The core problem with Microsoft is that it has absolutely no concept of competition or how to work with other companies in partnership.
I work for a US-owned telecoms company that is already well established in business PBX, call-centres, Voice-over-IP and voice messaging.
Last week, we had a team meeting and one of my fellow consultants gave us a quick overview of Microsoft's Office Communication Server. To cut a long story short, rather than embracing the strengths of their own corporate desktop presence and working *with* telecoms vendors like us to integrate with our systems, they're actually going all out to lock us out with proprietary codecs (for VoIP stream encoding & decoding) rather than using open codecs that already do the job perfectly well.
The problem is that Microsoft is trying to control far too many new markets rather than only focusing on what it does well - this means that it's spreading itself far too thin when it's trying to take on the already big players in those markets; Google is a classic example of this.
I don't see the logic behind it at all - look at the Internet in 2008 and compare it to, say, 1998, and the most popular and liked applications and protocols are those where the creators have embraced and used open standards (okay, with the exception of iTunes and AAC formats maybe).
DirectX doesn't need to be Open Source, there's already an open graphics programming standard called OpenGL that runs on just about any platform.
DirectX is "better" for games companies because Microsoft are very good at documenting APIs that lock people into their products - so for games programmers, it's probably quicker to use DirectX than OpenGL.
The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero.
I don't get this statement at all.
Why would you need a high end graphics card to run a desktop GUI? If you're a gamer with a good graphics card, then if you're into eye candy there's no reason not to turn up the settings on Aero to "full" to get a cool looking desktop while that graphics card isn't dealing with shifting game frames.
But if you're someone who writes letters, surfs the Internet and uses whatever Windows is on the new PC you buy, why would you buy a high-end graphics card just to be able to do that?
And what about server systems? What about if, as a server admin, you just want a slim GUI to run some admin tools on but nothing more graphics intensive than that.
Personally, I slim down any GUI I use to be as fast and light as possible (whether Windows or Linux) so eye candy does nothing for me - but I get that other people like it and if they've already got the machine to cope with it then why not.
But what you're saying really doesn't make any sense (unless I'm missing something), especially when we're also being told that Windows 7 is going to be a lot more modular.
I just say it like I see it - for me an operating system is a tool to get a job done, not to make a political statement with.
I use lots of Linux (both home and work), lots of Windows (home and work) and combined they do everything I need a computer to do. Yep, it'd be nice to do everything on one OS but I can live with it.
I find it amusing that Apple fanbois take everything so personally!
The Net Applications webstats are irrelevant here - I'm talking about home users who play games, the stats to not make the distinction between home (gaming) users and corporate users, where, in the latter case, an almost overwhelming majority will be Windows desktops.
I can only report what I see with my own eyes, I'm afraid. I've travelled EMEA and the US for 25+ years as a techie, I notice gadgets people are carrying and using at airports and in offices, and the fact is I very rarely see a Mac being used.
There is no way you can massage a statistic so pathetic into something significant.
Please stop with the emotion and stop treating this like a personal attack - if Macs work for you then good luck to you but, again, with 25+ years working as a techie (mainly in the telecoms industry), I've used Windows, Linux and UNIX a lot but never once found a need to buy an Apple machine.
I've got a close friend who is an IT contractor who was *given* a Mac by one of his clients - he fired it up once, didn't really know what he wanted to do with it and put it back in the box where it now sits gathering dust. The guy's a gamer who likes and uses Windows and occasionally rings me with Linux questions when he fires up his Ubuntu box.
Valve's games demand significant horsepower. They are not being played on the Linux Netbook or the XO.
Please stop with the stats manipulation. People don't buy Netbooks for gaming full stop, they're irrelevant to this argument. I'm talking home users with gaming machines here, stay on topic.
Personally, I know more people with Macs than use Linux on the desktop.
I don't deny that's the case - but you've not said whereabouts in the world you are.
I suspect you're in the US because of the level of Mac penetration over there. But such is not the same for Europe and, I suspect, the rest of the world.
