They may have written some fringe code themselves (not sure it can be proven microsoft itself has even written a line to be honest), but they certainly didn't write any of the core functionality.
Where's the moderation setting of "-1: Complete foaming idiot who gets modded up because the people who mod him up don't know anything about Windows either"?
Yes, they did write NT themselves. Try learning a little, not making it all up as you go along.
From afar it looks like Microsoft has a lack of partitioning of functionality. Everything is embeded in everything else. It is so bad that ( According to Gates under oath at least --Gates would not lie to us would he? ) if you remove the media player you break the OS.
Don't forget, that under oath you have to answer the question precisely as asked. You don't get the opportunity of asking what exactly they mean by "remove". Does remove mean delete the DLLs and EXE? Or does it mean rewriting large swathes of code so that it doesn't use that functionality anywhere?
Remember that the people asking the questions are the same people who seemed to think that removing the icon from the desktop counted as "removing the software".
It was clear that we were to ship ON TIME, this meant agressively dropping any and all features that got in the way. Even pretty key features could be dropped. "Shipping on time, shipping often" was the way to get more people to "throw their wallets at us". The quality of the software not central. I think this really makes a lot of business sense. But what I learned is, this perpective takes some of the joy out of creating software.
Deadlines are the only way anything ever gets finished.
Aim for the stars, and you might just get the moon. And while you still want the stars, most people will be happy with the moon.
The same thing applies to software development, writing, you name it...
It might be different in the Windows version, but on the Mac, I can place an audio CD in my slot loading drive, and it will automatically rip with my settings and spit the CD back out. It makes the process about as easy as it can be without creating a robot to change the CDs.
To which I'll add: check your facts when telling the rest of us to go check them. You look silly or decetiful when you make claims your source refutes
Did you include the board members of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the board members of Sun, Netscape, Oracle, the spouses of said people, and so on and so forth? Not to mention all of the subsidiary companies spun off by said people - eg. Kleiner Perkins, Kleiner Perkins 2 (IIRC).
IIRC, in 1997, it added up to about $5MM. Microsoft's donations at the time were much lower - in the order of $50K.
I notice that you spend a lot of time saying "Well, Microsoft spent a hell of a lot" about time periods AFTER the trial started. Which perfectly matches with the idea that it was a shakedown, which took some money to shift.
Netscape/Mosaic and the rest did not approach DC. DC approached them. Way back in 1992, before Netscape was even a dot on the PC roadmap.
Study your history better next time before you open your big stupid mouth.
Study the donations at opensecrets.org, being sure to include the venture capital funds behind Sun, Netscape, Oracle etc. and the board members, and their spouses. Study the time period up to and including the time of the trial. Then tell me that they didn't approach DC.
Those guys got the best trial/lynching that money could buy.
It's what's called a Shakedown. Microsoft was politically inactive. They didn't give any money to political interests up until the trial. And the political interests weren't happy with one of the most profitable companies in the land not paying their dues.
Moot point. On 1ghz+ machines, the overhead in running Java with either virtual machine is not noticable. The issue isn't performance, it's compatibility.
At the time, the issue certainly was performance. 1Ghz machines weren't seen outside of labs and vats of liquid nitrogen.
Where I used to work, the programmers didn't hesitate to use Microsoft extentions solely because it's Microsoft technology, and they assume that everyone runs Microsoft technology
Remind me not to hire any of the programmers who worked where you used to work. The Microsoft extensions were obvious. They even had "microsoft.*.*" as their package names. Using them if you're meant to be cross platform is not happenstance - it's negligence on the part of the 'software developer'.
And yes, I put software developer in quotes, because I don't count those people as real engineers. Engineers consider the consequences of their design choices.
Oh, neat. There were other browser manufacturers before Netscape?
NCSA Mosaic, Lynx and Athena all predated Netscape. All were free.
Besides, Microsoft innovated in paying ISPs and ISVs to not support Netscape. They didn't just give the browser away for free, they paid people not to use Netscape. You really couldn't ask for a clearer violation of the Sherman antitrust act.. monopolist uses monopoly rents to fund an anticompetitive attack against a new market.
Netscape paid the ISPs and OEMs to support Netscape in the first place. Or don't you remember all the deals at the time saying "Sign up with XYZ provider, and get Netscape free!", right around the Netscape 1.0 timeframe.
