True. But the post was about whether Microsoft could write portable code not whether enough people cared enough to actually buy it. (Try buying a PReP architecture PowerPC box or a Clipper based PC running any OS)
Microsoft simultaneously released their BackOffice apps (SQL Server, Exchange, etc.), service packs and OS releases for all the Windows NT supported processors (Except for PowerPC where the porting and release was done by IBM and not Microsoft). Of course, nobody else seemed to release non-Intel versions of their software. Also, Windows NT was actually written on MIPS and ported to x86. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good flame.
When IBM introduced the IBM PC/AT in 1984 they were very clear in their press materials that a computer that powerful was meant for server use and that nobody would need the power of the mighty 80286 on the desktop.
Let's see. Windows NT has been commercially released on the following architectures:
Intel IA32 (x86)
Intel IA64 (Itanium)
Clipper
MIPS
Alpha
PowerPC
And possibly others in the lab that weren't even as commercially viable as the Clipper. Sounds portable to me. Of course, nobody seems to have wanted to actually buy the non-Intel architectures but that's another issue.
It is "Active Scripting" because as a security issue you want to turn off all scripting not just one language. IE uses the "Windows Scripting" interface and any scripting language that supports the interface (there are REXX, Perl and others that support it) works equally in any program that uses the host side of the interface.
DDE actually came out back in 1988 and was (is) a shared memory communications system to allow apps to talk to each other. It didn't support embedding.
Object Packager allowed you to wrap things in an OLE wrapper to allow them to be embedded.
Re:Haven't they heard of C# yet?
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 1
If C# were the MS way of phasing out VB then its syntax would look like a derivative of VB rather than yet another derivative of C (like C++ and Java).
On a more rational note, why would Microsoft want to phase out the most successful developer's product in history? VB has been a huge success and continues to be. There is now more VB code out than any other language in history (including all the old mainframe code)
Now, if you were suggesting that C# was meant to replace C++ then you might be able to make a case.
Re:Not really true these days...
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 1
Um...VB6 has been out for a long time. Perhaps you meant VB.Net (VB7). As for "Object Oriented", VB.Net is as pure an "Object Oriented" language as you'll get unless you want to go to SmallTalk-72. Alan Kay (at OOPSLA 87) said that even SmallTalk-80 isn't a true "Object Oriented" language. As for C++, Java and Delphi being "Object Oriented", can you redefine the meaning of the the number 3? (which should in a true OOP language be just an instance of class integer)
Re:BASIC is a "nice" language for beginners ...
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm, Remove GOTO, Have Local variables, Execute fast.... Sounds like VB fits your definition of perfect!
As is often the case with folklore, especially when an axe needs grinding, THIS IS NOT TRUE.
QuickBASIC (it was still all caps) was written in house by MS in the mid to late '80s. Versions 3 and 4 were in development simultaneously with V4 being the first one to use the threaded p-code compiler.
(I knew the guy who wrote the memory management code before he retired to Idaho - )
First off, a system doesn't "just barely" make a level. Either it does (as Windows NT has done for multiple releases) or it doesn't. Being certified is binary. Either you are or you aren't.
Basically, though, Windows NT is the only OS available for PC hardware that is even listed.
Linux - No trusted systems at any level
OS/2 - No trusted systems at any level
BeOS - No trusted systems at any level
Solaris - No trusted systems at any level
FreeBSD - No trusted systems at any level
QNX - No trusted systems at any level
MacOS - No trusted systems at any level
Windows NT - Two trusted systems at level C2
Which means that Windows NT's C2 still puts it well above any PC OS.
If you can live with C2, you can configure a Windows NT system. If not, your only trusted system choices are very expensive proprietary hardware/software combinations.
Re:*Sigh*. Read the Dictionary's history.
on
Hackers
·
· Score: 1
Yep. Dear old ESR took a document created by the freely shared contribution of a lot of people on the net and managed to sell it and put his name in BIG TYPE on the cover. Of course the actual contributor's names are there in fine print hidden in the back of the text. And, funny thing, the location for downloading it for free doesn't seem to be on the cover either. ESR pissed off a LOT of people when he did that.
As I recall, Lotus developed Improv in house, first for NeXT and later for Windows. Granted it was a clone of Javelin Plus but it wasn't ever available without the Lotus nameplate.
Now, speaking of Javelin, it was bought by IRI and when they were bought out by Oracle, it was killed off.
I'd say that Linux is actually useful (so is FreeBSD) but the real reason for picking Modula2 is that it is a nice, useful, well thought through language that ended up having virtually no significance. It was (and if things don't get better, Linux will be) a technological dead end. This doesn't mean it is a bad design or a good one. There are plenty of good and bad designs that never amounted to anything after their 15 minutes of fame.