Valve would be insane to worry about porting their games to Linux (at least) before they ported to the Mac
A somewhat obtuse statement from an otherwise interesting comment that deserves a response.
Firstly, to be a Mac user, you have to buy one of a range of specific computers but to be a Linux user, you just need an empty PC or a Windows PC with some spare hard disk space. Therefore, if you're currently a PC gamer in Windows, it's easier to move to (or dual boot) Linux than it is to buy a Mac.
Secondly, I wouldn't argue that in the USA, if Windows is the most used OS, then second place would probably go to OS X on Macs with Linux a fairly close third. However, such is not the case for Europe and, I suspect, much of the rest of the world - Linux is definitely second place to Windows. Therefore, outside the USA, there's probably a bigger potential market for commercial games on Linux than on Macs.
I really am not intending to provoke a "my OS is better than your OS" argument, but as someone who has been in the IT & telecoms industry for 25+ years, I say it like I see it - my friends and workmates all run Windows, about 10% run Linux (usually alongside it) and I know of no-one who either owns a Mac or intends buying one, despite the fact that these are mostly IT literate people with numerous iPods amongst them.
I read the original Foundation trilogy some 25 years ago and perhaps should think about giving them a re-read.
However, I do listen to the BBC audio adaptation once or twice a year (made around the time I read the books I seem to recall) and thoroughly enjoy it - but as a story, it's definitely not suited to the big screen unless the whole thing is really hacked about with.
I had major line instabilities with my BT ADSL when I changed address. I've worked in the telecoms industry as a techie for 23 years or so, the first 5 of those were with BT - so I know my stuff about telecoms.
The BT call centre people in India were useless - the trick to dealing with them is to keep throwing technical stuff at them they can't understand (not difficult) but not losing your temper with them. They have no justification to cut your call and eventually raise a line fault whereupon you get an engineer out to you.
I had three engineer calls over 18 months until about 3 months ago. They were all top guys, very keen to sort out the problem and did a lot of good testing. When they learnt that I know my stuff about telecoms, they even gave me new cables and sockets free of charge to replace the wiring in my house as long as I was happy to do the wiring myself (which I was).
The line went stable three months ago after I insisted to the call centre agent that they send me a new BT Home Hub 2. The engineers kept telling me what rubbish the Home Hub 1 is and I finally crowbarred BT into sending me the new one. Ever since that time the line has been perfectly stable although I only get 2.5 MB/s where I am.
But with the Home Hub 1, after a reboot it would come up as 4.5MB/s, within 24 hours drop to 2.5MB/s and, after heavy download periods, would drop as low as 20KB/s. As far as the engineers could tell me, they thought it was an accumulation of line errors causing the DSLAM to drop the line speed in order to try to maintain the service - unfortunately, they were never able to prove it because by the time they visited my home, the call centre had already reset the DSLAM equipment.
If anyone else is getting similar problems with BT and you have the white Home Hub (1) then ask for the new black Home Hub 2 - it did it for me.
In fact I'd go a stage further and say that digital downloads are far more about fashion statements than a love of music. Most people want downloads because they want portability, and they want portability to be able to brag to all their schoolchums about what big music collections they have on their fashionably-coloured iPods.
Besides which, if portability is a major criteria for your music then you are not a true music fan because you're probably listening to your iPod while doing something else, rather than just sitting there and concentrating on a really good piece of music.
And if you have a need for "Pick N Mix" tracks then it just demonstrates you probably don't have the attention span to enjoy a really good album from start to finish or are just too damn lazy to put some passion into your music hobby and really look *hard* for good quality music - believe me, it's out there...
I'm like you - when I can't by music on something tangible like a shiny disk then I will stop buying it. That will be a shame but I have more than enough good albums on CD to last my lifetime already so I can live with it.
1. I can buy just about any CD that I want cheaper than paying 99p per track. I just search eBay, Play, Amazon and countless other online vendors to find the cheapest prices for my CDs.
