There are a lot of things that Microsoft does for free that people simply take for granted.
Take technical support for instance. Developing one hotfix for a product, testing it, regression testing it and then deploying and tracking that hotfix, then giving free phone support for all hotfixes..... costs LOTS of money. How do you think they can afford to do all that?
Also, every SDK is online for free plus a shitload of other content.
I guess people only pay attention to the things they have to open their wallet for. Take some time to think about the massive operation behind the scenes before you worry about how much Windows XP costs you.
You are wrong, and I'm glad you had the wisdom to know it.
Microsoft has billions in cash, who the fuck says they can't spend a little on launching products? What is your point anyway, just because things are tight in the US doesn't mean Microsoft should save it's pennies. Microsoft is a global business, and not every country is holding on to their wallet....
Dear o dear, this news item is really going to confuse all you people who like to speak before you have done your homework.
For starters, this is the ".NET My Services" service, it is NOT the.NET platform itself, nor is it an SDK. People are free to write.NET applications for NOTHING and all the SDK is online at msdn.microsoft.com (fuck the link, you can cut and paste).
This is no different from the city library developing a.NET service for reserving books or something and charging you to use it.
Probably the easiest way to get started on troubleshooting Internet Explorer is to use Windows NT/2000 so that if you get major crashes (exceptions) etc you can check the Dr Watson log file for pointers on what module crashed.
I agree with your post in that "Web Services" are sold like they are magical and yet all they really are is XML over HTTP to a SOAP spec. However that's not the end of the story.
How easy is it to develop and locate these services on Linux today? Have you seen/used Visual Studio.NET to do Web Services on Windows? Man it is -so- easy, you'll wet yourself. It's not that you can't do Web Services today on Linux, it's how easy you can incorporate Web Services into everything you do.
The.NET frameworks makes accessing Web Services a piece of piss. Hell, you don't even need to know SOAP -or- XML. I can write and consume a Web Service using Visual Studio.NET in like 5 minutes.
Sure I sound like a MS sellout, but shit... it's good stuff if you ask me.
Linux needs to be able to come up with high productivity tools to do this kind of stuff in no matter what languages etc you use before it will gain any more share than with the hard core techs.
At least XP actually informs you. On Linux you have to read 6000 man pages or maybe read half a million news group messages before you realise you can do something with it.
How many people have installed Linux and then gone..."ok, now what?". I know I had to ask 50 questions just to find out that you type "startx".
You are also forgetting something that a lot of tech savvy people forget... you -know- how to do this stuff.
I support people everyday in using technology, both corporates and home users. A lot of people simply don't know how to do what you do to protect yourself. "Well they should learn", you say. Easy for you. Do you think my mother could learn it? She's flat out turning a computer on let alone creating a user "sandbox" to run attachments on her email.
The glory of Windows (be it good or bad) is that it makes communicating on the Internet really easy for those that can't do what you can. Unfortunately, the age old trade off of ease-of-use for security is still present although becoming less and less.
It's hard to please everyone all the time, and if a software company had to focus on every angle to the Nth degree all the time, then we'd never get software out the door. Sure Linux is well developed from a security standpoint, but it's no where as easy to use as Windows/Mac for the average consumer.
If Windows had of been as security focused as Unix from day one, then I doubt it would be as rich in user interface and ease of use as it is today. Hopefully Windows 2000/XP will pick up some of the slack reputation that the Windows 9x line has earnt Microsoft in being inherently insecure, but only time will tell.
Just remeber it's all very easy from where you stand, and not so easy for others, even the software companies.
Isn't this why Microsoft has the "Designed for Windows" logo program, so that the consumer can have some form of belief that the program will install in a certain manner (ie. own DLLs in it's own directory, registry keys done properly).
I wonder can there be a similar program made up for Linux? It would probably be fairly straight forward, with some complications as to where you prefer apps to install.
Note: The TPC believes that comparisons of TPC-H results measured against different database sizes are misleading and discourages such comparisons. The TPC-H results shown below are grouped by database size to emphasize that only results within each group are comparable.
Doesn't say much for real world scenarios if you ask me.
...Most software companies that make productivity software simply grit their teeth and ignore the individuals with pirate copies - for the most part. It's the businesses with site licenses that they need to worry about. One company is literally hundreds and thousands of dollars in revenue.
