Hmm, does anybody know anything more about interix. Is it like cygwin,
cygwin is a EMULATOR, Interix is a true subsystem, NOT an emulation.
It may surprise people, but WindowsNT is more than just the WIN32 Subsystem that everyone associates NT with. Just like the WIN32 Subsystem sits on top of NT, the Interix Subsystem also directly sits on top of the NT kernel.
This is why WIN32 has its OWN kernel that is separate from the true NT kernel(which most people don't realize) and also why Interix can also have its own kernel and be a full UNIX that is also layered as a Subsystem on top of the NT core.
I truly wish more people in the *nix world would at least take the time to see why NT is a bit different than most other OSes.
There are reasons why (even when Microsoft owned UNIX rights) Microsoft's top OS developers, that were coming from the *nix world, abandoned the concept of basing NT on a *nix implementation and instead choose to implement a new OS model that used the latest OS design theories of the time.
NT isn't perfect, but it truly is not just the 'Windows/WIN32' SUBSYSTEM that everyone thinks it is. I also get tired of people comparing Win9x to Linux instead of focusing on a NT version of Windows that has no legacy code (like DOS) in it - WindowsXP is a much better OS to contrast for example.
Microsoft STILL has a Unix...(See below) It just sits on top of NT. (This is one of the nice features a layered subsystem OS like NT can provide)
There are rumors that Microsoft has in development a full Linux compatible subsystem that sits ontop of the NT core, giving users a full compatible Linux, with the extra features of the NT core underneath.
So if Linux does make roads into the desktop, all Microsoft has to do is release their Linux subsystem for NT, and boom, users get to run both OSes Win32 and Linux in their own Subsystem Layer.
With the NT architecture, Microsoft can pretty much expand to support any 'open source' OS, natively, without emulation and even let the XWindows and Win32 Windows run side by side.
So Microsoft, truely had a stake in licensing from SCO, with or without a conspiracy theory.
Pulled from the MS Web Site... ---------- Interix (For WIndows NT, 2K, XP)
Services for UNIX Version 3.0 includes the Interix subsystem technology - a full featured, robust, UNIX application and scripting environment that runs as a native subsystem on top of the WindowsNT kernel.
A Native Subsystem, Not an Emulation The Interix subsystem, unlike the Korn shell and utilities provided in early versions of SFU, is a fully integrated POSIX subsystem that runs natively under Windows NT/2000/XP. This subsystem provides complete support for compiling and running UNIX applications in Windows, allowing enterprises to easily leverage and migrate their existing custom applications. It also provides UNIX developers with full support for more than 1,900 UNIX APIs allowing scripts and applications written to run under UNIX to transfer to Windows easily and naturally.
Plus, how's the video-out on that GF4 MX? I'd be willing to bet it's not as good as the video-out on the x-box card. Not to mention, does the MX even have programmable pixel shaders? You're going to start seeing those in more and more games so cards without that are going to take a big hit in visual quality, and some games may even require that feature.
Your system may run Linux better than the X-Box, but the X-Box is better where it's meant to be: gaming. Games WILL look better and perform better than that system, I guarantee it.
Ok where to start....
#1) Linux is not the primary OS on this laptop, WindowsXP is, thank you very much. VMWare or Microsoft Virtual Server for Linux user support only. I wouldn't give up the performance hit to move to Linux or lose the NT core features that I take for granted everyday. I like NT (being a NT beta tester since 1992) and know just a bit too much about it and the contrasting *nix kernels and cores. I also enjoy the ability to resume from a full power down Hibernate in 3secs, which is handy on a laptop.
#2) The video out on the GeforceMX 440 Go (specifically) is actually very good. It is using the SAME NVIDIA video out technology that is in the XBOX. (Did you miss something, NVIDIA makes both chips?) I can also do a 1024x768 out to a high quality TV and play the game, something that the Xbox analog out does not support. (Yes I know it can do HDTV)
#3) I would definitely argue that games can run better and look better on my laptop. For example running at 1600x1200 a game like RT Castle Wolfenstein runs very smooth and the clarity is spectacular - very crisp - detail that is just lost in the Xbox version. The Xbox can't even touch this resolution even in HDTV mode and would not be able to pull off 60fps while doing it.
