I would also like to point out the everything in that video was in fact released. It is called Vista.
MS has problems, but lets try to stick to those instead of making pointless and incorrect posts.
Are we watching the same video?
Did you see the bit where it said "Coming October 2003"?
Did you notice that the UI in the Longhorn marketing video was responsive and fast, even in 2003? Do you remember Microsoft being subjected to a class-action lawsuit over its "Vista Capable" campaign? Have you ever used Vista? Was it even vaguely similar to the marketing? On ANY hardware?
This video IS a marketing exercise and this discussion IS full of MS "Reputation Managers". No doubts.
Anyone who likes a device and can think of why they'd like it is obviously a plant.
In this case. it's pretty likely.
Anyone who's been around long enough will see this footage has all the signs of a typical Microsoft marketing puff piece.
Check out this video. See any similarities? Can you tell us what happened to the innovative product being marketed? Do you remember Origami? Natal? Surface?
Microsoft operating systems are too bloated and slow to make an interface like this work, it's just another attempt to convince shareholders that their research money isn't being wasted.
Apple and MSFT didnt have an unfair (illegal ? ) 'we wont poach each other employees'
Maybe, but that's 'cos it doesn't make much sense to poach Microsoft's, while poaching Apple's is just playing into their hands (especially in white wine sauce).
They should be boiling them in oil, at the very least.
It costs far more to hire new models, photographer(s), etc. and find/rent suitable space than it does to pay a single designer a few hours of Photoshop time.
Photoshop?
Judging by the quality of this, they used MS Paint.
MS most likely chose to disable this feature because it would have been a nightmare when it came to support.
If driver_string = "WHQL_PAE_OK"
then goto EnableBigRAM
else msgbox "Sorry, memory above 4GB is not supported on computers with " & $Driver_Version & ", any extra memory will be disabled until the driver is updated.
& vbCrLf & "Please ask your hardware vendor to upgrade their drivers.", vbExclamation, AbortRetryIgnore
Do you know a good reference that talks about that?
The best source for info for this is likely Mark Russinovich. His blog is the origin of the "difficult to measure risk" quote.
Because device vendors now have to submit both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers to Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Laboratories (WHQL) to obtain a driver signing certificate, the majority of device drivers today can probably handle physical addresses above the 4GB line. However, 32-bit Windows will continue to ignore memory above it because there is still some difficult to measure risk, and OEMs are (or at least should be) moving to 64-bit Windows where it's not an issue.
He also acknowledges the commercial aspect of product differentiation on MS 64-bit OS versions, but suggests that the 32-bit issue derives from actual experience;
64-bit Windows client SKUs support different amounts of memory as a SKU-differentiating feature, with the low end being 512MB for Windows XP Starter to 128GB for Vista Ultimate and 192GB for Windows 7 Ultimate...
the Windows team started broadly testing Windows XP on systems with more than 4GB of memory. Windows XP SP2 also enabled Physical Address Extensions (PAE) support by default on hardware that implements no-execute memory because its required for Data Execution Prevention (DEP), but that also enables support for more than 4GB of memory.
What they found was that many of the systems would crash, hang, or become unbootable because some device drivers, commonly those for video and audio devices that are found typically on clients but not servers, were not programmed to expect physical addresses larger than 4GB. As a result, the drivers truncated such addresses, resulting in memory corruptions and corruption side effects.
I'd suggest though, the decision to completely disable PAE instead of only enabling it when paired with drivers certified by WHQL as being PAE-safe was a commercial one, based on SKU differentiation rather than risk.
third rate vendors have a nasty habit of using these bootleg Windows copies on their machines
Why nasty?
Independent distros of Windows are a lot better than the official releases.
Try TinyXP, for example. It's compact, fast, doesn't report you activities to its masters, and has better default tools and settings than the MS version. What's to complain about?
Are you guys really this desperate to drum up the anti-Microsoft pagehits?
Is open discussion really anti-Microsoft?
This recurrent claim of anti-Microsoft bias early in Slashdot discussions involving MS is so frequent that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a deliberate tactic by their reputation management team.
Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.
Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.
There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.
In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.
Precisely. With Windows you don't have to upgrade because it has a relatively long support cycle
It's not the long support cycle that makes that option viable, it's the almost complete lack of innovation in the past decade of Microsoft OS monopoly.
By doing this Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use other people's code because copyright's viral nature is dangerous.
There may not have been any "You Love Microsoft" messages in the code, but there certainly was plenty in the Kool Aid the tech media have been drinking...
