1) for Vista may be unavoidable, if your preferred hardware is always bundled with Windows. Here there is some truth to "Microsoft tax". 2) is just plain stupid if you want to put Linux on. Just take the cheapest option and then reformat. 3) is a company decision that could be reversed, in favor of something else. Here the only thing that can force you is that Linux or other alternatives don't support your software. Which would be a real advantage of Windows (disregarding for the moment that more Linux market share would lead to more software for Linux).
I think there is something like "enough" of the naughty stuff, and it applies both to gore and the Lara Croft example in GP's post. Beyond that, more just means less believable and it gets old fast.
Personally, one of my favorite games is Day Of Defeat with moderate "blood effects". I find that removing them completely would detract from the game, but excessive gore would not improve it. The same goes for breast size of female MMORPG characters, I like those but don't push the settings for boob size to the maximum.
For me (browsing at -1) the first post is a "Lunix sucks" anti-Linux post. At the time GP and I wrote our comments, it was moderated to -1(redundant). My post, and presumably GP's post, were comments about "redundant" being the wrong moderation.
BTW it is moderated to -1(Troll) now. On second thought, this fits even better than "offtopic".
That is the formalized version, and large organizations probably can only do it this way. At least my last employer (moderately large international corp) was big on having people work on official projects only. So you need a 20% rule or people will feel pressured to drop that "useless", time consuming tinkering.
In smaller organizations, a department leader who understands technology and is empowered to make room for the project in the schedule works too. In a really small corp, you might even talk to the guy who owns the corp. Of course this depends a lot on the personalities involved, but in my experience small organizations are better at recognizing and promoting promising side projects.
Also, if you are comfortable with giving up your copyright, you could ask the FSF if they are interested in having code and patent donated. If you offer that and they accept, -you would be limited to GPL use of the project yourself -but the FSF would handle the legal stuff and bring lawsuits against GPL violators if necessary.
If it ever becomes so big that a game can only be purchased on Steam, then I suppose I'll have to give in. But when that happens, the DRM has won, and it will be too late anyway.
Since a few years, Valve games always require a Steam account and "authenticate" online even if you buy them on DVD. So it can still happen to you that your game suddenly refuses to work.
My consequence is to be very reluctant buying their stuff: I got Day Of Defeat:Source because my friends also play it, but so far this is my only Steam game. Even if some other games on Steam got great reviews. So Valve is probably losing money due to DRM in my case.
PC hardware has left software requirements somewhat behind, unless you want to run the very latest games. My dual core PC from 2007 is still more than sufficient in terms of performance. The price to put a similar or better machine together has dropped from 800 Euros to 500 Euros, however (without monitor). That is assuming -the same case -a comparable power supply -same memory (2 GByte) -a slightly faster but less power-hungry CPU (AMD 45nm vs. 90nm, each in the energy-efficient version) -a faster GPU (ATI 4670 vs. NVidia 8600GT) -a harddisk with twice the capacity - 500 GByte disks are cheap today
If you add a good screen, you may end up paying 700-800 Euros. Cheap enough for most private users, and companies that try to squeeze a few hundred out of this at the expense of good working conditions are just plain stupid.
Speaking of competition, what discussion is complete without mentioning the Chevy Volt [chevrolet.com]? Still the gold standard for the emerging industry, it will be anyone's guess if it lives up to the hype.
I think the gold standard is by definition the best existing electric or hybrid vehicle. Right now that is probably the Toyota Prius. Once the Chevy Volt is available, it will be interesting to see if it can beat the Prius and in which scenarios.
So let's assume the OEM supplier is responsible for misleading the customer. Customers sue the OEM supplier and win in court. Then the OEM supplier, who was mislead by false hardware specs for the "Vista capable" logo, sues Microsoft to recover his damages. Same result, just with more lawsuits.
You have a good point, but in your analogy you should not get out of paying for the damages. I think the concept of "joint and several liability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability) should apply here. As I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if a court would make you pay on that basis, but it seems fair to me.
