Allchin (sp?) commented that Vista was a from-scratch complete re-write of the OS, that they didn't port anything over
You misinterpreted a statement somewhere; I've never seen anything claiming Vista was a ground up-rewrite. I have read about the "reset", where they basically threw away about 2-3 years worth of work.
At some point, they had done a bunch of work on Vista, basing it on the XP codebase. There were serious problems with it. I'm sure you remember the early leaked builds that were miserably bad. At some point it became apparent that the codebase had degraded so much that they were in serious trouble. They decided to throw all of that work away and re-started Vista from scratch based on XP SP2. And here we are today...
The court ruled that the search terms and list of random web sites in Google's index were the same information. Since there is no need to turn over two pieces of the same information, the court only needs to compel one set of information. The list of random websites was less harmful to Google than a list of search queries, so that is the information the court ordered Google to turn over.
The Judge did indeed state that reason the DoJ sought the information for was lacking detail, but then went on to postulate what the court imagined the information would be used for in the context of the DoJ explanation.
The court completely dodged any and all privacy issues with its ruling.
Contempt of what? Are you arguing that Microsoft was under court order to not make any comments? Or are you arguing that it's ok for the judge in an active trial to abandon his duties when one party in the case voices its displeasure in a public manner?
The judge didn't just make a few offhand comments to a random reporter. He spent hours with several reporters. In once instance, there was a 10 hour taped interview!
The court of appeals didn't take Microsoft's out of court comments into consideration because it was wholly irrelevant. The fact that the judge was unable to restrain himself and had to "get his side out" merely demonstrates that he felt that public opinion about HIM was more important than a fair and just outcome at trial. By granting the closed doors interviews he, in effect, justified Microsoft comments!
Scroll down to section 6, titled "Judicial Misconduct". Enlighten yourself. Some choice quotes below:
"Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires federal judges to "avoid public comment on the merits of [ ] pending or impending" cases. Canon 2 tells judges to "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities," on the bench and off. Canon 3A(4) forbids judges to initiate or consider ex parte communications on the merits of pending or impending proceedings. Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code requires judges to recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. s 455(a).
All indications are that the District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant."
"Far from mitigating his conduct, the District Judge's insistence on secrecy--his embargo--made matters worse. Concealment of the interviews suggests knowledge of their impropriety. Concealment also prevented the parties from nipping his improprieties in the bud. Without any knowledge of the interviews, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had a chance to object or to seek the Judge's removal before he issued his Final Judgment."
"The public comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the District Judge's impartiality. Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is seriously jeopardized when judges secretly share their thoughts about the merits of pending cases with the press. Judges who covet publicity, or convey the appearance that they do, lead any objective observer to wonder whether their judgments are being influenced by the prospect of favorable coverage in the media. Discreet and limited public comments may not compromise a judge's apparent impartiality, but we have little doubt that the District Judge's conduct had that effect."
"The problem here is not just what the District Judge said, but to whom he said it and when. His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates, his mule trainer analogy as a reason for his remedy--all of these remarks and others might not have given rise to a violation of the Canons or of s 455(a) had he uttered them from the bench. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56; Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) (exception to prohibition on public comments for "statements made in the course of the judge's official duties"). But then Microsoft would have had an opportunity to object, perhaps even to persuade, and the Judge would have made a record for review on appeal. It is an altogether different matter when the statements are made outside the courtroom, in private meetings unknown to the parties, in anticipation that ultimately the Judge's remarks would be reported. Rather than manifesting neutrality and impartiality, the reports of the interviews with the District Judge convey the impression of a judge posturing for
Your inability to see the reason why people buy XP on Ebay (instead of downloading some sort of cracked copy) says a lot about the way you think and your ethics.
People buy it because they want to buy a legitimate copy for cheap. They aren't looking for a pirated copy. The sellers of pirated copies on ebay are scammers... read the actions sometime. Hell, try sending them an email to verify the authenticity of what they're selling. It shouldn't take long to understand how suckers fall for it (the same way spammers find suckers to send out their bank account numbers).