2. With the money I save not buying expensive music downloads, I can afford to buy more music and a reasonable hifi to play my CDs on in all their lossless and uncompressed glory.
3. Because I own the CD, I always have the option to rip it at whatever bit-rate I want to whatever device I want. That means I can have all of my music collection with me on a portable USB drive. And if the drive or MP3 player gets stolen or broken, then the worst possible case is I just rip my CDs again.
4. Not that I believe in the "environmentally friendly" bullshit in the first place but what about all of the extra computers and data centres that need to spring up in order to provide the capacity for downloadable music. A CD may be an indisposable piece of plastic but a computer is (so we are told) one of the most difficult things to dispose of when it comes to the environment. Plus I can easily recycle my CDs, more so than an old PC, by just reselling it on eBay or giving it to a local charity shop if I have finished with it.
5. CD buyers are supporting music whereas digital downloaders are killing music. Answer me this? Suppose everyone started taking their music like "Pick n Mix" sweeties, selecting only the tracks they think they want. What happens to the current music scene where artists justify going on tour after the release of a new album, say? What happens if music distribution becomes "song-by-song" rather than "album-by-album"? How does a band get enough new material together so that you, as a music fan, feel justified in buying a ticket to one of their concerts because they will have enough new material to play live to make the event different to the last time you saw them?
6. AC/DC, the biggest rock band in the world, do not allow their music to be distributed on iTunes because they do not consider that it suits the way they want to distribute their music or what their fans want. I am sure there are a number of other big artists who are the same.
7. What's going to lead you to find the web site of some good music by a new band if there aren't record companies pushing the artists with advertising? When there's a million bands selling their own music through their own web sites, how are you going to find the stuff you like?
8. Don't give me the "but there's only 2 good tracks on every CD" bullshit. If you find that's the case then go look for something different - there are thousands of classic albums out there that are superb pieces of music from start to finish. The difference is that a true music fan goes off and does some research to find it rather than expecting everything to be plopped in their laps.
Need I go on?
And no, I don't work in the music industry and never have done - I can't even play an instrument. But quite frankly, I really don't give a toss whether or not artists are being ripped off by music companies just like nobody out there gives a toss if I didn't get a payrise this year in my job in the telecoms industry.
All I do give a toss about is that there is good music at good prices for me to go find and enjoy - and there's plenty of it for me. In fact, I'll even go a stage further and say that the record companies are doing a damn good job appealing to people like me who have enough common sense to see what trash 99% of modern music is and want a lot of old and classic rock music nicely remastered and put on CD at reasonable prices.
Maybe the record companies are ripoff merchants but I don't care. I'm just a consumer that wants good quality stuff at good prices and even if that stuff is just 1% of what the music companies currently churn out then that's still far more stuff than I can possibly listen to and enjoy in my lifetime.
Cosmonaut Muffet Sat in a spacesuit Eating her synthi-dessert
An anti-grav spider Came right down beside her And caused Miss Muffet to make a slight miscalculation in the re-entry apogee resulting in a 2.4% increase in thermal expansion of the heat shield upon shuttle re-entry into the troposphere
Slashdot Mirror
...just like Good Old Games have done with old, possibly out-of-print, games.
In other words, create an ebook of the original treeware version and make a deal with the publisher or author of the original to sell the ebooks.
The core problem with Microsoft is that it has absolutely no concept of competition or how to work with other companies in partnership.
I work for a US-owned telecoms company that is already well established in business PBX, call-centres, Voice-over-IP and voice messaging.
Last week, we had a team meeting and one of my fellow consultants gave us a quick overview of Microsoft's Office Communication Server. To cut a long story short, rather than embracing the strengths of their own corporate desktop presence and working *with* telecoms vendors like us to integrate with our systems, they're actually going all out to lock us out with proprietary codecs (for VoIP stream encoding & decoding) rather than using open codecs that already do the job perfectly well.
