the computer. Of all the people I know, 90% use it for nothing more than browsing the internet and writing e-mail. They *expect* this software to be included and *expect* it to be fully integrated.
So Windows is more than an operating system. This still does not explain why bundling software should be illegal.
Yeah so this has been beaten to death over and over again.
Okay, by your definintion, the operating system is the kernel. I don't think anyone would buy a single copy of Windows, or Mac OS X, or even Linux if only the kernel were included.
I'm still failing to see the bundling argument. I don't see anything more wrong with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows than I see Apple bundling Quicktime with OS X. What is wrong with that. Why should they not be able to add valuable software to their system to differentiate from their competitors?
okay, i'll correct a technical flaw of my own. i said it has it's own api, which i'm wrong in a way. it's api is a subset of win32... but has all the GDI and USER stuff stripped off.
Maybe you should get back to Fry's and see how much they want for a burner that can make dual layer DVDs like x-box uses... er... do they even exist in consumer form yet?
well, if you want to get all technical about it, you're wrong for saying it runs windows 2000. sure the kernel is based on the w2k kernel, but it has been completely gutted (no virtual memory, for example). also, it doesn't even run a win32 subsystem, and everything runs in kernel mode. it also has its own api rather than standard win32.
off the topic somewhat, but does anyone know if this thing even runs multiple threads? i don't suppose that is even necessary for a machine like this... just curious.
What are you talking about? Applets? This isn't Java we're talking about.
.NET software runs just like any other Win32 software. Each process runs under specific user credentials just like any other software. So, there is no difference between security with.NET applications and any other Win32 application.
.NET can't be released because.NET is not a product.
.NET is a platform. There are many applications and services that make up the platform. Some parts of the platform have been/are being rolled out.
Passport/.NET my services is one
Visual Studio.NET has "gone gold" and will be shipping soon.
various bits of.NET are included in Windows XP
.NET alerts are included in the latest MSN Messenger.
Yadda Yadda.
Anyway, I think calling this virus a ".NET virus" is mis-information. This virus is a Win32 virus. It doesn't work across all.NET implementations, only Win32 PE format executables. Therefore, it wouldn't work with.NET executables on another platform. It wouldn't even work on 64 bit windows.
And this is different from any other Win32 virus how?
So.net code is either compiled to native.exe code or into intermediate code, which a virus could, yes, infect. how is this more or less dangerous than compiling normal C/C++ code into an.exe which can spread viruses?
Not that I'm a big Roxio fan, but contrary to what Roxio's web site says, Easy CD Creator 4 does work fine on WinXP as long as you upgrade to the latest version, and download the compatibility update from windowsupdate (it specifically says Easy CD Creator version 4.2+ works when the patch is installed).
Just because Athlons are cheaper than Pentiums doesn't mean that the cost to produce an Athlon is less than that of the Pentium. Intel gets a price premium because of their name, while AMD was sell with smaller profit margins to attempt gain marketshare.
Microsoft most likely went with the company that gave them the lowest bid, which may well have been Intel over AMD, regardless of consumer pricing of their products.
The order is certainly not credibility... after all, look at number 5:
5. RHETT CREIGHTON " The future is now, and that future is: Bowling Balls. Do you realize that if GNOME starts making bowling balls, we stand to net profit $11,000?! That's right, eleven big ones. Net profit, mind you. " No affiliation. Full statement at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2001-November/msg00007.html
I wonder how many votes this fellow will get?
"(I freely admit it's a bit strange to defend commercial developers while I like open source most myself.. Of course I hope more people will see the light. Of course I hope, and I think that commercial developers won't die. Microsoft's standardization has done many good, but it has really slowed down new inventions too. If I have to choose between one boss and several bosses, the latter case might cost some overhead but it will give me more freedom.) "
Has Microsoft really slowed down new inventions? Can you prove that? What if Microsoft didn't bundle cruddy little things like Paint, Notepad, etc. Then we'd have a bunch of small companies in business rehashing these things rather than innovating new products. I argue Microsoft *promotes* innovation in small companies. They *have* to come up with new killer apps that Microsoft doesn't bundle or else go out of business.
"This is why it's so silly for people to like Microsoft and hate open source. As I see it Microsoft is creating open source by not letting small business make money off their products. It seems the only way to compete with them now is to band together large amounts of programmers and just do it for the hell of it, if you try to make money you're going to see Microsoft crushing you sooner or later."