In contrast, the Xbox is pushing out only HDTV (if available) or NTSC at 30fps for games. This is far cry from 1600x1200 and 60fps.
If I want to drop to TV Out only and 720x480 and run a game, my laptop will run circles around the Xbox. (Heck I can even dual screen with the game playing on the TV at 720x480 and my laptop screen still at 1600x1200 with someone browsing the net on it and not lose performance in the game.)
Another good example, I own Spiderman-The Movie Game, and on my laptop I can do 1280x1024 (Spidey doesn't offer a higher mode) and the scenes are just breath taking. I also bought a copy for my Xbox, although it looked quite good, even on a TV Screen, it just couldn't compare to the PC version on my laptop.
You should also take just basic specifications and compare. I have almost three times the CPU, I have a video card that is just as fast as what is in the Xbox (if not faster in many cases), I have more Video memory, I have more System RAM, and I also have full 5.1 surround just like the Xbox. So if I drop my video out to the Xbox level and play at 720x480 at 30fps, or even drop to the 1080i HDTV level, there is NO WAY the Xbox is going to keep up.
If I remember right the article you refer to about console games being faster, one of its direct points was that PCs have to push out a higher resolution like 800x600 minimum and do so at 60fps at minimal, where game consoles only have to do NTSC and 30fps. It wasn't saying that PCs couldn't achieve the power of a console, but that on average the console had the advantage because its output was severely restricted to TV standards. Not just that console games were specifically optimized for the console.
As you remember the Xbox is just Windows2000 with a variant of DirectX, and that is all the game developers have to target to make a good Xbox game. (Again why you see many PC and Xbox cross over titles - because they use the same basic fundamental development environment)
However, I am a fan of the Xbox, somehow you missed that. I own all three major consoles, and the Xbox is by far my favorite. It is by far the most advanced for graphics, performance, playability, and ease of game development
Re:Because consoles are not about GFX or Online...
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 1
No they weren't original titles for the XBox, I never meant to imply that.
However, the point that was being made is that because of the ease in cross platform development, PC games are more likely only to be ported to the XBox or come out on the XBox far in advance of the other console release dates.
XBox game development is one of its strongest features, as most game developers will agree with. Microsoft took great pains in ensuring that the model the XBox uses for development is easy. (Follow the pre-reviews that are still on the Web before the XBox was released and the vast developer support of its game development specifications.)
Game developers can target the PC and quickly move the game to the XBox with little modification. They don't have to do things that are done on other consoles to get the best performance out of the games.
Take the PS2 for example, even with what graphics potential it has, it takes a lot of development and design to get the game to play well by pushing the right bits down the right pipes at the right time. It is a far cry from DirectX based development environment that PC game designers and XBox game designers enjoy.
DirectX does quite well at removing the developer from the tweaking of hardware to achieve game performance, and instead lets the graphics card manufacturers do the driver tweaking to offer the performance to developers. (Hence the big DirectX9 support and benchmarks debate now.)
When OpenGL stopped its progression towards a 3D standard that was conducive to upcoming graphic accelerated games on the PC environment, Microsoft made a radical shift to develop its own technology; hence the creation of DirectX (WinG, etc).
Many people think Microsoft made DirectX to compete with OpenGL, but at the time Microsoft wanted OpenGL to become what it has become and then there wouldn't be the need for DirectX. It was the reluctance of the industry to move OpenGL to a gaming model and create an interface between video hardware acceleration and applications, which in turn forced Microsoft to create the WinG and DirectX layers.
Microsoft pushed the OpenGL standard to move in that direction a long time before they ever had plans to create their own layer (DirectX).
As most know and remember NT supported OpenGL far before DirectX was conceived of, as it was to be the standard for the NT OS for the next generation of video and gaming.
It is just too bad OpenGL didn't move to create that level of complexity and hardware support at the time.
But then again, having two standards, OpenGL and DirectX, that are now somewhat in competition is a good thing. It has pushed DirectX to natively support and even push the limits of the graphic card manufacturers capabilities. (Again, hence the new GeforceFX and ATI9700/9800)
Re:Because consoles are not about GFX or Online...
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Disagree, I actually own several XBox titles, and I have access through one of my clients to rent games for free as much as I like through the local video store.
