Of course. They work. They do the job. They do everything the user wants, and more. Unless a computer physically breaks down there is no reason to replace it.
I have Win7 64-bit Ultimate Edition (I have an MSDN subscription*, I might as well get the biggest and best edition, right?), and on mine, Windows Live Essentials (messenger, mail, movie maker, etc...) was a separate, optional download from Windows Update.
*through work. You didn't think I actually paid for this subscription did you?
2) Release cycle tied to OS - the slow release cycle compared to the opensource alternatives means their browser is always behind.
Neither IE7 nor IE8 were tied to OS release cycles... and 9 won't be either.
3) Standards games - It's not all Micosoft's fault - the standards bodies don't always play fair. Why does IE not have Canvas? When every other browser does? Because Apple has a patent on it. Apple's agreement with W3C is to license that patent once it becomes a standard (not just a proposal) but until canvas is an official standard, Microsoft is open to lawsuit if they implement it. But while the all the other browsers are implementing Canvas (opensource bodies don't have any cash to lose if Apple files a lawsuit ) their not pushing it through the standards commitee to make it official. This leaves Microsoft as the odd man out.
IE9's newer preview editions have (supposedly, I haven't tested it) implemented canvas.
I don't get it. IE became the defacto standard because it was pre-installed on MS Windows. And MS Windows became the defactor standard because it comes with every computer pre-installed.
Speaking as someone who personally switched from Netscape 4 to IE5 (then 6)*, I guarantee you that pre-installing it wasn't the original reason people started using it.
*then to Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox, then to Opera, then back to Firefox.
What exactly did MS anyway with the 90% market share of IE? I can't remember any technology that was really needed back then. I think they were just happy to have the market share. Right now I can't see anything that the dominance of IE have left us.
IE entered the web browser market in order to dismantle it. It successfully stalled the widespread development of web applications, which we are just now recovering from 10+ years later.
Is Oracle saying this? Anyone who writes and distributes a JVM, cannot provide just a JVM, but must instead provide the accompanying Sun libraries. or this? If you are providing the Sun libraries with your JVM, you must provide all of them.
Google is claiming that Dalvik is not a JVM. Oracle responded with something like "Not a JVM, eh? OK, then it's infringing on patents A, B, C, etc..."
Even the GPL licence wouldn't protect google from the patent lawyers, neither would developing their own vm help them. The idea behind software patents is that when oracle patents taking a shit you better be able to pay them whenever you use "their" IP and they will sue you. They don't have a patent on java they have a patents on severall components of a vm.
The GPL is irrelevant here, as Google is using a clean-room implementation. The GPL license does you no good if you're not using software licensed under the GPL or a derivative or it.
Oracle doesn't care about cool. They care about big business.
By purchasing Sun, Oracle can now offer a complete solution for both database and web application servers: Hardware: Oracle SPARC OS: Oracle Solaris Software: Oracle Database or Oracle WebLogic (using either Oracle JRockit or Oracle JRE)
Oracle also sells licenses for JavaME to mobile phone manufacturers. Strangely, despite using the Java language on their mobile, Google isn't paying Oracle a license fee. Which prompted this whole suit.
No doubt, Oracle is angling that Google will think it's cheaper to settle out of court (paying Oracle for a license) than to fight this lawsuit.
- Software patents are not considered valid in the majority of the world, precisely because they get in the way of perfectly reasonable actions.
This is between two US companies, so what the rest of the world does is irrelevant in this case. And yes, I think software patents are stupid, but if it wasn't for patents, Oracle would use something else to go after them... possibly even copyrights over the interface classes source code, which are essentially the same between every Java implementation, since they are just method signatures.
- Software patents on an "open" standard might not be enforceable if those patents are required to implement that standard, and are the only sensible way to do so. Interoperability with an existing product can't be protected by a patent if that patent is the only (or only sensible) way to do things.
Java isn't an open standard. It has a GPLv3 implementation, but Google didn't use that and thus aren't covered by the GPLv3 protections.
- All the mentioned patents have prior art except one, which is so far worded towards Java only use that it falls foul of the previous statement (I didn't think you *could* patent something that specific to a particular product).
- The Oracle patents are particularly weak, most of them re-iterating 1980's knowledge of programming.
It really matters how the courts interpret it. Some patents that should be thrown out (Amazon one-click business patent) haven't been.
- Google probably has one of the largest patent profiles ever, especially in the area of collating huge amounts of data into a database - this is commercial suicide for Oracle who could well see a retaliatory attack that they just can't afford to defend against (yes, THAT many patents). Google's patents are likely to be MUCH more substantial than these Oracle ones.
Oracle has a lot of pals with deep patent portfolios, including IBM. And given the marketspace we're referring to, you may be able to count Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft too. After all, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
- Sun never had a problem with IP protection. You don't need to protect your IP when "Java" is in everything from mobile phones to servers - basically Sun *WAS* Java and not much else before it was taken over, and saw no need to sue anyone at all substantial over patent infringement when it could have done at any time for even more cash.
- Going for Google first is commercial suicide - there will be other, smaller, players using third-party Java VM's.