Sony just announced that they don't plan on selling any of their movies with the bit flipped on. The capability is still present in the format.
Fact of that matter is that Microsoft is required to implement the downsampling logic in order to obtain a liscense to play HD content off of blu-ray/hd-dvd devices.
Apparently they are on track to have enough units to ship about 500k systems to Japan in June but have decided to go for a simultaneous launch in all three territories in November with millions of units.
That would have been awesome. Customers getting final PS3 hardware before game devs. rofl
A problems with ANY component will cause manufactering delays. I can't remember any console launch that was delayed by the CPU. With the 360, it turned out to be bad ram from a supplier, not the cpu.
Somehow I doubt Microsoft is unhappy that they are still selling consoles as fast as they can make them. Everyone scoffed at the 6mil figure by end of FY06Q4, but if they keep this up they'll exceed that figure.
Point of information: SQLServer slipped because VS slipped, not the other way around. SQLServer also slipped for other reasons, but if you'd see any of the early beta's of the latest VS you'd understand that it definately wasn't just sitting around waiting on SQLServer.
They focused on making the runtime solid (succeeding for the most part, given the amount of bugs present in the Betas not present in the shipping version), but I guess they put their B-team on the IDE... the IDE isn't horrible, but it is certainly worse than 2k3; heaven help you if you install it on a non-clean machine.
1. Standards can be ambiguous 2. Standards can be contradictory with themselves 3. Standards can be contradictory with other standards 4. Standards can be rediculously complex
0.1: Netscape is happy to render crap thrown at it 0.2: Webmasters write crap because it is compliant with crap-rendering browser 0.3: Microsoft wants to take over the world and implements a browser that is bug compatible with Netscape. 0.4: Profit
You may have considered it a cheap shot but fact of the matter is, Judge Jackson gave interviews to media during a pending case and demonstrated a visible bias against Microsoft. He may have had valid reasons for having that bias, but at the end of the day it is his job to be and appear impartial, and he wasn't.
Quoting the US Court of Appeals decision:
"Finally, we vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process. We are therefore constrained to vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order, and require that the case be assigned to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that this disposition will be adequate to cure the cited improprieties."
Microsoft had accused Barrett [commission monitoring trustee] of colluding with competitors by meeting with them regularly. In fact, that's just his job.
In this document, you will see the role of the trustee clearly is defined, including his interaction between the commission and 3rd parties, as well as the scope of information he is privy to. The trustee is a neutral, independent monitor of Microsoft's complaince.
Given that * the process established for interaction with 3rd parties was not followed; the process included requirements that complaints by 3rd parties be disseminated to Microsoft and the commission, as well as recorded on file. This was not done. * the process established for obtaining information from 3rd parties was not followed; the trustee is not permitted to independently meet with 3rd parties or obtain information outside of the scope defined in the above document. 3rd party information must be routed through the commission and recorded on file, but it was not. * that the comission directed the truste's schedule (noting it was important for certain meetings with 3rd parties occur "before he meets with Microsoft for the first time") * that the commission (not the trustee) proactively arranged meetings with 3rd parties (over subjects titled "a first impression of what's at stake", to "begin what will be a huge education process") * that the commission sought to keep this information secret (going to such lengths as directing the trustee not to be present on Microsoft's campus while certain 3rd parties were there for "appearance issues" and independently paying for travel for the trustee [even though the document referenced above states that all costs for the trustee be bore by Microsoft])
It is reasonable to conclude that the trustee was a) not independent b) not impartial c) not acting in a manner consistent with the guidelines specified in the document above
It is also reasonble to conclude that the commission was actively subverting the trustee guidelines to further an agenda which, among other things, precludes the conclusion that Microsoft complied with the court's order.
Taeus compared Microsoft's submissions to a car manufacturer selling a car without wheels, handbrake, or steering wheel, and only fitting each begrudgingly after the customer complains.