Buffy, Kungfu Chaos, MechAssault, Halo, Castle Wolfensten, BaldersGate, etc, etc.
Halo isn't the 'only' good XBox game out there or I would just rent them when I wanted to play instead of buying them. Trust me...
Yeah you are saving $175 to hack the XBox, but the PC the guy listed is several times faster than the XBox. The XBox has a 733mhz PIII, only 64mb of RAM, only a 8gb hard drive, and a NVidia video chipset that is in the class of the Geforce3. The listed system is a 1+ghz Processor, a Geforce4 (and even the MX can put out more graphical punch than the Geforce3), more Ram and a larger Hard Drive.
For a gaming console the XBox is still at the top of the league for performance, but compared to a cheap PC, it isn't that special anymore.
(Even the laptop I am typing this on can put out several times the poly's and pixels per sec than an XBox)
Re:A new (and better) WebTV?
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The XBox runs the Windows 2000/NT core with a version of DirectX that is on par with DirectX8.
However, you don't get Explorer and the other GUI applications of Win2k.
WindowsCE has some NT Core concepts in it, but it is another OS entirely.
Re:MS is not feeling threatened...yet.
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 1
Um... Close, but not quite.
If you will notice a Media Center PC can Record and View Television, as well as burn DVDs of the recorded shows.
A Media Center PC can also do a few other things that just isn't available with the current XBox hardware.
BTW The XBox already has virtual jukebox abilities by copying your CDs to the hard drive, and this is a standard feature - no hack needed.
Yeah, you would think, but if you had been paying attention you would have seen that Microsoft is set to ship a Media update for the Xbox in the fall that will be a media point and access music and pictures from local PCs connected to the home network.
And hey, they are even putting in a virtual dance studio and karaoke capabilities.
Although I do wish they would take things a bit farther and add a browser for Live (Online) users and a few other basic features.
Actually there are hacks out there for running full versions of Windows2k and WindowsXP, as well as adding more features to the Win2k core in the Xbox so it can run Windows applications.
But that isn't as fun as telling the world that people are only using it for Linux.:)
It is funny how people will so easily eat up the journalism word for word and yet not stop to check the facts for themselves.
Re:Hmm, a troll about trolling.
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Since we are policing grammar, should I point out the mistakes in your post as well?
Maybe I can start with the fragmented sentence or the incorrect comma usage?
Intelligence without tolerance is the ultimate oxymoron. - Unknown TheNetAvenger
Re:X-Box Troll Handbook
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
#3 You haven't played Castle Wolfenstein on the XBOX - obviously. Halo is a great game with great game play, especially in the upper levels with vehicles.
#5 The Original controller is large, but it is NO longer being shipped with XBoxes, they moved to the S Controller like 8 months ago. And again, if you already have the large controller, trade it for an S controller at any GameCrazy for a few dollars difference.
#7 This is a first version console, of course it will lag in sales compared to two console makers that have dominated the market since the mid 80s. But considering it is out selling GameCube, the former US leader, is quite a good sign.
#8 Buffy is great XBox game available no where else, the moves, fighting and character play are truly above most games. Also Kung Fu Chaos and several other titles are out there that are XBox Only.
You will also see several XBox and PC only games - XBOX being the only console release. (Hence XBox game development is just an expansion of DirectX for Windows - so of course there are many PC XBox cross overs - it is very easy for developers to make a PC game and basically add the XBox interface requirements to it.)
Also notice that many of the 'better' games being released are coming out on the XBox months before they are being released on other platforms. Castle Wolfenstein is out for XBox, and just now getting ready for release on PS2 (with quite a drop in frame rate and graphics on the PS2 as well)
#10 Having a good friend that is in the Gamer world professionally, I have heard of a few XBox with bad DVD drives. The lockups are from the drive having trouble reading the disk. Trust me it is not the Win2k core crashing. And it is still better than the number of people he has encountered that have had their PS2's literally catch on fire. (No joke)
Hope your 'friend' enjoys their GameCube, they have several nice titles, but playing a game like BaldersGate on the GameCube after playing it on the XBox made me realize how slow the GameCube can be, and how much graphic detail is lost.