Interesting point, but the Infoworld article really should have tested this rather than speculating about the scalability.
As the "biggest" existing system you can test on XP (Pro), an AMD Opteron workstation with two quad cores would make sense. That means eight cores and NUMA becomes a factor. With that system, XP vs. Vista vs. Windows 7 results would actually tell us something about scalability.
On rereading, I found a link ("How I tested") that gives at least an overview of the configuration. For the hardware:
I repeated this scenario across all three Windows operating systems installed in a triple-boot configuration on both dual-core and quad-core test beds (a Dell OptiPlex 745 with Core 2 Duo E6700, 4GB RAM, and 10K RPM SATA disk and an HP EliteBook 8730w with Core 2 Extreme Q9300, 8GB RAM, and 7200 RPM SATA disk, respectively).
So on one hand, I have to apologize for dissing Mr. Kennedy on lack of transparency.
On the other hand, he obviously used two different systems with different amounts of RAM which can introduce new errors. For instance, lets assume the working set as defined on Wikipedia (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_set>) has a size of 6 GByte. Then the Dell OptiPlex 745 with only 4GB RAM will have to keep reloading from disk, while the HP EliteBook may be able to run entirely from cache in the second and any further pass. I consider that a bad error inmethodology.
Try running Win 98 on Vista's minimum hardware. Hell, lets go whole hog here. Try running Win 3.1 on Vista's minimum hardware. (Okay, you might have to do a lot of work to get it running, but I'm just trying to make a point). I guarantee you that both 98 and 3.1 will run faster than XP on that hardware. By a lot.
That comparison falls apart as soon a you go to a dual core CPU and more than 512 MByte RAM. Most new PCs will have that and Win 98 cannot utilize it. At best Win 98 will run using only half of the computer's resources. Now run an application that does take advantage of multiple cores. I bet XP would win.
In terms of raw application throughput, Windows XP clearly is still king of the hill. However, despite its current edge on dual-core and quad-core systems, Microsoft's 8-year-old OS is beginning to show its age. For example, when you contrast the dual- and quad-core transaction times for the ADO (database) and MAPI (workflow) workloads, you see that scalability -- in terms of a percentage improvement from dual-core to quad-core -- is capped at 265 percent for the database tasks and 32 percent for the messaging workflow tasks. While excellent by legacy Windows NT standards, these improvements pale next to the 571 percent boost witnessed for the same SQL-driven database workload under Windows 7, or the 58 percent improvement for the MAPI message store workflow task under Windows Vista.
(emphasis mine) So we are supposed to believe that the database test on Windows 7 runs 571 percent faster on a quad-core compared to a dual core? That would be a factor of 6.71, or in terms of performance per core, a factor of 3.355. In other words, the quad core would do 3.355 times more work per core than the dual core. That sounds not very believable, considering similar tests the German C't magazine has done in the past (for Linux and Windows 2000). In those tests, both OS scaled at best linear with the number of CPUs, so the "performance boost" from going from dual to quad core was at best 100% (in most tests more like 80%).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Randall C. Kennedy wanted to say. Here it would have helped if he posted his raw data and test configuration, as most reputable testers do. But as he only posted a few end results, I can only say that his numbers seem bogus. I rated the Infoworld article with 1 of 5 points.
You don't own any application you use, unless you wrote it. Even under the GPL, you are permitted to modify and copy it, but the original copyright belongs to the author of that product.
Correct, but the GPL only prevents you from redistributing without providing the source code.
For a user who only wants an assurance that "his" software stays available, without sudden price hikes or the vendor scrapping the product line, GPL is as good as it gets. Owning the copyright would not improve the situation of that user further.
It makes me think they are the same old company - Windows Me vs Win 2k anyone?
