It's not 'required' or 'forced', it's just strongly recommended. Chances are this shoddy vendor was close to not getting ceritifcation, and needed some brownie points.
And the reason why is that it makes XP run much better. Boot times, making Shut Down work properly, etc are all improved by ACPI. These are good things for customers.
Running OSs that don't support ACPI is not a major concern when trying to set guidelines for hardware that works best for XP. I don't see why Windows XP certification has to take into account the hardware support of other OS's? They are XP guidelines.
Is there a reason that ACPI can't be supported by a Free OS? Fill me in on the limitation.
This appeal is on one issue - Judge Jackson. The Appeals Court threw out Jackson's remedy (the breakup) to be reconsidered by a new judge. Microsoft is trying to get the Supremes to throw out the rest of Jacson's rulings, and get them reconsidered by a new judge as well.
... the district judge should have been disqualified as of September 1999, the date of his earliest known violation... Such disqualification would require vacatur of the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Appeals Court didn't buy this strategy. They said they reviewed the record, and that there was no 'actual bias' prior to the remedy. Microsoft disagrees, and says that they don't have to show 'actual bias', just the perception of it. In this petition, MS relies heavily on two precedents, the biggest being some other case where the Supreme Court said there didn't have to be 'actual bias' to throw out a lower court ruling.
This petition sounds valid on the face of it. (I don't get why the appeals court didn't throw out Jackson's findings, personally. IANAL, thank god) But MS is probably stretching the precedent they clearly want to apply.
They *did* rewrite the OS from scratch, that's what NT is.
And most code at Microsoft was C/assembler back when they did Word.
I love people who bash MS software as 'bloated' but can't produce anything themselves which is nearly as functional. And when they add the features, it is just as 'bloated'.
I'm not saying we can't berate MS for slow-ass products that suck, but it's usually because they are supporting a massive user base with diverse functionality needs, not because they 'wrote Word in BASIC' or some other asinine idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not 'required' or 'forced', it's just strongly recommended. Chances are this shoddy vendor was close to not getting ceritifcation, and needed some brownie points.
And the reason why is that it makes XP run much better. Boot times, making Shut Down work properly, etc are all improved by ACPI. These are good things for customers.
Running OSs that don't support ACPI is not a major concern when trying to set guidelines for hardware that works best for XP. I don't see why Windows XP certification has to take into account the hardware support of other OS's? They are XP guidelines.
Is there a reason that ACPI can't be supported by a Free OS? Fill me in on the limitation.
This appeal is on one issue - Judge Jackson. The Appeals Court threw out Jackson's remedy (the breakup) to be reconsidered by a new judge. Microsoft is trying to get the Supremes to throw out the rest of Jacson's rulings, and get them reconsidered by a new judge as well.
The Appeals Court didn't buy this strategy. They said they reviewed the record, and that there was no 'actual bias' prior to the remedy. Microsoft disagrees, and says that they don't have to show 'actual bias', just the perception of it. In this petition, MS relies heavily on two precedents, the biggest being some other case where the Supreme Court said there didn't have to be 'actual bias' to throw out a lower court ruling.
This petition sounds valid on the face of it. (I don't get why the appeals court didn't throw out Jackson's findings, personally. IANAL, thank god) But MS is probably stretching the precedent they clearly want to apply.
They *did* rewrite the OS from scratch, that's what NT is. And most code at Microsoft was C/assembler back when they did Word. I love people who bash MS software as 'bloated' but can't produce anything themselves which is nearly as functional. And when they add the features, it is just as 'bloated'. I'm not saying we can't berate MS for slow-ass products that suck, but it's usually because they are supporting a massive user base with diverse functionality needs, not because they 'wrote Word in BASIC' or some other asinine idea.
This is clever work
Pirates should flood 'Net with song
All stolen from you