The same can be said for cross plat titles that I have played on XBox and then play on the PS2, the graphics are usually lower quality, the load times are 5 times longer than the XBox and even the frame rates suffer on high polygon scenes. Reference Enter the Matrix for a good example, the PS2 version is jerky, and the scene load times are terrible. It is just too bad they textured the game at the PS2 level and not the XBox level, it could have looked more impressive with by taking advantage of the XBox's graphics capabilities. Even Buffy has better graphics and gameplay, but whoops, it is an XBox only title.:)
BTW, since my friend 'is' in the gamer business, I have all three systems. So I have no 'proud owner' bias. The XBox is by far ahead of the other two in performance, graphics, and gameplay.
Nothing but the truth...
Re:USA TODAY "research"
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The small 's' controller is now standard in new XBox machines sold in the US now. It has been for quite a while.
I also prefer the smaller S controller, and you can trade in your 'big' original controller and pick up an 'S' controller for not much money.
Go to someplace like GameCrazy (in most hollywood Video stores) and trade in the 'Big' controller for credit towards the 'S' controller.
I traded in my PS1 with a few games and had enough credit to get a Refurbished XBOX with 1 year no question GameCrazy warranty and a couple of games.
BTW Buffy, Halo, and Castle Wolfenstein on the XBOX look and play awesome.
Wolfenstein is well done, taking advantage of the XBox's graphics and is so smooth and fluid, reminded me of the good old Doom days on a descent PC. (Except the graphics now look almost real.)
FS/OS support for links makes it so easy to do such cool stuff that's essentially impossible in some other operating systems (Shortcuts are files that are treated specially by the shell in Windows. Not by the OS's FS layer. Therefore, they're nowheres comparable.)
Shortcuts, yes you are correct; however, NTFS (at the OS-FS level) supports Hard and Symbolic Links. It is not something most people know is there, but it is, and there are APIs for using and creating these types of Links as well as several utilities running around if you look. Our development team even created a tool for creating them, and there are tools in the resource kits as well.
When a HardLink is made, Windows at the FS and GUI level handle the link as a real link, it is not just a Shell Shortcut.
However, in the Win32 world, the necessity of HardLinks are not as necessary, so they are not a part of the Win32 GUI. Because of the diferences in the file locking mechanisms between NTFS and most Unix FS concepts, Windows has less need for HardLinks. Although I also agree that there are times that it is handy to have and use them.
Symbolic Links are in the GUI, as you can use them for mount points, etc. Mount a Drive/Partion to a folder, etc, using Symbolic Links in the Windows Disk Management Console.
Just correcting a bit of mis-information, no harm intended.
If these OSes are running like a DOG on your system, then your system has problems.
We run WindowsXP on 200mhz, 80mb Laptops and the performance is outstanding.
Shoot even one of our test Windows 2003 Servers is only a 400mhz with 128mb of RAM, and it is a 'used' test server that we remote into as well as use it as a Web Server, File Server, Print Server, etc...
And doing a Remote Session logged into this machine 'over the internet even' is still fast. Running apps like Office and CorelDraw, etc.
We tend to do quite a bit of testing in our labs and put older hardware into production just to see what the true minimums of getting by.
So again, if you have at least 128mb of RAM and a 400mhz CPU, you should be able to run about any OS out there currently with good performance.
The only trick, buy a good video card. There are some onboard chipsets that are simply awful for performance, and finding drivers 4 years old is pretty good sign you need a new video card.;)
BTW Windows(NT) was designed to be a SeverOS first and a desktop workstation second. This is why they eroded the Novell market in the 90s because it was designed as a Server first.
Additionally, as with WinNT4, the GUI only consumed about 2-4Mb of RAM, and it took no processing time away from the server portion of the OS. This is how it was designed.
Have you not seen any of the recent test reports of Transactions per second and Web Server performance? Windows 2003 is leaping ahead in terms of pure and raw Server performance. And the leaps it is making is mainly over Windows2k which also at its time was a performance leader for Web, File, and DB transactions. (I shall refer you to a Web Search if you question this)
(And yes, I have read the article where IBM regained the DB Transaction crown.)
Am I correct that XP doesn't anti-alias, relying instead on the quality of their fonts?)