It's well known by me that Microsoft go to great lengths to buffer the entire costs of software production and distribution from the consumer. Yes, Office might cost a lot of money however the average home user that pirates it is -not helping the cause-. If everyone paid for their software, it just might get cheaper. Sure, not many people will agree ("Microsoft is a tyrant! They'll charge what they like!" they will shout).
Take the Australian dollar as another example. Microsoft bore the brunt for the declining dollar for some time until it got point where they just had to increase costs. They set the rate at 65 US cents or something and it stayed there while the AU dollar fell down to as low as 55 cents before adjusting. I give them kudos for absorbing even more costs than needed to help keep software affordable for us here.
And yes, the businesses spend shit loads more than consumers do on software so they are likely targets for piracy inspections... but I think it's also because it's much easier to nab them. Imagine how hard it would be to bust the average indiviual. You need a search warrant to enter the house, while with a business you can just get the BSAA or someone to audit them. It's not financially viable to go after the individual.
One last note, I agree... more of the Windows "updates" could have been released as point releases as per your example. But, I urge you to look a little further behind the scenes at the updates to many APIs and system code that comes with the updates. It doesn't look like much on the surface, but I know how much work goes in to each update and it's quite substantial.
For two, I never said they represent the artists interests I said that without the RIAA a lot of artists probably wouldn't have gotten as far as they have today. Would the record industry be so large? Would they be able to offer as many contracts (even if they are shit)?
And finally, please explain how it is -not- piracy. 3 out of 3 things wrong doesn't make for much of a retort.
How did this make a headline story? I'm not sure that you read this before posting it Timothy, or if you did then you have just as much a distorted view as this kid.
For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music. Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.
I agree that by downloading random tracks you might come across something you like and go out and buy that CD. But realistically (across a good spectrum of Napster users) how often did this happen? I know that I usually target music that I -know- I have heard and like rather than wasting time downloading random tracks.
While the RIAA may be protecting a large income, they do also happen to stand for a lot of artists. Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today? Music piracy would be rampant, and there would be no controlled way to licence the playing of music to the masses. All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).
What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?
Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.
The same thing can be applied to just about any platform, not just Windows. When the development of the product line has stepped a certain amount ahead of a certain release it becomes increasingly expensive to keep going back and fixing bugs in older versions.. especially when the bugs become even more benign and affect fewer consumers of the product.
Microsoft has a standard "n - 2" policy for supporting product lines, so when 2 more releases of the same product come out they will typically no longer fix bugs the that version. I think that's pretty fair since it means that Windows NT 3.51 is still in this category and was released many years ago.
I wouldn't expect any commercial software vendor to have to keep up with ~ 5 years of support when most bugs for a product are probably fixed in 2 - 3 years. Sure, more bugs always crop up - but that's why you need business justification to fix bugs.
I'm sure that if you went to the mainstream kernel team and complained about a bug in 2.2 that was fixed in a newer release, that they would not go porting it back. Ok so you can change the source yourself but this is not always possible and also not always viable (Linux is special here).
So consider these things when thinking about product cycles. It may not seem like it all the time, but there are valid business reasons behind moving support away from a product.
"8) Get "Designed for Microsoft Windows" logo program exemption for AOL.
Microsoft pays the OEM significant rebates to have their software bundles
compliant with Microsoft specifications. The AOL client will likely not
meet Microsoft's standards, resulting in OEM PC's being out of compliance
with the logo program and jeopardizing the rebates.
"
Why would Microsoft come up with the Logo Program if they are just going to hand out exemptions?
"Except that the the servers will be run by Microsoft, the protocols will be either be essentially secret, or be designed such that you *still* have to use microsoft's servers. "
The protocol is SOAP you silly twat, it's already open. You'll be able to sniff it off the wire if you really want.
The SQL Server password thing is fixed in 2000. You can still do it, but you need to tick a box before it will let you, therefore you are well aware that you have done it.
A signature is made from your hardware (various serial numbers etc) and this is what is used. If you have registered XP, then you reinstall on the SAME hardware, then your signature will be the same. This signature is sent during the online activation in which case it would have been already recorded from the first time.
So, it's not stored anywhere, it's simply the same code generated each time you install. Of course, if you replace your motherboard or hard drive you may have to reactivate.
Slashdot Mirror
From a previous reply of yours...
"They will probably call this flaimbait. but you sir, are the man. this amuses me. my comment was so trivial and unpointed and you are so upset."
Now who's upset.. silly fucker aren't you.
There are a lot of things that Microsoft does for free that people simply take for granted.