Oracle cares about Android, because Android directly cuts into Oracle's JavaME licensing. This is one of Sun's profit centers, and now Android is cutting into that.
Most other, non-open source Java implementations are licensed from Oracle.
On the desktop/server, Oracle doesn't care about the open-source implementations.
- Suing immediately is a sign of desperation. Much more conducive to receiving compensation would have been quiet negotiations (there hasn't been ANY time for that since the Oracle takeover) and/or asking them to work around the patent at least. The path chosen is the most stupid and expensive.
Reading between the lines of what James Gosling said, negotiations had already been going on between Sun and Google before Oracle bought Sun.
The lawyers here are Boies, Schiller & Flexner - the same ones that handled the SCO case's IP side. That went well for them. *fall into fits of derisive laughter*.
You mean the company that successfully sucked millions out of a sinking ship before it sank? And you think they're stupid?
Whether Oracle actually has a case with these patents is debatable, but Oracle no doubt has other ammunition against Google should these fail.
The fact that the de facto standard syntax for writing code that gets compiled into dalvik bytecode happens to be java, does not mean an android phone has any java on it.
Allow me to draw your attention to
Android will ship with a set of core applications including an email client, SMS program, calendar, maps, browser, contacts, and others. All applications are written using the Java programming language.
It was Sun who never submitted Java to ISO or ANSI, it was Sun who created a dual-licensed Java, it was Sun who filed hundreds of patents on Java-related technologies, and it was Sun who created the limited patent grant under conditions that nobody could meet.
Actually, they were going to submit to ISO... but then the complaints suddenly started coming in about being a standard from a single company. One of said complaints was from Microsoft, naturally.
Funny how MS doesn't have that same problem when it's their standard (OOXML).
Sun submitted it to ECMA instead. Then later withdrew it after realizing that Microsoft could use this to add things to the Java specification (this was after the lawsuit).
Of course, Microsoft's goals here were probably to get Sun to do exactly that, as less than a year later, they C# (and by extension the.NET framework).
Phoronix has been saying stuff like that for years, and yet it hasn't materialized yet.
The original logic was that, because Valve ported their shared libraries to Linux, this CLEARLY meant that there was going to be a Linux client. Except that dedicated server binaries use said libraries.
Now, they're saying because some X11 (GTK?) code exists to draw the main Steam window, Valve must be working on a client. And yet, it doesn't. As far as we know, this was originally how Valve was designing the Mac OSX version before realizing that they'd need to do Cocoa for performance reasons.
Phoronix also cite a single source (and a second source that is an exact duplicate of the first source) that Valve said a Linux Steam client was coming. If that's true, why haven't any of the gaming news sites picked up on this?
First time posting in this part of this thread, but I'm not about to let this one slide:
Plus the entire discussion is about what a teacher paid. They will recieve the academic discount. So maybe you should become a student so you can put an end to your ignorance.
Choose the macbook. Add all the internal upgrades (RAM, HDD)
And it's not even close to $1,500. Not to mention as a teacher (and with her daughter being a student) they'd be entitled to a fairly big discount, at least 15% when I bought mine.
In other words, you're not in the branch pricing out the teacher's price. You're in the branch of the thread talking about the price before any teacher/student discounts.
Most MacBooks will last a long time; 6 years would be about average, but 7 years or more is not uncommon.
Are you a psychic? You must be, to make such statements about a product line that is not even 5 years old.
I don't know about you, but I no longer consider computers a long-term investment. Simply put, I expect to replace a computer I buy today within 3-4 years of me purchasing it, because it won't be powerful enough for what I want to use it for (games, development tools, etc...).
Now, I'm aware that I'm not the average user, but individuals who keep the same computer for 8-10 years are statistical outliers in the other direction.
So, basically, this is the same story that everyone else is running about the Linux Foundation releasing a set of tools to help companies check GPL compliance, but with a confrontational headline and summary?
Slashdot Mirror
Until 2014 when XP's support runs out.
I have Win7 64-bit Ultimate Edition (I have an MSDN subscription*, I might as well get the biggest and best edition, right?), and on mine, Windows Live Essentials (messenger, mail, movie maker, etc...) was a separate, optional download from Windows Update.
*through work. You didn't think I actually paid for this subscription did you?
er... your statement basically says "he was right but he was wrong."
In this case, it can only be one or the other, and as per your latter statement, he happened to be wrong.
Neither IE7 nor IE8 were tied to OS release cycles... and 9 won't be either.
IE9's newer preview editions have (supposedly, I haven't tested it) implemented canvas.
*Clicks Edit, Find in an IE8 window.*
Really? What I see doesn't look like a 1990s find dialog...
Apparently Firefox 3.6 can't either, as I'm seeing the two-tone blocks under those sections as well.
Unless it's an OS rendering issue, but I don't think Firefox uses the OS for rendering PNGs.
Speaking as someone who personally switched from Netscape 4 to IE5 (then 6)*, I guarantee you that pre-installing it wasn't the original reason people started using it.
*then to Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox, then to Opera, then back to Firefox.