No, Win 2 k was a completely different system under the hood. Waaay more solid than ME, which was basically Win9x with fluff (and less reliable from what I've heard, there were people who were more happy after an upgrade to 98SE). Windows 7 is more like the proverbial third service pack that finally makes a Microsoft product reliable;-)
In terms of memory consumption, you're probably right.
But with RAM and HD capacity as cheap as it is, a few performance improvements will be enough to make Windows 7 OK for most new PCs. Only for netbooks it might still be too overweight.
Obviously, the smart fridges and other appliances will be more expensive in the first place. So the utility companies would have to offer a rebate in electricity prices for households who participate, otherwise it won't be worthwhile for individuals. Alternatively, the smart appliances could be introduced by regulation (probably a worse approach, but still possible).
The rebate approach would require smart managers, the regulation approach would require a lot of political haggling. Either way, I guess it will take a while before this takes off:-P
There is some documentation on how to "install" the updates into the files of the installation CD, so you get a set of Windows installation files that will create a fully patched installation right away.
But the heise tool is a lot less effort to use: -Let the downloader collect all updates and create an.iso disk image. -Burn a CD or DvD from the.iso. -Now you can pop that CD into a PC with fresh Windows installation, start the updater and it will install all the updates for you. You might have to reboot a few times but that is all.
True, and even some corporate users would not want it if their old applications won't run. On the other hand, the old cruft will continue to give them trouble until they DO a redesign.
Apple went the other way with OS X, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X. It took them four years to develop it, and backwards compatibility was limited. For a while, I'm sure that cost them customers. But by now, it seems they got past that problem and the new, shiny OS helps them to gain market share from Microsoft.
Maybe even that won't get rid of the adware. It will, if you do it right. That means 1) Don't try to "repair" the installation, format C: and do it really from scratch. 2) Don't install from a "recovery CD" from the hardware vendor, it might have the adware pre-installed. Use an unmodified Microsoft CD. Install from that.
Now you have a clean installation. To make it stay clean (not only from adware), do the following: 3) Before you connect to the internet again, install the latest service pack AND the post-SP4 hotfixes. Here a utility that collects all the updates into an offline update CD is helpful. I use the offline updater from heise, a German IT publishing house. You can download the current version from http://www.heise.de/ct/projekte/offlineupdate/download/ctupdate50.zip The UK site of heise has an article in English that explains the system (for an older version, but I think the principle still applies): http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Do-it-yourself-Service-Pack--/features/80682 4) It is usually a good idea to use something else than Internet Explorer for surfing;-)
True for the "enterprise" versions, which usually are supposed to include some support. But it is legal to use a free Linux distribution (even if not promoted for organizations by the Linux vendor). CentOS is even advertised as being identical to RedHat except for the name, and free for download.
Slashdot Mirror
1) for Vista may be unavoidable, if your preferred hardware is always bundled with Windows. Here there is some truth to "Microsoft tax".
2) is just plain stupid if you want to put Linux on. Just take the cheapest option and then reformat.
3) is a company decision that could be reversed, in favor of something else. Here the only thing that can force you is that Linux or other alternatives don't support your software. Which would be a real advantage of Windows (disregarding for the moment that more Linux market share would lead to more software for Linux).
I think there is something like "enough" of the naughty stuff, and it applies both to gore and the Lara Croft example in GP's post. Beyond that, more just means less believable and it gets old fast.
Personally, one of my favorite games is Day Of Defeat with moderate "blood effects". I find that removing them completely would detract from the game, but excessive gore would not improve it. The same goes for breast size of female MMORPG characters, I like those but don't push the settings for boob size to the maximum.
For me (browsing at -1) the first post is a "Lunix sucks" anti-Linux post. At the time GP and I wrote our comments, it was moderated to -1(redundant). My post, and presumably GP's post, were comments about "redundant" being the wrong moderation.
BTW it is moderated to -1(Troll) now. On second thought, this fits even better than "offtopic".
That is the formalized version, and large organizations probably can only do it this way. At least my last employer (moderately large international corp) was big on having people work on official projects only. So you need a 20% rule or people will feel pressured to drop that "useless", time consuming tinkering.