It amazes me how many people paint Netscape as whiter than white, and hard done by. They clearly forget everything that Netscape did, their original business model, and how they tried to build their own monopoly.
All of which has nothing to do with what Sun sued Microsoft over. Sun sued Microsoft because Microsoft declined to support JNI, which allowed C modules to be written which would work against any standard JVM that supported it. Microsoft preferred their own native code solution, fine, but the contract didn't allow them to unilaterally decide not to support part of the Java spec
However, that JNI implementation was badly designed, and it's hard to argue that it made it difficult for C code to be cross platform, given that JNI was supposed to be used to talk to the native platform, which is inherently not cross platform.
Java started life as Oak, a language for small devices, and the JVM was designed to be portable to CPUs with limited numbers of registers. That is why it is a stack-based VM. Oddly enough, this also favors Intel architecture more than Sparc. The only person to claim that the JVM was designed expressly for Sparc was a single professor funded by Microsoft.
If that is the case, then explain why Sparc's floating point implementation - not entirely IEEE standard - was the one used for the Java VM, and if you wanted to be 100% Pure Java compliant, you had to give the same answers that a Sparc FPU would give for the same java code.
Instead of, of course, supporting the IEEE standard entirely, and giving the same answers as all other CPUs running IEEE code.
Point 2 - The Microsoft VM, while performing better in some cases than the Sun VM for Windows, was buggy as hell.
Really? Seemed to work fine to me. Not that it matters - it's irrelevent. The Netscape JVM was orders of magnitude buggier than the MS one. Believe me, I know - I was writing a lot of Java code at the time.
Point 3 - There is no law requiring Sun to sue Netscape like they did Microsoft just to satisfy your sense of "justice". Netscape was a strategic partner, what was Sun supposed to do?
Force them to be compliant, instead of having supposedly illegal libraries out there for three years? You can't declare something illegal and then let someone else do the same thing just because they're a partner. That's just plain ludicrous.
Although we are talking about the same Sun that told Microsoft they couldn't ship any newer version of the JVM, and then sued them for not shipping a newer version of the JVM.
Justice for the small companies that got stomped into the ground by Microsoft illegally using its monopoly position on the desktop to move into other areas.
Such as?
The agreement that was reached on the penalties MS had to suffer as a result of being found guilty is a joke.
Just keep in mind that MS was found guilty, they had broken the law of the land, they were in the wrong.
Just keep in mind that some of the evidence they were convicted on was plainly fabricated. For example, Real Player's complaint that the G5 Beta was being deliberately stymied by Microsoft turned out to be a flaw in their installation script.
and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice
Justice for whom?
Microsoft's competitors, who were the people who lobbied the government with huge donations to bring the case in the first place?
Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?
Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?
So I ask again... Justice for whom? Anti-microsoft zealots?
Linux is better because we have superior choices for many pieces of software. FYI, both Xine or MPlayer support more formats of video than any Windows-only player I can think of (of course, MPlayer works on Windows, too).
Of course, to do that, they have to provide a bundle of ripped-off Windows DLLs that they hook into. And they provide that bundle without the permission of the copyright owners, too.
Netcraft don't count servers or boxes. They count DNS entries.
For example, people.redhat.com and charlotte.redhat.com both come up as different entries for Netcraft's search, even though they're the same site hosted on the same box.
Kind of makes you wonder just how accurate their figures really are, huh?
Britain's gun ban was instituted in the late 90s after a bunch of kids got killed at an elementary school by a loony armed to the teeth with guns. This recalls the spate of school shootings in the US during the same period. But Britain's astronomic explosion in violent crime and gun crime began after the gun ban, while the US, which didn't institute a wide-ranging gun ban, has seen crime rates stand still or fall.
What kind of bullshit is this?
I grew up in England. I lived there for 23 years. At no point during that time was owning a gun legal, unless you were using it for hunting, and even then, only under very specific rules and regulations.
What kind of crack are you smoking? Where do you get this idea that guns were generally available in England before the late 90s?
And you people blame Linux guys for yelling RTFM? You Windows zealots are no better.
It's called sarcasm, son. Look at the rest of the thread. Hear him bitch about not getting any help, not knowing how to do it, it's all the Windows community's fault, yada yada yada.