IE entered the web browser market in order to dismantle it. It successfully stalled the widespread development of web applications, which we are just now recovering from 10+ years later.
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." -- Internet Explorer... er... Mark Twain
And technically, UKians is more accurate than British*. Your point being?
* Because the country's common name is the United Kingdom.
It does seem strange that Google, rather than using Python, whose creator (Guido van Rossum) is employed by Google, they chose to use Java....
The GPL is irrelevant here, as Google is using a clean-room implementation. The GPL license does you no good if you're not using software licensed under the GPL or a derivative or it.
Oracle doesn't care about cool. They care about big business.
By purchasing Sun, Oracle can now offer a complete solution for both database and web application servers:
Hardware: Oracle SPARC
OS: Oracle Solaris
Software: Oracle Database or Oracle WebLogic (using either Oracle JRockit or Oracle JRE)
Oracle also sells licenses for JavaME to mobile phone manufacturers. Strangely, despite using the Java language on their mobile, Google isn't paying Oracle a license fee. Which prompted this whole suit.
No doubt, Oracle is angling that Google will think it's cheaper to settle out of court (paying Oracle for a license) than to fight this lawsuit.
This is between two US companies, so what the rest of the world does is irrelevant in this case. And yes, I think software patents are stupid, but if it wasn't for patents, Oracle would use something else to go after them... possibly even copyrights over the interface classes source code, which are essentially the same between every Java implementation, since they are just method signatures.
Java isn't an open standard. It has a GPLv3 implementation, but Google didn't use that and thus aren't covered by the GPLv3 protections.
It really matters how the courts interpret it. Some patents that should be thrown out (Amazon one-click business patent) haven't been.
Oracle has a lot of pals with deep patent portfolios, including IBM. And given the marketspace we're referring to, you may be able to count Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft too. After all, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Oracle cares about Android, because Android directly cuts into Oracle's JavaME licensing. This is one of Sun's profit centers, and now Android is cutting into that.
Most other, non-open source Java implementations are licensed from Oracle.
On the desktop/server, Oracle doesn't care about the open-source implementations.
Reading between the lines of what James Gosling said, negotiations had already been going on between Sun and Google before Oracle bought Sun.
You mean the company that successfully sucked millions out of a sinking ship before it sank? And you think they're stupid?
Whether Oracle actually has a case with these patents is debatable, but Oracle no doubt has other ammunition against Google should these fail.
Allow me to draw your attention to
on Google's What is Android? page (emphasis added by me).
Actually, they were going to submit to ISO... but then the complaints suddenly started coming in about being a standard from a single company. One of said complaints was from Microsoft, naturally.
Funny how MS doesn't have that same problem when it's their standard (OOXML).
Sun submitted it to ECMA instead. Then later withdrew it after realizing that Microsoft could use this to add things to the Java specification (this was after the lawsuit).
Of course, Microsoft's goals here were probably to get Sun to do exactly that, as less than a year later, they C# (and by extension the .NET framework).
I hear Lain knows a lot about this.
Phoronix has been saying stuff like that for years, and yet it hasn't materialized yet.
The original logic was that, because Valve ported their shared libraries to Linux, this CLEARLY meant that there was going to be a Linux client. Except that dedicated server binaries use said libraries.
Now, they're saying because some X11 (GTK?) code exists to draw the main Steam window, Valve must be working on a client. And yet, it doesn't. As far as we know, this was originally how Valve was designing the Mac OSX version before realizing that they'd need to do Cocoa for performance reasons.
Phoronix also cite a single source (and a second source that is an exact duplicate of the first source) that Valve said a Linux Steam client was coming. If that's true, why haven't any of the gaming news sites picked up on this?
The problem as I see it is that the telcos and cable companies have monopolies in specific market segments.
For instance, for non-metered broadband Internet service, my options at home consist of:
1. Broadstripe Cable
That's right, AT&T doesn't even offer DSL where I live. And I live in the surburb of my state's capital city.
First time posting in this part of this thread, but I'm not about to let this one slide:
OK, time to rewind to earlier in the topic:
In other words, you're not in the branch pricing out the teacher's price. You're in the branch of the thread talking about the price before any teacher/student discounts.
*makes a note to check Asus computers in 2011, during his next upgrade cycle*
Which is a good thing, since I already liked Asus for their individual parts.
Are you a psychic? You must be, to make such statements about a product line that is not even 5 years old.
I don't know about you, but I no longer consider computers a long-term investment. Simply put, I expect to replace a computer I buy today within 3-4 years of me purchasing it, because it won't be powerful enough for what I want to use it for (games, development tools, etc...).
Now, I'm aware that I'm not the average user, but individuals who keep the same computer for 8-10 years are statistical outliers in the other direction.
tl;dr People upgrade computers over time because the old, busted jawn can't handle the new hotness.
So, basically, this is the same story that everyone else is running about the Linux Foundation releasing a set of tools to help companies check GPL compliance, but with a confrontational headline and summary?
This was also used in one of the Ace Attorney video games. Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney to be exact, during the second case.
Granted, National Treasure did it first.
That is, unless they start making it a dependency for things like, oh, the base system.