In smaller organizations, a department leader who understands technology and is empowered to make room for the project in the schedule works too. In a really small corp, you might even talk to the guy who owns the corp. Of course this depends a lot on the personalities involved, but in my experience small organizations are better at recognizing and promoting promising side projects.
You are correct. It is off topic which also exists as a moderation option. Someone was sloppy while moderating.
Why should he need a loan? He got 1 billion from selling his last company. He can use some of that as venture capital for his new project
Also, if you are comfortable with giving up your copyright, you could ask the FSF if they are interested in having code and patent donated.
If you offer that and they accept,
-you would be limited to GPL use of the project yourself
-but the FSF would handle the legal stuff and bring lawsuits against GPL violators if necessary.
Since a few years, Valve games always require a Steam account and "authenticate" online even if you buy them on DVD. So it can still happen to you that your game suddenly refuses to work.
My consequence is to be very reluctant buying their stuff:
I got Day Of Defeat:Source because my friends also play it, but so far this is my only Steam game. Even if some other games on Steam got great reviews. So Valve is probably losing money due to DRM in my case.
PC hardware has left software requirements somewhat behind, unless you want to run the very latest games.
My dual core PC from 2007 is still more than sufficient in terms of performance. The price to put a similar or better machine together has dropped from 800 Euros to 500 Euros, however (without monitor). That is assuming
-the same case
-a comparable power supply
-same memory (2 GByte)
-a slightly faster but less power-hungry CPU (AMD 45nm vs. 90nm, each in the energy-efficient version)
-a faster GPU (ATI 4670 vs. NVidia 8600GT)
-a harddisk with twice the capacity - 500 GByte disks are cheap today
If you add a good screen, you may end up paying 700-800 Euros. Cheap enough for most private users, and companies that try to squeeze a few hundred out of this at the expense of good working conditions are just plain stupid.
I think the gold standard is by definition the best existing electric or hybrid vehicle. Right now that is probably the Toyota Prius.
Once the Chevy Volt is available, it will be interesting to see if it can beat the Prius and in which scenarios.
So let's assume the OEM supplier is responsible for misleading the customer. Customers sue the OEM supplier and win in court. Then the OEM supplier, who was mislead by false hardware specs for the "Vista capable" logo, sues Microsoft to recover his damages. Same result, just with more lawsuits.
You have a good point, but in your analogy you should not get out of paying for the damages.
I think the concept of "joint and several liability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability) should apply here. As I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if a court would make you pay on that basis, but it seems fair to me.
Interesting point, but the Infoworld article really should have tested this rather than speculating about the scalability.
As the "biggest" existing system you can test on XP (Pro), an AMD Opteron workstation with two quad cores would make sense. That means eight cores and NUMA becomes a factor. With that system, XP vs. Vista vs. Windows 7 results would actually tell us something about scalability.
On rereading, I found a link ("How I tested") that gives at least an overview of the configuration. For the hardware:
So on one hand, I have to apologize for dissing Mr. Kennedy on lack of transparency.
On the other hand, he obviously used two different systems with different amounts of RAM which can introduce new errors. For instance, lets assume the working set as defined on Wikipedia (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_set>) has a size of 6 GByte. Then the Dell OptiPlex 745 with only 4GB RAM will have to keep reloading from disk, while the HP EliteBook may be able to run entirely from cache in the second and any further pass. I consider that a bad error inmethodology.
That comparison falls apart as soon a you go to a dual core CPU and more than 512 MByte RAM. Most new PCs will have that and Win 98 cannot utilize it. At best Win 98 will run using only half of the computer's resources. Now run an application that does take advantage of multiple cores. I bet XP would win.
From page 2 of TFA:
(emphasis mine)
So we are supposed to believe that the database test on Windows 7 runs 571 percent faster on a quad-core compared to a dual core?