RTFC (read the fucking comment). That is not terminal services. When someone connects to Terminal Services, it does _not_ log an IP address (or even a workstation name, it logs the workstation as the Terminal Server). As has already been established in this thread, this seems to have been an oversight in W2K.
Yes, it does work with Terminal Services on Win2k.
"Is there a way to log the IP address of PCs connecting to the Terminal Server without using third-party software?" Even google couldn't find the answer for me.
RTFM. Google found it very quickly for me.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defaul t. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maint ain/monitor/logevnts.asp
The whole Microsoft thing would be more cost effective if they were removed from the face of the earth. Like if all the employees quit because they suddenly gained a sense of shame. And if all the California fires were suddenly concentrated around a single complex in Redmond at One Microsoft Way.
I'd rather the California fires didn't, thanks. The apartment complex I live in is spitting distance from there. (Hey, the rent's cheap... but I don't think it's because the place is a fire hazard).
(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = Longhorn of course!
Why else would it be taking one of the largest software companies in the world two and a half years to pretty up Windows XP, bolt in IE and slap the file system in a database? They have to wait until Linux, GNOME, etc. is all declared public domain before they ravage it!
Believe me, you may think that GPL'd software is the shit, but frankly it's not all that and a bag of chips. Why anyone would want to copy or use GPL'd software in their own work is beyond me. It's really not that good, is badly documented... frankly, it'd be easier and give better results to roll your own.
Slashdot Mirror
They may have written some fringe code themselves (not sure it can be proven microsoft itself has even written a line to be honest), but they certainly didn't write any of the core functionality.
Where's the moderation setting of "-1: Complete foaming idiot who gets modded up because the people who mod him up don't know anything about Windows either"?
Yes, they did write NT themselves. Try learning a little, not making it all up as you go along.
So Microsoft can copy Apple, but X can't? That's not far at all.
Microsoft's translucency and alpha blending predates OS X.
From afar it looks like Microsoft has a lack of partitioning of functionality. Everything is embeded in everything else. It is so bad that ( According to Gates under oath at least --Gates would not lie to us would he? ) if you remove the media player you break the OS.
Don't forget, that under oath you have to answer the question precisely as asked. You don't get the opportunity of asking what exactly they mean by "remove". Does remove mean delete the DLLs and EXE? Or does it mean rewriting large swathes of code so that it doesn't use that functionality anywhere?
Remember that the people asking the questions are the same people who seemed to think that removing the icon from the desktop counted as "removing the software".
It was clear that we were to ship ON TIME, this meant agressively dropping any and all features that got in the way. Even pretty key features could be dropped. "Shipping on time, shipping often" was the way to get more people to "throw their wallets at us". The quality of the software not central. I think this really makes a lot of business sense. But what I learned is, this perpective takes some of the joy out of creating software.
Deadlines are the only way anything ever gets finished.
Aim for the stars, and you might just get the moon. And while you still want the stars, most people will be happy with the moon.
The same thing applies to software development, writing, you name it...
Will it rip to any standard formats? I can configure iTunes to rip to AIFF, MP3 or AAC
WMA and MP3 (with a $10 encoder).
It might be different in the Windows version, but on the Mac, I can place an audio CD in my slot loading drive, and it will automatically rip with my settings and spit the CD back out. It makes the process about as easy as it can be without creating a robot to change the CDs.
Sounds just like Windows XP's CD ripper.
To which I'll add: check your facts when telling the rest of us to go check them. You look silly or decetiful when you make claims your source refutes
Did you include the board members of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the board members of Sun, Netscape, Oracle, the spouses of said people, and so on and so forth? Not to mention all of the subsidiary companies spun off by said people - eg. Kleiner Perkins, Kleiner Perkins 2 (IIRC).
IIRC, in 1997, it added up to about $5MM. Microsoft's donations at the time were much lower - in the order of $50K.
I notice that you spend a lot of time saying "Well, Microsoft spent a hell of a lot" about time periods AFTER the trial started. Which perfectly matches with the idea that it was a shakedown, which took some money to shift.
will tell you - SMARTASS.
Netscape/Mosaic and the rest did not approach DC. DC approached them. Way back in 1992, before Netscape was even a dot on the PC roadmap.
Study your history better next time before you open your big stupid mouth.
