The price *hasn't* changed, there are more features.
Think about it like this, you can buy this car, with no stero, or you will get a stero, at no cost to you.
Is that MS publish an interface for the integrated parts, and a way to switch them.
I mean, say that you don't want to use IE for rendering the help, any compotent that fullify the whole of IE's COM interface will be able to take it place.
Same for the burner, WMP, IM, etc.
I know that Mozilla implements most of IE's interface, so the ability to do this would be really cool.
I mean, you get a control panel applet (or maybe a TweakUI tab, which I think MS would like more) that lets you says: "Internet browser: " and you set it there, and when a program with integrated browser tries to access it, they get whatever program you choose.
Same for the other stuff.
Then all the competition would've to do is to offer something good enough to convince me to buy their products.
> No more software being able to go directly to the hardware, directly being able to modify other programs memory, etc. I'm sure the anti-piracy software vendors HATE this arrangement more than the game makers.
You mean, like in any other sane OS, such as Linux? Oh, I wonder how games work on Linux, and how *any* software can run without interacting with the hardware directly?
MS broke the Win9x programmer teams, btw. There won't be more 9x, Yeah!
WinXP uses 2000's drivers, which are WDM (Work on 98, ME, 2000, XP) , which mean that they are the common for new hardware.
Practically anything that came out in the last year and a half has it.
That when people has to write to embedded system, they don't have to write their own compilers, they take GCC, modify it, and use it.
Big help in saving money.
It can certainly handle over 200 projects.
And I would've been very surprised to learn that MS use it internally.
VSS is *not* an enterprise system (evident by the prise tag:) ).
MS needs something *really* big for all the stuff that they do.
It's like the difference between PortoguseSQL & Oracle.
Each has it place, and 50 developers wouldn't begin to max VSS.
Can't recall the last time IE crashed on me.
However, I can crash Mozilla under ten minutes, I find a bug every time I use it.
And *yes*, I *do* use nightlies.
> I await Red Hat's innovative new.ORG project and "innovative" licensing models coming Real Soon Now...
It's not a theory, WDM allows you to write one driver, which will work on:
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows Millenum
Windows 2000 Proffesonal
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advance Server
Windows 2000 Data Center
Windows XP Personal
Windows XP Proffesonal
Windows 2002 Server
Windows 2002 Advance Server
I agree with you that a unified driver model would be a very good thing, check the list above, if it was linux, you would need a seperate driver for each OS.
Microsoft realized that sepeprate drivers for Win9x & WinNT hurt the NT line.
Because everybody released drivers for 9x, and very few for NT.
When they created WDM, they basically said, "Why limit yourself to 9x family? You can write the driver *once*, and it will work on 9x, 2000, and all the new OS that we will market. Or, you can limit yourself to 9x only."
Then they pushed hard on WDM drivers.
That is why they can release XP for the mass market, because nearly everything has WDM drivers.
If Linux had such a model, that would ease the task of driver writers, which is what Linux *need*.
Re:AtheOS is what I've been griping for...
on
AtheOS Interview
·
· Score: 1
Totally different model for security.
Totally different kernel design.
What do you mean, global filesystem?
> They are very similar compared to what can be done
A cat and a dog are very similar, compare to a cockroach, that doesn't mean that dog copy cats, or cats dogs.
(Well, they do, if you go about 65 millions years back.)
Re:AtheOS is what I've been griping for...
on
AtheOS Interview
·
· Score: 1
Not Unix clone.
It has POSIX layer, but so does NT, I don't think you can call *that* unix clone.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
95, 98, ME sold at about the same price.
NT & 2000 sold at about the same price, too.
Same as Office.
Show me a better browser than IE, please.
On any platform of your choosing, too.
The price *hasn't* changed, there are more features.
Think about it like this, you can buy this car, with no stero, or you will get a stero, at no cost to you.
No, Windows & Office price has remained the same.
It cost *less*, if you enter inflation to the equation.
Is that MS publish an interface for the integrated parts, and a way to switch them.
I mean, say that you don't want to use IE for rendering the help, any compotent that fullify the whole of IE's COM interface will be able to take it place.
Same for the burner, WMP, IM, etc.