So your claim is that they are releasing this code in order to get people to use it but at the same time they are going to sue anyone who actually uses it thus leading no one to using it? Huh?
Your assertion was, "Your OS shouldn't be exciting,"
No it wasn't.
An innovative OS could potentially be exciting, though it'd take something more revolutionary than a 1 second boot time to raise my pulse.
My assertion was that a minor revision of a current mediocre business OS is not a cause for excitement, and any hype about it is more likely to stem from efforts to create a buzz for a new product release than any real user enthusiasm.
If an OS comes along that can do those tasks in ways that are more efficient or more powerful than previous editions of the operating system, why shouldn't I be excited?
More efficient I can accept as a metric, though I'd question whether Windows 7 is more efficient than XP, given that it drops app performance by about 20% compared to the older Microsoft OS. More powerful though, what does that mean?
The problem I have with seeing the "Windows 7 got me excited about Microsoft OSs" catchphrase all over the web is that it isn't an exciting OS. It's a minor upgrade/bugfix to Vista, which was a very mundane business-grade OS.
Neither are technically, aesthetically or functionally very interesting, let alone exciting.
What exactly will Office 2010 do that we couldn't live without?
I've been using Office 2000 (on a Windows 2000 VM) while working with a team using Office 2007.
Despite using.doc as a common file format, it was a frustrating experience dealing with dozens of small incompatibilities and errors as a result of the different versions.
And let's face it, even in normal offices, exchanging documents is fraught enough at the best of times. Most people don't know how to properly structure them, or to use styles, so many Office files have weirdly nested tables, odd or inconsistent layouts and other traps anyway. When the mess eventually causes errors, or when an important document is late or fails to print correctly, the finger of blame often gets pointed at the "cheapskate who won't update" instead of the crappy software suite which is so hard to manage.
In the end, I bought Office 2007 and installed it on a spare XP laptop simply to reduce the annoyance and accusations. That's how Microsoft makes their money - being a monopoly has its advantages...
Slashdot Mirror
Are we watching the same video?
Did you see the bit where it said "Coming October 2003"?
Did you notice that the UI in the Longhorn marketing video was responsive and fast, even in 2003? Do you remember Microsoft being subjected to a class-action lawsuit over its "Vista Capable" campaign? Have you ever used Vista? Was it even vaguely similar to the marketing? On ANY hardware?
This video IS a marketing exercise and this discussion IS full of MS "Reputation Managers". No doubts.
In this case. it's pretty likely.
Anyone who's been around long enough will see this footage has all the signs of a typical Microsoft marketing puff piece.
Check out this video. See any similarities? Can you tell us what happened to the innovative product being marketed? Do you remember Origami? Natal? Surface?
Microsoft operating systems are too bloated and slow to make an interface like this work, it's just another attempt to convince shareholders that their research money isn't being wasted.
Ignore it. Nothing of value will come of it.
Maybe, but that's 'cos it doesn't make much sense to poach Microsoft's, while poaching Apple's is just playing into their hands (especially in white wine sauce).
They should be boiling them in oil, at the very least.
Nice trolling.
You've pulled a heap of Microsoft's astroturfing moderators out of the woodwork, getting +4 Insightful with a completely offtopic comment.
It's a pity moderation's not publicly visible so we could name & shame the shills.
Same reason there isn't a "-1 Ad-Hominem" mod.
Slashdot ran out of 'em within a week of opening.
It is.
Microsoft isn't a homogeneous organisation. Parts of it are still in the "Embrace" part of the plan while others are working on "Extinguish"
Tell that to all the Microsoft "Reputation Managers" infesting all these discussions.
No.
Was it simulated or real?
Photoshop?
Judging by the quality of this, they used MS Paint.
FTFY
Microsoft have demonstrated over and over again that they are greedy, opportunistic and ruthless.
Why would you expect racism to be exempt from their panoply of sins?
If driver_string = "WHQL_PAE_OK"
then goto EnableBigRAM
else msgbox "Sorry, memory above 4GB is not supported on computers with " & $Driver_Version & ", any extra memory will be disabled until the driver is updated.
& vbCrLf & "Please ask your hardware vendor to upgrade their drivers.", vbExclamation, AbortRetryIgnore
Yep, impossible....
The best source for info for this is likely Mark Russinovich. His blog is the origin of the "difficult to measure risk" quote.