Study the donations at opensecrets.org, being sure to include the venture capital funds behind Sun, Netscape, Oracle etc. and the board members, and their spouses. Study the time period up to and including the time of the trial. Then tell me that they didn't approach DC.
Those guys got the best trial/lynching that money could buy.
It's what's called a Shakedown. Microsoft was politically inactive. They didn't give any money to political interests up until the trial. And the political interests weren't happy with one of the most profitable companies in the land not paying their dues.
Moot point. On 1ghz+ machines, the overhead in running Java with either virtual machine is not noticable. The issue isn't performance, it's compatibility.
At the time, the issue certainly was performance. 1Ghz machines weren't seen outside of labs and vats of liquid nitrogen.
Where I used to work, the programmers didn't hesitate to use Microsoft extentions solely because it's Microsoft technology, and they assume that everyone runs Microsoft technology
Remind me not to hire any of the programmers who worked where you used to work. The Microsoft extensions were obvious. They even had "microsoft.*.*" as their package names. Using them if you're meant to be cross platform is not happenstance - it's negligence on the part of the 'software developer'.
And yes, I put software developer in quotes, because I don't count those people as real engineers. Engineers consider the consequences of their design choices.
Oh, neat. There were other browser manufacturers before Netscape?
NCSA Mosaic, Lynx and Athena all predated Netscape. All were free.
Besides, Microsoft innovated in paying ISPs and ISVs to not support Netscape. They didn't just give the browser away for free, they paid people not to use Netscape. You really couldn't ask for a clearer violation of the Sherman antitrust act.. monopolist uses monopoly rents to fund an anticompetitive attack against a new market.
Netscape paid the ISPs and OEMs to support Netscape in the first place. Or don't you remember all the deals at the time saying "Sign up with XYZ provider, and get Netscape free!", right around the Netscape 1.0 timeframe.
It amazes me how many people paint Netscape as whiter than white, and hard done by. They clearly forget everything that Netscape did, their original business model, and how they tried to build their own monopoly.
All of which has nothing to do with what Sun sued Microsoft over. Sun sued Microsoft because Microsoft declined to support JNI, which allowed C modules to be written which would work against any standard JVM that supported it. Microsoft preferred their own native code solution, fine, but the contract didn't allow them to unilaterally decide not to support part of the Java spec
However, that JNI implementation was badly designed, and it's hard to argue that it made it difficult for C code to be cross platform, given that JNI was supposed to be used to talk to the native platform, which is inherently not cross platform.
Java started life as Oak, a language for small devices, and the JVM was designed to be portable to CPUs with limited numbers of registers. That is why it is a stack-based VM. Oddly enough, this also favors Intel architecture more than Sparc. The only person to claim that the JVM was designed expressly for Sparc was a single professor funded by Microsoft.
If that is the case, then explain why Sparc's floating point implementation - not entirely IEEE standard - was the one used for the Java VM, and if you wanted to be 100% Pure Java compliant, you had to give the same answers that a Sparc FPU would give for the same java code.
Instead of, of course, supporting the IEEE standard entirely, and giving the same answers as all other CPUs running IEEE code.
Point 2 - The Microsoft VM, while performing better in some cases than the Sun VM for Windows, was buggy as hell.
Really? Seemed to work fine to me. Not that it matters - it's irrelevent. The Netscape JVM was orders of magnitude buggier than the MS one. Believe me, I know - I was writing a lot of Java code at the time.
Point 3 - There is no law requiring Sun to sue Netscape like they did Microsoft just to satisfy your sense of "justice". Netscape was a strategic partner, what was Sun supposed to do?
Force them to be compliant, instead of having supposedly illegal libraries out there for three years? You can't declare something illegal and then let someone else do the same thing just because they're a partner. That's just plain ludicrous.
Although we are talking about the same Sun that told Microsoft they couldn't ship any newer version of the JVM, and then sued them for not shipping a newer version of the JVM.
Justice for the small companies that got stomped into the ground by Microsoft illegally using its monopoly position on the desktop to move into other areas.
Such as?
The agreement that was reached on the penalties MS had to suffer as a result of being found guilty is a joke.
Just keep in mind that MS was found guilty, they had broken the law of the land, they were in the wrong.
Just keep in mind that some of the evidence they were convicted on was plainly fabricated. For example, Real Player's complaint that the G5 Beta was being deliberately stymied by Microsoft turned out to be a flaw in their installation script.
and of course it sounds like a victory for Justice
Justice for whom?