Precisely the elitist atitude I was referring to. The real drivers of computing are the users. Whatever gives them the ability to do more and to do it more easily is what changes the world.
As an analogy, the car is the changer of society. The CAT D-9 is not although almost every road out there that the cars drive on was built with one. This article (and the previous one) are saying the equivalent of "Let's make sure that cars are at least as hard to use as a CAT D-9" or "Let's only let people who are capable of using a CAT D-9 use highways since car users can't be trusted"
Gee, first we get "Are computers too easy to use" and now we get a discussion on whether people have "earned" the right to broadband.
Compare this to "A computer on every desk and in every home" (the old Microsoft motto) or "A computer for the rest of us" (The old Macintosh motto) and you start understanding why Microsoft and Apple have been successful at changing the world and why *ix systems basically been irrelevant outside of niche markets and the most ivory tower variety of academia.
Much as this sounds like flamebait, it really isn't meant to be. It is a problem that Linux will have to solve it it doesn't end up being the Modula2 of operating systems.
Remember that Apple sold a Windows compatible Mac a few years ago and it bombed. And that didn't require rebooting to use apps from both OSs. A Mac that can run Windows apps is going to be percieved as a Mac. It will sell to Mac users who are willing to pay extra to run Windows apps. That has historically been a small audience.
In order for it to sell to the Windows audience, it would have to run WinApps as well as the price equivalent Windows box since being able to run Mac Apps doesn't have that much added value. (at least perceived value) and since most Mac Apps are available in Windows versions already since Apple's near death experience a few years ago.
In short, it is a hard sell. In addition, if the PentiuMac is so different as to prevent other x86 boxes from running OSX then it'll be perceived as just another proprietary Mac-Only product for Apple. That would be the kiss of death.
More realistically, Apple was dying and decided to do a last ditch attempt at suing Microsoft for patent infringement in order to raise money. Microsoft paid $300M for the patents (nobody even on Apple's side ever said Microsoft stole code) and bought $100M and did Office 98 as a show of good will (and part of keeping the patent issues from spending years in court).
Basically, Apple used their patent library as a blackmail threat and Microsoft got freedom from future litigation at a good price.
Whether there were any patents that actually were infringing has never really been decided. The litigation costs would have cost about that much anyway. Again, nobody ever charged that there was theft of code. Patent infringement can occur when two groups develop similar products and one gets the patent first.
Accurate except that in 1985, Microsoft had already been working on Windows for two years. And had been stuck with dealing with IBM for a painful four years.
Never happened. MS wanted the Mac OS on Intel so they could sell apps and tools. The OS market was tiny back then. DOS didn't make that much money by comparison with Mac apps and the savings over having to write for two OSs and develop Windows and OS/2 would have made up the loss in DOS income. Plus it would have cut IBM out of the picture which would have been a nice bonus as IBM was throwing their weight around and killing the MS market.
Slashdot Mirror
True. But the post was about whether Microsoft could write portable code not whether enough people cared enough to actually buy it. (Try buying a PReP architecture PowerPC box or a Clipper based PC running any OS)
Microsoft simultaneously released their BackOffice apps (SQL Server, Exchange, etc.), service packs and OS releases for all the Windows NT supported processors (Except for PowerPC where the porting and release was done by IBM and not Microsoft). Of course, nobody else seemed to release non-Intel versions of their software. Also, Windows NT was actually written on MIPS and ported to x86. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good flame.
When IBM introduced the IBM PC/AT in 1984 they were very clear in their press materials that a computer that powerful was meant for server use and that nobody would need the power of the mighty 80286 on the desktop.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
- Intel IA32 (x86)
- Intel IA64 (Itanium)
- Clipper
- MIPS
- Alpha
- PowerPC
And possibly others in the lab that weren't even as commercially viable as the Clipper. Sounds portable to me. Of course, nobody seems to have wanted to actually buy the non-Intel architectures but that's another issue.It is "Active Scripting" because as a security issue you want to turn off all scripting not just one language. IE uses the "Windows Scripting" interface and any scripting language that supports the interface (there are REXX, Perl and others that support it) works equally in any program that uses the host side of the interface.
That would happen if the links you were clicking on were actually done in JavaScript (which is becoming fairly common)
Object Packager allowed you to wrap things in an OLE wrapper to allow them to be embedded.
or at least with two bits.
On a more rational note, why would Microsoft want to phase out the most successful developer's product in history? VB has been a huge success and continues to be. There is now more VB code out than any other language in history (including all the old mainframe code)
Now, if you were suggesting that C# was meant to replace C++ then you might be able to make a case.