You'll note two things about this analasys: 1) it was not performed by the trustee 2) it was performed after the comission issued it's decision that Microsoft was not in compliance
If they thought it necessary, European governments would just write their own licences, and declare these binding. Governments can do that, you know.
Which, of couse, would be the beginning of a rather large WIPO/WTO dispute. Turning a "small" matter between Microsoft and the EU into an international incident. You think the crap going on between Airbus and Boeing is bad right now? Wait until you see shit from this hit the fan.
The document they released states that the monitor must be proactive, but it also clearly enumerates the nature of contact between the trustee and 3rd parties, and clearly identifies the independent nature of the trustee.
When the commission arranges meetings to "introduce Mr. Barret to the issues" and to give him "a first impression of what's at stake", saying it will "begin what will be a huge education process", it calls into serious question the independent nature of the trustee.
So in your eyes anyone claiming to be innocent and providing their reasons for that belief is guilty? Bullshit. Say "I think Microsoft is full of crap, even though I don't have any evidence for or against that opinion" -- fine, but "I think Microsoft is full of crap because they're defending themselves" is just the logic of someone who's lost perspective.
If you're really curious, just run the same command on every binary under the windows folder; if you only see command line tools spit out, the TCP/IP stack obviously won't have that string in it..
The ram isn't 66% faster. The clockspeed of the ram is 66% higher; the latencies are also 2x higher. The performance of the ram in each system should be similar; not identical, but about as close as each different type can get.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporate versions are still shipping on time (just like with Vista), so all the SA people will be happy.
Allchin (sp?) commented that Vista was a from-scratch complete re-write of the OS, that they didn't port anything over
...
You misinterpreted a statement somewhere; I've never seen anything claiming Vista was a ground up-rewrite. I have read about the "reset", where they basically threw away about 2-3 years worth of work.
At some point, they had done a bunch of work on Vista, basing it on the XP codebase. There were serious problems with it. I'm sure you remember the early leaked builds that were miserably bad. At some point it became apparent that the codebase had degraded so much that they were in serious trouble. They decided to throw all of that work away and re-started Vista from scratch based on XP SP2. And here we are today
The court ruled that the search terms and list of random web sites in Google's index were the same information. Since there is no need to turn over two pieces of the same information, the court only needs to compel one set of information. The list of random websites was less harmful to Google than a list of search queries, so that is the information the court ordered Google to turn over.
The Judge did indeed state that reason the DoJ sought the information for was lacking detail, but then went on to postulate what the court imagined the information would be used for in the context of the DoJ explanation.
The court completely dodged any and all privacy issues with its ruling.
Contempt of what? Are you arguing that Microsoft was under court order to not make any comments? Or are you arguing that it's ok for the judge in an active trial to abandon his duties when one party in the case voices its displeasure in a public manner?
The judge didn't just make a few offhand comments to a random reporter. He spent hours with several reporters. In once instance, there was a 10 hour taped interview!
The court of appeals didn't take Microsoft's out of court comments into consideration because it was wholly irrelevant. The fact that the judge was unable to restrain himself and had to "get his side out" merely demonstrates that he felt that public opinion about HIM was more important than a fair and just outcome at trial. By granting the closed doors interviews he, in effect, justified Microsoft comments!
Go here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/06-28opin ion.mspx
Scroll down to section 6, titled "Judicial Misconduct". Enlighten yourself. Some choice quotes below:
"Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires federal judges to "avoid public comment on the merits of [ ] pending or impending" cases. Canon 2 tells judges to "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities," on the bench and off. Canon 3A(4) forbids judges to initiate or consider ex parte communications on the merits of pending or impending proceedings. Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code requires judges to recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. s 455(a).
All indications are that the District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant."
"Far from mitigating his conduct, the District Judge's insistence on secrecy--his embargo--made matters worse. Concealment of the interviews suggests knowledge of their impropriety. Concealment also prevented the parties from nipping his improprieties in the bud. Without any knowledge of the interviews, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant had a chance to object or to seek the Judge's removal before he issued his Final Judgment."