The problem is that Microsoft is trying to control far too many new markets rather than only focusing on what it does well - this means that it's spreading itself far too thin when it's trying to take on the already big players in those markets; Google is a classic example of this.
I don't see the logic behind it at all - look at the Internet in 2008 and compare it to, say, 1998, and the most popular and liked applications and protocols are those where the creators have embraced and used open standards (okay, with the exception of iTunes and AAC formats maybe).
I don't get it with Microsoft at all...
DirectX doesn't need to be Open Source, there's already an open graphics programming standard called OpenGL that runs on just about any platform.
DirectX is "better" for games companies because Microsoft are very good at documenting APIs that lock people into their products - so for games programmers, it's probably quicker to use DirectX than OpenGL.
The point was that it was a DX 10 application running entirely in software. In the end, this means that systems without higher end 3D cards would be able to run Aero.
I don't get this statement at all.
Why would you need a high end graphics card to run a desktop GUI? If you're a gamer with a good graphics card, then if you're into eye candy there's no reason not to turn up the settings on Aero to "full" to get a cool looking desktop while that graphics card isn't dealing with shifting game frames.
But if you're someone who writes letters, surfs the Internet and uses whatever Windows is on the new PC you buy, why would you buy a high-end graphics card just to be able to do that?
And what about server systems? What about if, as a server admin, you just want a slim GUI to run some admin tools on but nothing more graphics intensive than that.
Personally, I slim down any GUI I use to be as fast and light as possible (whether Windows or Linux) so eye candy does nothing for me - but I get that other people like it and if they've already got the machine to cope with it then why not.
But what you're saying really doesn't make any sense (unless I'm missing something), especially when we're also being told that Windows 7 is going to be a lot more modular.
I just say it like I see it - for me an operating system is a tool to get a job done, not to make a political statement with.
I use lots of Linux (both home and work), lots of Windows (home and work) and combined they do everything I need a computer to do. Yep, it'd be nice to do everything on one OS but I can live with it.
I find it amusing that Apple fanbois take everything so personally!
The Net Applications webstats are irrelevant here - I'm talking about home users who play games, the stats to not make the distinction between home (gaming) users and corporate users, where, in the latter case, an almost overwhelming majority will be Windows desktops.
I can only report what I see with my own eyes, I'm afraid. I've travelled EMEA and the US for 25+ years as a techie, I notice gadgets people are carrying and using at airports and in offices, and the fact is I very rarely see a Mac being used.
There is no way you can massage a statistic so pathetic into something significant.
Please stop with the emotion and stop treating this like a personal attack - if Macs work for you then good luck to you but, again, with 25+ years working as a techie (mainly in the telecoms industry), I've used Windows, Linux and UNIX a lot but never once found a need to buy an Apple machine.
I've got a close friend who is an IT contractor who was *given* a Mac by one of his clients - he fired it up once, didn't really know what he wanted to do with it and put it back in the box where it now sits gathering dust. The guy's a gamer who likes and uses Windows and occasionally rings me with Linux questions when he fires up his Ubuntu box.
Valve's games demand significant horsepower. They are not being played on the Linux Netbook or the XO.
Please stop with the stats manipulation. People don't buy Netbooks for gaming full stop, they're irrelevant to this argument. I'm talking home users with gaming machines here, stay on topic.
Personally, I know more people with Macs than use Linux on the desktop.
I don't deny that's the case - but you've not said whereabouts in the world you are.
I suspect you're in the US because of the level of Mac penetration over there. But such is not the same for Europe and, I suspect, the rest of the world.
Valve would be insane to worry about porting their games to Linux (at least) before they ported to the Mac
A somewhat obtuse statement from an otherwise interesting comment that deserves a response.
Firstly, to be a Mac user, you have to buy one of a range of specific computers but to be a Linux user, you just need an empty PC or a Windows PC with some spare hard disk space. Therefore, if you're currently a PC gamer in Windows, it's easier to move to (or dual boot) Linux than it is to buy a Mac.