Take technical support for instance. Developing one hotfix for a product, testing it, regression testing it and then deploying and tracking that hotfix, then giving free phone support for all hotfixes..... costs LOTS of money. How do you think they can afford to do all that?
Also, every SDK is online for free plus a shitload of other content.
I guess people only pay attention to the things they have to open their wallet for. Take some time to think about the massive operation behind the scenes before you worry about how much Windows XP costs you.
You are wrong, and I'm glad you had the wisdom to know it.
Microsoft has billions in cash, who the fuck says they can't spend a little on launching products? What is your point anyway, just because things are tight in the US doesn't mean Microsoft should save it's pennies. Microsoft is a global business, and not every country is holding on to their wallet....
Dear o dear, this news item is really going to confuse all you people who like to speak before you have done your homework.
.NET platform itself, nor is it an SDK. People are free to write .NET applications for NOTHING and all the SDK is online at msdn.microsoft.com (fuck the link, you can cut and paste).
.NET service for reserving books or something and charging you to use it.
For starters, this is the ".NET My Services" service, it is NOT the
This is no different from the city library developing a
Awww, don't ruin their fun man! What else will they do if they can't argue about fickle differences in software platforms?
Still, they have a lot to argue about in terms of politics and business purpose (esp. with prices the way they are)...
You people will believe anything you read.
You're absolutely right. Take it from me, I *know* that this "Homestation" they speak of has nothing to do with Xbox.
Probably the easiest way to get started on troubleshooting Internet Explorer is to use Windows NT/2000 so that if you get major crashes (exceptions) etc you can check the Dr Watson log file for pointers on what module crashed.
I agree with your post in that "Web Services" are sold like they are magical and yet all they really are is XML over HTTP to a SOAP spec. However that's not the end of the story.
.NET to do Web Services on Windows? Man it is -so- easy, you'll wet yourself. It's not that you can't do Web Services today on Linux, it's how easy you can incorporate Web Services into everything you do.
.NET frameworks makes accessing Web Services a piece of piss. Hell, you don't even need to know SOAP -or- XML. I can write and consume a Web Service using Visual Studio .NET in like 5 minutes.
How easy is it to develop and locate these services on Linux today? Have you seen/used Visual Studio
The
Sure I sound like a MS sellout, but shit... it's good stuff if you ask me.
Linux needs to be able to come up with high productivity tools to do this kind of stuff in no matter what languages etc you use before it will gain any more share than with the hard core techs.
Hahah, that IBM guy is now on "the hit list".
Hey dude what I really liked about your post is that you event spaced and punctuated the "Windows .NET Server" product name. Do you work for MS?
You know what else is funny... it's a visual comarison without one single screenshot or image. Pretty non-visual if you ask me.
The uploads are agreed to *everytime* by the end user. If you send em, then you made that choice. Simple.
At least XP actually informs you. On Linux you have to read 6000 man pages or maybe read half a million news group messages before you realise you can do something with it.
How many people have installed Linux and then gone..."ok, now what?". I know I had to ask 50 questions just to find out that you type "startx".
You are also forgetting something that a lot of tech savvy people forget... you -know- how to do this stuff.
I support people everyday in using technology, both corporates and home users. A lot of people simply don't know how to do what you do to protect yourself. "Well they should learn", you say. Easy for you. Do you think my mother could learn it? She's flat out turning a computer on let alone creating a user "sandbox" to run attachments on her email.
The glory of Windows (be it good or bad) is that it makes communicating on the Internet really easy for those that can't do what you can. Unfortunately, the age old trade off of ease-of-use for security is still present although becoming less and less.
It's hard to please everyone all the time, and if a software company had to focus on every angle to the Nth degree all the time, then we'd never get software out the door. Sure Linux is well developed from a security standpoint, but it's no where as easy to use as Windows/Mac for the average consumer.
If Windows had of been as security focused as Unix from day one, then I doubt it would be as rich in user interface and ease of use as it is today. Hopefully Windows 2000/XP will pick up some of the slack reputation that the Windows 9x line has earnt Microsoft in being inherently insecure, but only time will tell.
Just remeber it's all very easy from where you stand, and not so easy for others, even the software companies.
Isn't this why Microsoft has the "Designed for Windows" logo program, so that the consumer can have some form of belief that the program will install in a certain manner (ie. own DLLs in it's own directory, registry keys done properly).
I wonder can there be a similar program made up for Linux? It would probably be fairly straight forward, with some complications as to where you prefer apps to install.