Because device vendors now have to submit both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers to Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Laboratories (WHQL) to obtain a driver signing certificate, the majority of device drivers today can probably handle physical addresses above the 4GB line. However, 32-bit Windows will continue to ignore memory above it because there is still some difficult to measure risk, and OEMs are (or at least should be) moving to 64-bit Windows where it's not an issue.
He also acknowledges the commercial aspect of product differentiation on MS 64-bit OS versions, but suggests that the 32-bit issue derives from actual experience;
64-bit Windows client SKUs support different amounts of memory as a SKU-differentiating feature, with the low end being 512MB for Windows XP Starter to 128GB for Vista Ultimate and 192GB for Windows 7 Ultimate...
the Windows team started broadly testing Windows XP on systems with more than 4GB of memory. Windows XP SP2 also enabled Physical Address Extensions (PAE) support by default on hardware that implements no-execute memory because its required for Data Execution Prevention (DEP), but that also enables support for more than 4GB of memory.
What they found was that many of the systems would crash, hang, or become unbootable because some device drivers, commonly those for video and audio devices that are found typically on clients but not servers, were not programmed to expect physical addresses larger than 4GB. As a result, the drivers truncated such addresses, resulting in memory corruptions and corruption side effects.
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
I'd suggest though, the decision to completely disable PAE instead of only enabling it when paired with drivers certified by WHQL as being PAE-safe was a commercial one, based on SKU differentiation rather than risk.
Why nasty?
Independent distros of Windows are a lot better than the official releases.
Try TinyXP, for example. It's compact, fast, doesn't report you activities to its masters, and has better default tools and settings than the MS version. What's to complain about?
You should be modded to oblivion for suggesting that free and open discussion could be anti-Microsoft.
Is open discussion really anti-Microsoft?
This recurrent claim of anti-Microsoft bias early in Slashdot discussions involving MS is so frequent that it's hard to believe it's anything other than a deliberate tactic by their reputation management team.
Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.
Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.
There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.
In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.
It's not the long support cycle that makes that option viable, it's the almost complete lack of innovation in the past decade of Microsoft OS monopoly.
Fixed that for you.
Actually, you'd do better checking the source for prior GPL violations. That's the only reason they released the Hyper-V code.
Microsoft was in violation of the GPL (General Public License) on the Hyper-V code it released to open source this week.
After Redmond covered itself in glory by opening up the code, it now looks like it may have acted simply to head off any potentially embarrassing legal dispute over violation of the GPL. The rest was theater.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
There may not have been any "You Love Microsoft" messages in the code, but there certainly was plenty in the Kool Aid the tech media have been drinking...
So your claim is that they are releasing this code in order to get people to use it but at the same time they are going to sue anyone who actually uses it thus leading no one to using it? Huh?
Duh.
And I knew I should never have given my girlfriend the keys to the asteroid...
Your assertion was, "Your OS shouldn't be exciting,"
No it wasn't.
An innovative OS could potentially be exciting, though it'd take something more revolutionary than a 1 second boot time to raise my pulse.
My assertion was that a minor revision of a current mediocre business OS is not a cause for excitement, and any hype about it is more likely to stem from efforts to create a buzz for a new product release than any real user enthusiasm.
More efficient I can accept as a metric, though I'd question whether Windows 7 is more efficient than XP, given that it drops app performance by about 20% compared to the older Microsoft OS. More powerful though, what does that mean?
The problem I have with seeing the "Windows 7 got me excited about Microsoft OSs" catchphrase all over the web is that it isn't an exciting OS. It's a minor upgrade/bugfix to Vista, which was a very mundane business-grade OS.
Neither are technically, aesthetically or functionally very interesting, let alone exciting.
I've been using Office 2000 (on a Windows 2000 VM) while working with a team using Office 2007.
Despite using .doc as a common file format, it was a frustrating experience dealing with dozens of small incompatibilities and errors as a result of the different versions.
And let's face it, even in normal offices, exchanging documents is fraught enough at the best of times. Most people don't know how to properly structure them, or to use styles, so many Office files have weirdly nested tables, odd or inconsistent layouts and other traps anyway. When the mess eventually causes errors, or when an important document is late or fails to print correctly, the finger of blame often gets pointed at the "cheapskate who won't update" instead of the crappy software suite which is so hard to manage.
In the end, I bought Office 2007 and installed it on a spare XP laptop simply to reduce the annoyance and accusations. That's how Microsoft makes their money - being a monopoly has its advantages...
She's a cougar, not a leopard.