Secondly, I wouldn't argue that in the USA, if Windows is the most used OS, then second place would probably go to OS X on Macs with Linux a fairly close third. However, such is not the case for Europe and, I suspect, much of the rest of the world - Linux is definitely second place to Windows. Therefore, outside the USA, there's probably a bigger potential market for commercial games on Linux than on Macs.
I really am not intending to provoke a "my OS is better than your OS" argument, but as someone who has been in the IT & telecoms industry for 25+ years, I say it like I see it - my friends and workmates all run Windows, about 10% run Linux (usually alongside it) and I know of no-one who either owns a Mac or intends buying one, despite the fact that these are mostly IT literate people with numerous iPods amongst them.
...but so locked down to the point of being programmer unfriendly?
I'm glad it's not just me thinking that!
I read the original Foundation trilogy some 25 years ago and perhaps should think about giving them a re-read.
However, I do listen to the BBC audio adaptation once or twice a year (made around the time I read the books I seem to recall) and thoroughly enjoy it - but as a story, it's definitely not suited to the big screen unless the whole thing is really hacked about with.
Wasn't 2001 A Space Odyssey the movie originally an adaptation of Arthur C Clarke's "The Sentinel" story?
I second this.
I had major line instabilities with my BT ADSL when I changed address. I've worked in the telecoms industry as a techie for 23 years or so, the first 5 of those were with BT - so I know my stuff about telecoms.
The BT call centre people in India were useless - the trick to dealing with them is to keep throwing technical stuff at them they can't understand (not difficult) but not losing your temper with them. They have no justification to cut your call and eventually raise a line fault whereupon you get an engineer out to you.
I had three engineer calls over 18 months until about 3 months ago. They were all top guys, very keen to sort out the problem and did a lot of good testing. When they learnt that I know my stuff about telecoms, they even gave me new cables and sockets free of charge to replace the wiring in my house as long as I was happy to do the wiring myself (which I was).
The line went stable three months ago after I insisted to the call centre agent that they send me a new BT Home Hub 2. The engineers kept telling me what rubbish the Home Hub 1 is and I finally crowbarred BT into sending me the new one. Ever since that time the line has been perfectly stable although I only get 2.5 MB/s where I am.
But with the Home Hub 1, after a reboot it would come up as 4.5MB/s, within 24 hours drop to 2.5MB/s and, after heavy download periods, would drop as low as 20KB/s. As far as the engineers could tell me, they thought it was an accumulation of line errors causing the DSLAM to drop the line speed in order to try to maintain the service - unfortunately, they were never able to prove it because by the time they visited my home, the call centre had already reset the DSLAM equipment.
If anyone else is getting similar problems with BT and you have the white Home Hub (1) then ask for the new black Home Hub 2 - it did it for me.
Agree 100%.
In fact I'd go a stage further and say that digital downloads are far more about fashion statements than a love of music. Most people want downloads because they want portability, and they want portability to be able to brag to all their schoolchums about what big music collections they have on their fashionably-coloured iPods.
Besides which, if portability is a major criteria for your music then you are not a true music fan because you're probably listening to your iPod while doing something else, rather than just sitting there and concentrating on a really good piece of music.
And if you have a need for "Pick N Mix" tracks then it just demonstrates you probably don't have the attention span to enjoy a really good album from start to finish or are just too damn lazy to put some passion into your music hobby and really look *hard* for good quality music - believe me, it's out there...
I'm like you - when I can't by music on something tangible like a shiny disk then I will stop buying it. That will be a shame but I have more than enough good albums on CD to last my lifetime already so I can live with it.
1. I can buy just about any CD that I want cheaper than paying 99p per track. I just search eBay, Play, Amazon and countless other online vendors to find the cheapest prices for my CDs.
2. With the money I save not buying expensive music downloads, I can afford to buy more music and a reasonable hifi to play my CDs on in all their lossless and uncompressed glory.