That would be a factor of 6.71, or in terms of performance per core, a factor of 3.355. In other words, the quad core would do 3.355 times more work per core than the dual core. That sounds not very believable, considering similar tests the German C't magazine has done in the past (for Linux and Windows 2000). In those tests, both OS scaled at best linear with the number of CPUs, so the "performance boost" from going from dual to quad core was at best 100% (in most tests more like 80%).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Randall C. Kennedy wanted to say. Here it would have helped if he posted his raw data and test configuration, as most reputable testers do. But as he only posted a few end results, I can only say that his numbers seem bogus. I rated the Infoworld article with 1 of 5 points.
Correct, but the GPL only prevents you from redistributing without providing the source code.
For a user who only wants an assurance that "his" software stays available, without sudden price hikes or the vendor scrapping the product line, GPL is as good as it gets. Owning the copyright would not improve the situation of that user further.
No, Win 2 k was a completely different system under the hood. Waaay more solid than ME, which was basically Win9x with fluff (and less reliable from what I've heard, there were people who were more happy after an upgrade to 98SE). ;-)
Windows 7 is more like the proverbial third service pack that finally makes a Microsoft product reliable
In terms of memory consumption, you're probably right.
But with RAM and HD capacity as cheap as it is, a few performance improvements will be enough to make Windows 7 OK for most new PCs. Only for netbooks it might still be too overweight.
Obviously, the smart fridges and other appliances will be more expensive in the first place. So the utility companies would have to offer a rebate in electricity prices for households who participate, otherwise it won't be worthwhile for individuals. Alternatively, the smart appliances could be introduced by regulation (probably a worse approach, but still possible).
The rebate approach would require smart managers, the regulation approach would require a lot of political haggling. Either way, I guess it will take a while before this takes off :-P
There is some documentation on how to "install" the updates into the files of the installation CD, so you get a set of Windows installation files that will create a fully patched installation right away.
But the heise tool is a lot less effort to use: .iso disk image. .iso.
-Let the downloader collect all updates and create an
-Burn a CD or DvD from the
-Now you can pop that CD into a PC with fresh Windows installation, start the updater and it will install all the updates for you. You might have to reboot a few times but that is all.
True, and even some corporate users would not want it if their old applications won't run. On the other hand, the old cruft will continue to give them trouble until they DO a redesign.
Apple went the other way with OS X, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X. It took them four years to develop it, and backwards compatibility was limited.
For a while, I'm sure that cost them customers. But by now, it seems they got past that problem and the new, shiny OS helps them to gain market share from Microsoft.
Maybe even that won't get rid of the adware.
It will, if you do it right. That means
1) Don't try to "repair" the installation, format C: and do it really from scratch.
2) Don't install from a "recovery CD" from the hardware vendor, it might have the adware pre-installed. Use an unmodified Microsoft CD. Install from that.
Now you have a clean installation. To make it stay clean (not only from adware), do the following: ;-)
3) Before you connect to the internet again, install the latest service pack AND the post-SP4 hotfixes. Here a utility that collects all the updates into an offline update CD is helpful. I use the offline updater from heise, a German IT publishing house.
You can download the current version from http://www.heise.de/ct/projekte/offlineupdate/download/ctupdate50.zip
The UK site of heise has an article in English that explains the system (for an older version, but I think the principle still applies): http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Do-it-yourself-Service-Pack--/features/80682
4) It is usually a good idea to use something else than Internet Explorer for surfing
True for the "enterprise" versions, which usually are supposed to include some support. But it is legal to use a free Linux distribution (even if not promoted for organizations by the Linux vendor).
CentOS is even advertised as being identical to RedHat except for the name, and free for download.
There is your free competition ;-)
When Windows XP was released, some big customers were worried about depending on an external instance for authorization.
Microsoft appeased them by releasing the "Corporate Edition" that didn't require remote authorization.
Guess what happened?
The "Corporate Edition" got pirated. Once again, those who pirate the software are bothered less than legitimate customers...