"The public comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the District Judge's impartiality. Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is seriously jeopardized when judges secretly share their thoughts about the merits of pending cases with the press. Judges who covet publicity, or convey the appearance that they do, lead any objective observer to wonder whether their judgments are being influenced by the prospect of favorable coverage in the media. Discreet and limited public comments may not compromise a judge's apparent impartiality, but we have little doubt that the District Judge's conduct had that effect."
"The problem here is not just what the District Judge said, but to whom he said it and when. His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates, his mule trainer analogy as a reason for his remedy--all of these remarks and others might not have given rise to a violation of the Canons or of s 455(a) had he uttered them from the bench. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56; Code of Conduct Canon 3A(6) (exception to prohibition on public comments for "statements made in the course of the judge's official duties"). But then Microsoft would have had an opportunity to object, perhaps even to persuade, and the Judge would have made a record for review on appeal. It is an altogether different matter when the statements are made outside the courtroom, in private meetings unknown to the parties, in anticipation that ultimately the Judge's remarks would be reported. Rather than manifesting neutrality and impartiality, the reports of the interviews with the District Judge convey the impression of a judge posturing for
The quality of a 192kbps WMA file is far, far superior to that of a 128kbps mp3.
Your inability to see the reason why people buy XP on Ebay (instead of downloading some sort of cracked copy) says a lot about the way you think and your ethics.
... read the actions sometime. Hell, try sending them an email to verify the authenticity of what they're selling. It shouldn't take long to understand how suckers fall for it (the same way spammers find suckers to send out their bank account numbers).
People buy it because they want to buy a legitimate copy for cheap. They aren't looking for a pirated copy. The sellers of pirated copies on ebay are scammers
Let me get this straight: You listed the product the same way every pirate does and were suprised when you were treated like one?
Sony just announced that they don't plan on selling any of their movies with the bit flipped on. The capability is still present in the format.
Fact of that matter is that Microsoft is required to implement the downsampling logic in order to obtain a liscense to play HD content off of blu-ray/hd-dvd devices.
Co-developed by Sony Online Entertainment, the company's MMORPG development arm, and GameSpy Networks
... and IGN will rave about it as if it were the second coming.
Well, now we know HUB is going to suck
Sony has said that they do not intend to set the downsampling flag IN THE MOVIES THEY SELL. The capability still exists in the blu-ray standard.
Apparently they are on track to have enough units to ship about 500k systems to Japan in June but have decided to go for a simultaneous launch in all three territories in November with millions of units.
That would have been awesome. Customers getting final PS3 hardware before game devs. rofl
Most places I seen the xbox 360 on sale has 3-4 games on display
You think that nothing is going to be released over the next 6 months? As a side note, most stores I've been to have about a dozen titles on display.
And the 399 unit lacks options, so the 499 option looks more complete.
That makes absolutely no sense. The top of the line unit has no options, so you'll get a more expensive baseline unit instead?
A problems with ANY component will cause manufactering delays. I can't remember any console launch that was delayed by the CPU. With the 360, it turned out to be bad ram from a supplier, not the cpu.
Somehow I doubt Microsoft is unhappy that they are still selling consoles as fast as they can make them. Everyone scoffed at the 6mil figure by end of FY06Q4, but if they keep this up they'll exceed that figure.
Point of information: SQLServer slipped because VS slipped, not the other way around. SQLServer also slipped for other reasons, but if you'd see any of the early beta's of the latest VS you'd understand that it definately wasn't just sitting around waiting on SQLServer.
... the IDE isn't horrible, but it is certainly worse than 2k3; heaven help you if you install it on a non-clean machine.
They focused on making the runtime solid (succeeding for the most part, given the amount of bugs present in the Betas not present in the shipping version), but I guess they put their B-team on the IDE
1. Standards can be ambiguous
2. Standards can be contradictory with themselves
3. Standards can be contradictory with other standards
4. Standards can be rediculously complex
They've already publicly stated that they don't intend to be "pass" the Acid2 test with IE7.