3. Because I own the CD, I always have the option to rip it at whatever bit-rate I want to whatever device I want. That means I can have all of my music collection with me on a portable USB drive. And if the drive or MP3 player gets stolen or broken, then the worst possible case is I just rip my CDs again.
4. Not that I believe in the "environmentally friendly" bullshit in the first place but what about all of the extra computers and data centres that need to spring up in order to provide the capacity for downloadable music. A CD may be an indisposable piece of plastic but a computer is (so we are told) one of the most difficult things to dispose of when it comes to the environment. Plus I can easily recycle my CDs, more so than an old PC, by just reselling it on eBay or giving it to a local charity shop if I have finished with it.
5. CD buyers are supporting music whereas digital downloaders are killing music. Answer me this? Suppose everyone started taking their music like "Pick n Mix" sweeties, selecting only the tracks they think they want. What happens to the current music scene where artists justify going on tour after the release of a new album, say? What happens if music distribution becomes "song-by-song" rather than "album-by-album"? How does a band get enough new material together so that you, as a music fan, feel justified in buying a ticket to one of their concerts because they will have enough new material to play live to make the event different to the last time you saw them?
6. AC/DC, the biggest rock band in the world, do not allow their music to be distributed on iTunes because they do not consider that it suits the way they want to distribute their music or what their fans want. I am sure there are a number of other big artists who are the same.
7. What's going to lead you to find the web site of some good music by a new band if there aren't record companies pushing the artists with advertising? When there's a million bands selling their own music through their own web sites, how are you going to find the stuff you like?
8. Don't give me the "but there's only 2 good tracks on every CD" bullshit. If you find that's the case then go look for something different - there are thousands of classic albums out there that are superb pieces of music from start to finish. The difference is that a true music fan goes off and does some research to find it rather than expecting everything to be plopped in their laps.
Need I go on?
And no, I don't work in the music industry and never have done - I can't even play an instrument. But quite frankly, I really don't give a toss whether or not artists are being ripped off by music companies just like nobody out there gives a toss if I didn't get a payrise this year in my job in the telecoms industry.
All I do give a toss about is that there is good music at good prices for me to go find and enjoy - and there's plenty of it for me. In fact, I'll even go a stage further and say that the record companies are doing a damn good job appealing to people like me who have enough common sense to see what trash 99% of modern music is and want a lot of old and classic rock music nicely remastered and put on CD at reasonable prices.
Maybe the record companies are ripoff merchants but I don't care. I'm just a consumer that wants good quality stuff at good prices and even if that stuff is just 1% of what the music companies currently churn out then that's still far more stuff than I can possibly listen to and enjoy in my lifetime.
...type http://www.uniform/ fetish.com/pics/stewardesses/ with one hand.
That was funny but cstdennis deserves drowning in positive "+1 Smartarse" moderations...
Let me give it a go... i mayb 20 yrs oldr bt i urn lt mr money than u.
Does that work?
I concede defeat, sir.
I cannot think of a witty retort to one of the best "smartarse" replies I have ever had.
If it's eight, then it's probably that perishing missing space station spider!
In which case, you go get the vacuum cleaner and I'll stand here shaking in the corner emitting arachnophobic screams...
Yes, and you still have the CD.
The OP was talking about paying $0.99 per track - by which it's safe to assume he did that as an *alternative* to buying the CD.
Cosmonaut Muffet
Sat in a spacesuit
Eating her synthi-dessert
An anti-grav spider
Came right down beside her
And caused Miss Muffet to make a slight miscalculation in the re-entry apogee resulting in a 2.4% increase in thermal expansion of the heat shield upon shuttle re-entry into the troposphere
In space, surely you'd need to rename a "fly" to a "float"?
I'll settle for a volume control for the wife...
...if it had been me in that space station it would have been out with the vacuum cleaner and cries of "Nobody leaves till we FIND the F***ER!!!"
...Apple releases "Pod" and "Phone".