---
Why do you want to create a market that has no need for existence? Why should WinZip get special treatment. WinZip was a nice piece of software that filled a nice market. But it hasn't done anything innovative since.
The small companies you speak of should be out innovating to earn and keep their place in the market, not sitting and crying when somebody gets the job done just as well. A company that isn't coming out with innovative new products will be crushed by Microsoft, that is true and as it should be.
It's all software. In one way or another it's all the same. Software. Whether its a kernel, word processor, web browser, it's all machine code doing something.
Microsoft is in the software business. They create software that does a lot of things. Most of the stuff "bundled" with windows isn't necessarily better than it's competitors, but it generally gets the job done. Windows isn't just an "operating system". It's software that allows people to get things they need to done.
And if people didn't get what they needed done, they would look elsewhere. Whether somebody else packages it all up nicely or has a nice component. Whatever. The market is working, just not in the favor of the Netscapes of the world. Pity. They don't produce what people want. people don't want to buy software X and software Y. They want a package to get done and go on with life.
See MacOS X.
I'm not saying Microsoft has done nothing wrong. Forcing OEMS to *not* bundle competitive software is entirely anti-competitive and illegal and should be dealt with. Breaking up Microsoft isn't a fitting punishment, IMHO.
It's this whole bundling argument that is ludicrous.
Slashdot Mirror
A more wordy (but probably still not gramatically perfect translation might go like:
What's neat is that both Borland's Pascal and C++ IDE use the same compiler back-end. Because of this, porting changes between the two products doesn't require a lot of work on Borland's part. An added benifit is the ability to use both C++ and Pascal source files in the same project.
IIRC, you can only mix C++/pascal code with the C++Builder compiler, not Delphi.
No.
You can be as technical as you want... While I agree with your definition of an operating system, the average consumer does not care. Windows has never been what you describe as an operating system. So what?
When Joe User turns on his computer, he expects it to work and provide whatever basic functionality for him or her to use the computer. Of all the people I know, 90% use it for nothing more than browsing the internet and writing e-mail. They *expect* this software to be included and *expect* it to be fully integrated.
So Windows is more than an operating system. This still does not explain why bundling software should be illegal.
Yeah so this has been beaten to death over and over again.
Okay, by your definintion, the operating system is the kernel. I don't think anyone would buy a single copy of Windows, or Mac OS X, or even Linux if only the kernel were included.
I'm still failing to see the bundling argument. I don't see anything more wrong with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows than I see Apple bundling Quicktime with OS X. What is wrong with that. Why should they not be able to add valuable software to their system to differentiate from their competitors?
Do you mean "free as in beer" or "free as in speech?"
...such as LAME?
okay, i'll correct a technical flaw of my own. i said it has it's own api, which i'm wrong in a way. it's api is a subset of win32... but has all the GDI and USER stuff stripped off.
Maybe you should get back to Fry's and see how much they want for a burner that can make dual layer DVDs like x-box uses... er... do they even exist in consumer form yet?
well, if you want to get all technical about it, you're wrong for saying it runs windows 2000. sure the kernel is based on the w2k kernel, but it has been completely gutted (no virtual memory, for example). also, it doesn't even run a win32 subsystem, and everything runs in kernel mode. it also has its own api rather than standard win32.
off the topic somewhat, but does anyone know if this thing even runs multiple threads? i don't suppose that is even necessary for a machine like this... just curious.
Okay, good point. But--on the topic--this ".net virus" does not exploit any of the security system... it still relies on running standard x86 code.
Do?
What are you talking about? Applets? This isn't Java we're talking about.
.NET applications and any other Win32 application.
.NET software runs just like any other Win32 software. Each process runs under specific user credentials just like any other software. So, there is no difference between security with
.NET can't be released because .NET is not a product.
.NET are included in Windows XP
.NET implementations, only Win32 PE format executables. Therefore, it wouldn't work with .NET executables on another platform. It wouldn't even work on 64 bit windows.
.NET is a platform. There are many applications and services that make up the platform. Some parts of the platform have been/are being rolled out.
Passport/.NET my services is one
Visual Studio.NET has "gone gold" and will be shipping soon.
various bits of
.NET alerts are included in the latest MSN Messenger.
Yadda Yadda.