Microsoft's competitors, who were the people who lobbied the government with huge donations to bring the case in the first place?
Netscape? A failed company who tried to create their own monopoly, but failed when Microsoft gave away their browser for free -- something that every single other browser manufacturer before Netscape was doing already?
Sun Microsystems? A company who created a virtual machine designed to best work on Sparc systems, who suddenly started to get cold feet when Microsoft managed to come up with a virtual machine that worked faster than anything they expected could be created? A company who also completely failed to sue Netscape for creating their own non-compliant Java libraries?
So I ask again... Justice for whom? Anti-microsoft zealots?
Are there any DVD players that will ignore the "no skip" flag?
Most will, if you use the "Next Chapter" button.
Personally, I've got a Pioneer DV434. Also works on the XBOX, WinDVD, JVCs I've used, and a few others.
Linux is better because we have superior choices for many pieces of software. FYI, both Xine or MPlayer support more formats of video than any Windows-only player I can think of (of course, MPlayer works on Windows, too).
Of course, to do that, they have to provide a bundle of ripped-off Windows DLLs that they hook into. And they provide that bundle without the permission of the copyright owners, too.
Netcraft don't count servers or boxes. They count DNS entries.
For example, people.redhat.com and charlotte.redhat.com both come up as different entries for Netcraft's search, even though they're the same site hosted on the same box.
Kind of makes you wonder just how accurate their figures really are, huh?
Britain's gun ban was instituted in the late 90s after a bunch of kids got killed at an elementary school by a loony armed to the teeth with guns. This recalls the spate of school shootings in the US during the same period. But Britain's astronomic explosion in violent crime and gun crime began after the gun ban, while the US, which didn't institute a wide-ranging gun ban, has seen crime rates stand still or fall.
What kind of bullshit is this?
I grew up in England. I lived there for 23 years. At no point during that time was owning a gun legal, unless you were using it for hunting, and even then, only under very specific rules and regulations.
What kind of crack are you smoking? Where do you get this idea that guns were generally available in England before the late 90s?
Lousy trailer? It's a teaser trailer - what do you expect?
Although for a really good teaser, check out the teaser trailer here:
The Time Machine
And you people blame Linux guys for yelling RTFM? You Windows zealots are no better.
It's called sarcasm, son. Look at the rest of the thread. Hear him bitch about not getting any help, not knowing how to do it, it's all the Windows community's fault, yada yada yada.
RTFC (read the fucking comment). That is not terminal services. When someone connects to Terminal Services, it does _not_ log an IP address (or even a workstation name, it logs the workstation as the Terminal Server). As has already been established in this thread, this seems to have been an oversight in W2K.
Yes, it does work with Terminal Services on Win2k.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=328478
As I said, read the fucking manual.
"Is there a way to log the IP address of PCs connecting to the Terminal Server without using third-party software?" Even google couldn't find the answer for me.
l t. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maint ain/monitor/logevnts.asp
RTFM. Google found it very quickly for me.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defau
The whole Microsoft thing would be more cost effective if they were removed from the face of the earth. Like if all the employees quit because they suddenly gained a sense of shame. And if all the California fires were suddenly concentrated around a single complex in Redmond at One Microsoft Way.
I'd rather the California fires didn't, thanks. The apartment complex I live in is spitting distance from there. (Hey, the rent's cheap... but I don't think it's because the place is a fire hazard).
Well then, I guess you'd have no problem if someone took your CD and DVD collection and didn't give it back? After all, it's not yours
The media is not the intellectual property. The content is. Please, learn the difference.
Personally, I think a better logo would be quite simple, but sum up hackerdom nicely.
All you need to show is a round hole, a square peg, and a large mallet.
(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = Longhorn of course!
Why else would it be taking one of the largest software companies in the world two and a half years to pretty up Windows XP, bolt in IE and slap the file system in a database? They have to wait until Linux, GNOME, etc. is all declared public domain before they ravage it!
Believe me, you may think that GPL'd software is the shit, but frankly it's not all that and a bag of chips. Why anyone would want to copy or use GPL'd software in their own work is beyond me. It's really not that good, is badly documented... frankly, it'd be easier and give better results to roll your own.