Not only that, read the top of the page:
Note: The TPC believes that comparisons of TPC-H results measured against different database sizes are misleading and discourages such comparisons. The TPC-H results shown below are grouped by database size to emphasize that only results within each group are comparable.
Doesn't say much for real world scenarios if you ask me.
It's well known by me that Microsoft go to great lengths to buffer the entire costs of software production and distribution from the consumer. Yes, Office might cost a lot of money however the average home user that pirates it is -not helping the cause-. If everyone paid for their software, it just might get cheaper. Sure, not many people will agree ("Microsoft is a tyrant! They'll charge what they like!" they will shout).
Take the Australian dollar as another example. Microsoft bore the brunt for the declining dollar for some time until it got point where they just had to increase costs. They set the rate at 65 US cents or something and it stayed there while the AU dollar fell down to as low as 55 cents before adjusting. I give them kudos for absorbing even more costs than needed to help keep software affordable for us here.
And yes, the businesses spend shit loads more than consumers do on software so they are likely targets for piracy inspections... but I think it's also because it's much easier to nab them. Imagine how hard it would be to bust the average indiviual. You need a search warrant to enter the house, while with a business you can just get the BSAA or someone to audit them. It's not financially viable to go after the individual.
One last note, I agree... more of the Windows "updates" could have been released as point releases as per your example. But, I urge you to look a little further behind the scenes at the updates to many APIs and system code that comes with the updates. It doesn't look like much on the surface, but I know how much work goes in to each update and it's quite substantial.
For one, I'm not an American.
For two, I never said they represent the artists interests I said that without the RIAA a lot of artists probably wouldn't have gotten as far as they have today. Would the record industry be so large? Would they be able to offer as many contracts (even if they are shit)?
And finally, please explain how it is -not- piracy. 3 out of 3 things wrong doesn't make for much of a retort.
How did this make a headline story? I'm not sure that you read this before posting it Timothy, or if you did then you have just as much a distorted view as this kid.
For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music. Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.
I agree that by downloading random tracks you might come across something you like and go out and buy that CD. But realistically (across a good spectrum of Napster users) how often did this happen? I know that I usually target music that I -know- I have heard and like rather than wasting time downloading random tracks.
While the RIAA may be protecting a large income, they do also happen to stand for a lot of artists. Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today? Music piracy would be rampant, and there would be no controlled way to licence the playing of music to the masses. All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).
What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?
Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.
The same thing can be applied to just about any platform, not just Windows. When the development of the product line has stepped a certain amount ahead of a certain release it becomes increasingly expensive to keep going back and fixing bugs in older versions.. especially when the bugs become even more benign and affect fewer consumers of the product.
Microsoft has a standard "n - 2" policy for supporting product lines, so when 2 more releases of the same product come out they will typically no longer fix bugs the that version. I think that's pretty fair since it means that Windows NT 3.51 is still in this category and was released many years ago.
I wouldn't expect any commercial software vendor to have to keep up with ~ 5 years of support when most bugs for a product are probably fixed in 2 - 3 years. Sure, more bugs always crop up - but that's why you need business justification to fix bugs.
I'm sure that if you went to the mainstream kernel team and complained about a bug in 2.2 that was fixed in a newer release, that they would not go porting it back. Ok so you can change the source yourself but this is not always possible and also not always viable (Linux is special here).
So consider these things when thinking about product cycles. It may not seem like it all the time, but there are valid business reasons behind moving support away from a product.
"8) Get "Designed for Microsoft Windows" logo program exemption for AOL.
Microsoft pays the OEM significant rebates to have their software bundles
compliant with Microsoft specifications. The AOL client will likely not
meet Microsoft's standards, resulting in OEM PC's being out of compliance
with the logo program and jeopardizing the rebates.
"
Why would Microsoft come up with the Logo Program if they are just going to hand out exemptions?
The protocol is SOAP you silly twat, it's already open. You'll be able to sniff it off the wire if you really want.
The SQL Server password thing is fixed in 2000. You can still do it, but you need to tick a box before it will let you, therefore you are well aware that you have done it.
A signature is made from your hardware (various serial numbers etc) and this is what is used. If you have registered XP, then you reinstall on the SAME hardware, then your signature will be the same. This signature is sent during the online activation in which case it would have been already recorded from the first time.
So, it's not stored anywhere, it's simply the same code generated each time you install. Of course, if you replace your motherboard or hard drive you may have to reactivate.