Anyway, I think calling this virus a ".NET virus" is mis-information. This virus is a Win32 virus. It doesn't work across all
And this is different from any other Win32 virus how?
.net code is either compiled to native .exe code or into intermediate code, which a virus could, yes, infect. how is this more or less dangerous than compiling normal C/C++ code into an .exe which can spread viruses?
So
Not that I'm a big Roxio fan, but contrary to what Roxio's web site says, Easy CD Creator 4 does work fine on WinXP as long as you upgrade to the latest version, and download the compatibility update from windowsupdate (it specifically says Easy CD Creator version 4.2+ works when the patch is installed).
Well, nobody uses XML except Microsoft, Sun, Oracle and pretty much everybody else who has any involvement moving data/information.
Get a clue.
Even Slashdot uses XML (Slashbox content).
Just because Athlons are cheaper than Pentiums doesn't mean that the cost to produce an Athlon is less than that of the Pentium. Intel gets a price premium because of their name, while AMD was sell with smaller profit margins to attempt gain marketshare.
Microsoft most likely went with the company that gave them the lowest bid, which may well have been Intel over AMD, regardless of consumer pricing of their products.
Not likely. Any bets on Daikatana? ; )
Mine claims 38mbps down and 10 mbps up. My mileage varies ever so slightly, however.
The Yorktown's computer crash had nothing to do with Windows. Try doing a little research before spreading the FUD, m'kay?
5. RHETT CREIGHTON " The future is now, and that future is: Bowling Balls. Do you realize that if GNOME starts making bowling balls, we stand to net profit $11,000?! That's right, eleven big ones. Net profit, mind you. " No affiliation. Full statement at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce /2001-November/msg00007.html
I wonder how many votes this fellow will get?
Approximately 18 million is a lot of nerds!
It's a good thing I can buy a Mac after all. Monopoly Shmonopoly.
there are plenty of devices that play WMAs:
Rio 600/800/One
Intel's devices, Compaq, RCA,
Nomads all play WMAs
iOmega HipZip,
Aiwa and Blaupunkt make Car Stereos that play WMA/MP3 CDs...
"(I freely admit it's a bit strange to defend commercial developers while I like open source most myself.. Of course I hope more people will see the light. Of course I hope, and I think that commercial developers won't die. Microsoft's standardization has done many good, but it has really slowed down new inventions too. If I have to choose between one boss and several bosses, the latter case might cost some overhead but it will give me more freedom.) "
Has Microsoft really slowed down new inventions? Can you prove that? What if Microsoft didn't bundle cruddy little things like Paint, Notepad, etc. Then we'd have a bunch of small companies in business rehashing these things rather than innovating new products. I argue Microsoft *promotes* innovation in small companies. They *have* to come up with new killer apps that Microsoft doesn't bundle or else go out of business.
You said:
"This is why it's so silly for people to like Microsoft and hate open source. As I see it Microsoft is creating open source by not letting small business make money off their products. It seems the only way to compete with them now is to band together large amounts of programmers and just do it for the hell of it, if you try to make money you're going to see Microsoft crushing you sooner or later."
---
Why do you want to create a market that has no need for existence? Why should WinZip get special treatment. WinZip was a nice piece of software that filled a nice market. But it hasn't done anything innovative since.
The small companies you speak of should be out innovating to earn and keep their place in the market, not sitting and crying when somebody gets the job done just as well. A company that isn't coming out with innovative new products will be crushed by Microsoft, that is true and as it should be.
You don't understand.
It's all software. In one way or another it's all the same. Software. Whether its a kernel, word processor, web browser, it's all machine code doing something.
Microsoft is in the software business. They create software that does a lot of things. Most of the stuff "bundled" with windows isn't necessarily better than it's competitors, but it generally gets the job done. Windows isn't just an "operating system". It's software that allows people to get things they need to done.
And if people didn't get what they needed done, they would look elsewhere. Whether somebody else packages it all up nicely or has a nice component. Whatever. The market is working, just not in the favor of the Netscapes of the world. Pity. They don't produce what people want. people don't want to buy software X and software Y. They want a package to get done and go on with life.
See MacOS X.
I'm not saying Microsoft has done nothing wrong. Forcing OEMS to *not* bundle competitive software is entirely anti-competitive and illegal and should be dealt with. Breaking up Microsoft isn't a fitting punishment, IMHO.
It's this whole bundling argument that is ludicrous.