Recall:
0.1: Netscape is happy to render crap thrown at it
0.2: Webmasters write crap because it is compliant with crap-rendering browser
0.3: Microsoft wants to take over the world and implements a browser that is bug compatible with Netscape.
0.4: Profit
You may have considered it a cheap shot but fact of the matter is, Judge Jackson gave interviews to media during a pending case and demonstrated a visible bias against Microsoft. He may have had valid reasons for having that bias, but at the end of the day it is his job to be and appear impartial, and he wasn't.
Quoting the US Court of Appeals decision:
"Finally, we vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process. We are therefore constrained to vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the remedial order, and require that the case be assigned to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that this disposition will be adequate to cure the cited improprieties."
Microsoft had accused Barrett [commission monitoring trustee] of colluding with competitors by meeting with them regularly. In fact, that's just his job.
a ses/decisions/37792/trustee.pdf
His job is outlined here:
* http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/c
In this document, you will see the role of the trustee clearly is defined, including his interaction between the commission and 3rd parties, as well as the scope of information he is privy to. The trustee is a neutral, independent monitor of Microsoft's complaince.
Given that
* the process established for interaction with 3rd parties was not followed; the process included requirements that complaints by 3rd parties be disseminated to Microsoft and the commission, as well as recorded on file. This was not done.
* the process established for obtaining information from 3rd parties was not followed; the trustee is not permitted to independently meet with 3rd parties or obtain information outside of the scope defined in the above document. 3rd party information must be routed through the commission and recorded on file, but it was not.
* that the comission directed the truste's schedule (noting it was important for certain meetings with 3rd parties occur "before he meets with Microsoft for the first time")
* that the commission (not the trustee) proactively arranged meetings with 3rd parties (over subjects titled "a first impression of what's at stake", to "begin what will be a huge education process")
* that the commission sought to keep this information secret (going to such lengths as directing the trustee not to be present on Microsoft's campus while certain 3rd parties were there for "appearance issues" and independently paying for travel for the trustee [even though the document referenced above states that all costs for the trustee be bore by Microsoft])
It is reasonable to conclude that the trustee was
a) not independent
b) not impartial
c) not acting in a manner consistent with the guidelines specified in the document above
It is also reasonble to conclude that the commission was actively subverting the trustee guidelines to further an agenda which, among other things, precludes the conclusion that Microsoft complied with the court's order.
Taeus compared Microsoft's submissions to a car manufacturer selling a car without wheels, handbrake, or steering wheel, and only fitting each begrudgingly after the customer complains.
You'll note two things about this analasys:
1) it was not performed by the trustee
2) it was performed after the comission issued it's decision that Microsoft was not in compliance
If they thought it necessary, European governments would just write their own licences, and declare these binding. Governments can do that, you know.
Which, of couse, would be the beginning of a rather large WIPO/WTO dispute. Turning a "small" matter between Microsoft and the EU into an international incident. You think the crap going on between Airbus and Boeing is bad right now? Wait until you see shit from this hit the fan.
The document they released states that the monitor must be proactive, but it also clearly enumerates the nature of contact between the trustee and 3rd parties, and clearly identifies the independent nature of the trustee.
When the commission arranges meetings to "introduce Mr. Barret to the issues" and to give him "a first impression of what's at stake", saying it will "begin what will be a huge education process", it calls into serious question the independent nature of the trustee.
So in your eyes anyone claiming to be innocent and providing their reasons for that belief is guilty? Bullshit. Say "I think Microsoft is full of crap, even though I don't have any evidence for or against that opinion" -- fine, but "I think Microsoft is full of crap because they're defending themselves" is just the logic of someone who's lost perspective.
If you're really curious, just run the same command on every binary under the windows folder; if you only see command line tools spit out, the TCP/IP stack obviously won't have that string in it ..
The ram isn't 66% faster. The clockspeed of the ram is 66% higher; the latencies are also 2x higher. The performance of the ram in each system should be similar; not identical, but about as close as each different type can get.