I know that Mozilla implements most of IE's interface, so the ability to do this would be really cool.
I mean, you get a control panel applet (or maybe a TweakUI tab, which I think MS would like more) that lets you says: "Internet browser: " and you set it there, and when a program with integrated browser tries to access it, they get whatever program you choose.
Same for the other stuff.
Then all the competition would've to do is to offer something good enough to convince me to buy their products.
> No more software being able to go directly to the hardware, directly being able to modify other programs memory, etc. I'm sure the anti-piracy software vendors HATE this arrangement more than the game makers.
You mean, like in any other sane OS, such as Linux? Oh, I wonder how games work on Linux, and how *any* software can run without interacting with the hardware directly?
MS broke the Win9x programmer teams, btw. There won't be more 9x, Yeah!
WinXP uses 2000's drivers, which are WDM (Work on 98, ME, 2000, XP) , which mean that they are the common for new hardware.
Practically anything that came out in the last year and a half has it.
So long and thanks for the fish.
Sorry, but When I read PostgreSQL my eye is lazy and read it like this: Portugal (the country) SQL (the language)
I can't remember the name for longer than fifteen minutes, I'm afraid.
That when people has to write to embedded system, they don't have to write their own compilers, they take GCC, modify it, and use it.
Big help in saving money.
The one who left before they became famous...
You didn't met a lot of users, have you?
They would read *just enough* to know how to get things wrong, trust me on this one.
He was talking about Visual Source Safe vs CVS, not ClearCase vs CVS.
WinCVS looks exactly like the application that all the UI text books warns you against.
*Not* user friendly.
It looks like someone had a seizure attack while drawing all those buttons.
Too cluttered, too messy, too unorginized.
It can certainly handle over 200 projects. And I would've been very surprised to learn that MS use it internally. VSS is *not* an enterprise system (evident by the prise tag :) ).
MS needs something *really* big for all the stuff that they do.
It's like the difference between PortoguseSQL & Oracle.
Each has it place, and 50 developers wouldn't begin to max VSS.
Why haven't they been accepted?
Mozilla is a *write from scratch* browser, it doesn't continue the NS family.
It use no code from NS4, because the code is a *mess*.
Netscape *tried* to open its code, no one wanted to *look* at it!
That is how Mozilla got started.
Can't recall the last time IE crashed on me.
.ORG project and "innovative" licensing models coming Real Soon Now...
However, I can crash Mozilla under ten minutes, I find a bug every time I use it.
And *yes*, I *do* use nightlies.
> I await Red Hat's innovative new
ROTFLOL!!
ACtually, they want *less* restrictive license.
GPL is too restricting, BSD is less so.
It's not a theory, WDM allows you to write one driver, which will work on:
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows Millenum
Windows 2000 Proffesonal
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advance Server
Windows 2000 Data Center
Windows XP Personal
Windows XP Proffesonal
Windows 2002 Server
Windows 2002 Advance Server
I agree with you that a unified driver model would be a very good thing, check the list above, if it was linux, you would need a seperate driver for each OS.
Microsoft realized that sepeprate drivers for Win9x & WinNT hurt the NT line.
Because everybody released drivers for 9x, and very few for NT.
When they created WDM, they basically said, "Why limit yourself to 9x family? You can write the driver *once*, and it will work on 9x, 2000, and all the new OS that we will market. Or, you can limit yourself to 9x only."
Then they pushed hard on WDM drivers.
That is why they can release XP for the mass market, because nearly everything has WDM drivers.
If Linux had such a model, that would ease the task of driver writers, which is what Linux *need*.
Of course, evident by the exitance of shrinks.
Seriously, though, it's not an optimal design, it works, but it was never design, which mean that there are plenty of inefficencies.
How did you compiled it on both systems?
Totally different model for security.
Totally different kernel design.
What do you mean, global filesystem?
> They are very similar compared to what can be done
A cat and a dog are very similar, compare to a cockroach, that doesn't mean that dog copy cats, or cats dogs.
(Well, they do, if you go about 65 millions years back.)
Not Unix clone.
It has POSIX layer, but so does NT, I don't think you can call *that* unix clone.