Um...VB6 has been out for a long time. Perhaps you meant VB.Net (VB7). As for "Object Oriented", VB.Net is as pure an "Object Oriented" language as you'll get unless you want to go to SmallTalk-72. Alan Kay (at OOPSLA 87) said that even SmallTalk-80 isn't a true "Object Oriented" language. As for C++, Java and Delphi being "Object Oriented", can you redefine the meaning of the the number 3? (which should in a true OOP language be just an instance of class integer)
Hmmm, Remove GOTO, Have Local variables, Execute fast.... Sounds like VB fits your definition of perfect!
As is often the case with folklore, especially when an axe needs grinding, THIS IS NOT TRUE.
QuickBASIC (it was still all caps) was written in house by MS in the mid to late '80s. Versions 3 and 4 were in development simultaneously with V4 being the first one to use the threaded p-code compiler.
(I knew the guy who wrote the memory management code before he retired to Idaho - )
Basically, though, Windows NT is the only OS available for PC hardware that is even listed.
- Linux - No trusted systems at any level
- OS/2 - No trusted systems at any level
- BeOS - No trusted systems at any level
- Solaris - No trusted systems at any level
- FreeBSD - No trusted systems at any level
- QNX - No trusted systems at any level
- MacOS - No trusted systems at any level
- Windows NT - Two trusted systems at level C2
Which means that Windows NT's C2 still puts it well above any PC OS.If you can live with C2, you can configure a Windows NT system. If not, your only trusted system choices are very expensive proprietary hardware/software combinations.
Odd, but I don't see Solaris 7 with PitBull listed as B1. Check http://www.radium.ncsc.mi l/t pep/epl/epl-by-class.html#B1 for yourself. Looks like pure marketing weaseldom.
Yep. Dear old ESR took a document created by the freely shared contribution of a lot of people on the net and managed to sell it and put his name in BIG TYPE on the cover. Of course the actual contributor's names are there in fine print hidden in the back of the text. And, funny thing, the location for downloading it for free doesn't seem to be on the cover either. ESR pissed off a LOT of people when he did that.
Now, speaking of Javelin, it was bought by IRI and when they were bought out by Oracle, it was killed off.
I'd say that Linux is actually useful (so is FreeBSD) but the real reason for picking Modula2 is that it is a nice, useful, well thought through language that ended up having virtually no significance. It was (and if things don't get better, Linux will be) a technological dead end. This doesn't mean it is a bad design or a good one. There are plenty of good and bad designs that never amounted to anything after their 15 minutes of fame.
Precisely the elitist atitude I was referring to. The real drivers of computing are the users. Whatever gives them the ability to do more and to do it more easily is what changes the world.
As an analogy, the car is the changer of society. The CAT D-9 is not although almost every road out there that the cars drive on was built with one. This article (and the previous one) are saying the equivalent of "Let's make sure that cars are at least as hard to use as a CAT D-9" or "Let's only let people who are capable of using a CAT D-9 use highways since car users can't be trusted"
Getting broadband speeds everywhere is precisely what Teledesic is about. (Unlike Iridium which was about narrow audience/low speed/high price)
Compare this to "A computer on every desk and in every home" (the old Microsoft motto) or "A computer for the rest of us" (The old Macintosh motto) and you start understanding why Microsoft and Apple have been successful at changing the world and why *ix systems basically been irrelevant outside of niche markets and the most ivory tower variety of academia.
Much as this sounds like flamebait, it really isn't meant to be. It is a problem that Linux will have to solve it it doesn't end up being the Modula2 of operating systems.
In order for it to sell to the Windows audience, it would have to run WinApps as well as the price equivalent Windows box since being able to run Mac Apps doesn't have that much added value. (at least perceived value) and since most Mac Apps are available in Windows versions already since Apple's near death experience a few years ago.
In short, it is a hard sell. In addition, if the PentiuMac is so different as to prevent other x86 boxes from running OSX then it'll be perceived as just another proprietary Mac-Only product for Apple. That would be the kiss of death.
Basically, Apple used their patent library as a blackmail threat and Microsoft got freedom from future litigation at a good price.
Whether there were any patents that actually were infringing has never really been decided. The litigation costs would have cost about that much anyway. Again, nobody ever charged that there was theft of code. Patent infringement can occur when two groups develop similar products and one gets the patent first.
Accurate except that in 1985, Microsoft had already been working on Windows for two years. And had been stuck with dealing with IBM for a painful four years.
Never happened. MS wanted the Mac OS on Intel so they could sell apps and tools. The OS market was tiny back then. DOS didn't make that much money by comparison with Mac apps and the savings over having to write for two OSs and develop Windows and OS/2 would have made up the loss in DOS income. Plus it would have cut IBM out of the picture which would have been a nice bonus as IBM was throwing their weight around and killing the MS market.