To answer your question, yes and no. With standard 'font smoothing' turned on, most fonts in the 8-12 point font size are just using font hinting, instead of anti-aliasing.
It is the design of the font that specifies at what point size they do full smoothing and what point size they only do hinting, this is how fonts are designed and Windows conforms to the specification. (There are tricks or tools to alter the fonts hinting and smooth point size ranges that I used prior to WindowsXP to enable full anti-aliasing in Windows2K)
However, if you open up your display properties and click on the Effects button in the Appearance Tab, you will find a drop down box below the 'font smoothing' checkbox. In this box CHANGE IT TO ClearType.
With ClearType on, fonts are fully anti-aliased even at hinted point sizes. It uses a method of 'color' based anti-aliasing that also uses sub pixel shifting. The sub pixel shifting is the extra goodie for LCD users as their displays will be a bit crisper and smoother than a normal CRT.
Since ClearType does use color based anti-aliasing, it also works great on CRT (regular) monitors as well.
With ClearType, the fonts are smooth and consistent and even handle anti-aliasing with any color font on any color background.
So if you are using WindowsXP, for God's sake, turn on ClearType to make the fonts that much easier to read. (I'm typing this on a Laptop Screen where ClearType makes my fonts over 200dpi.)
BTW If you turn ClearType on and it looks a bit blurry or the fonts are slightly off color (hints of red, green, etc) then you need to adjust ClearType for your monitor. To do this go to:
There you will find a utility to adjust the ClearType settings. (It does require you to install an ActiveX IE component.)
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, NT had a journalling file system, but it's lack of support for many standard Win32 applications (which would not run if located on an NTFS drive) basically dictated nearly everyone using NT to use FAT32.
This is so rubbish... Been beta testing NT since Alpha of 3.1.
The only apps that failed on NTFS were apps that directly modified the hard drive file structure like Norton Disk Doctor.
Programs like WordPerfect or 99.9% of normal programs could see and SAW no difference in the file system. THAT IS WHAT AN OS DOES, ABSTRACT THE HANDLING OF INPUT/OUTPUT FROM THE APPLICATION AND/OR USERS. Geesh.
NT hands the files to the applications whether it is NTFS, FAT32, or even back in the day HPFS.
The application didn't know or care what the file system was, and most applications still don't - unless they are messing with the file system table directly, and VERY VERY few programs do this....
Geesh...
I was running Doom on NT 3.1 in 1992 and every other Win 3.1 or Win32 program I owned at the time, the only ones I couldn't run on NTFS was Norton Disk Doctor or something like Stacker. Geeeeesh....
Even today, NTFS is completely transparent to the applications, that is how the OS is engineered. This is why you can have a compressed or encrypted NTFS file and ANY application just sees it as a normal file. The NT core handles decrypting or uncompressing the file for read and write access, not the programs.
The same for Volume Shadowing in Win2003 Server, the applications don't care or know about version control, NTFS and the NT core just handle it.
Would someone here please read a book on NT or actually use WindowsXP before getting on the soapbox to tell us how it does or doesn't do this or that...
I see more WindowsXP/NT ignorance in here than I see Linux/Unix ignorance in an AOL newbie room.
In the Microsoft groups, they know Linux/Unix far better than the posters here know WindowsXP or the NT core, and that is a sad thing.
If you want UNIX or Linux or Open Source to succeed, then you BETTER KNOW YOUR competition.
I was reading an article just a couple of days ago about 'great new upcoming features' in a Linux variant, and the article was filled with errors when comparing it to NT technology, stuff NT had been doing since 1992 and they were making it sound like NT either just got the technology or didn't have it.
Come on guys, if you don't know, then find out, don't pretend like you do.
Just like the original post, it was completely inaccurate about NT and the upcoming Longhorn.
And comparing the 3D interface of Longhorn to what is in OSX now is just ridiculous.
The UI of OSX is still a 2D rendering engine laying on the 'core window manager'. Sure it supports OpenGL, Quartz, etc; but WindowsXP also supports OpenGL, and DirectX, it doesn't mean that either are a part of the basic UI Window Manager. OSX does NOT have a 3D Window Manager system for the basic Window UI. If it did, you could tilt windows back, or skew them to the side or push them back in a 3D space on the desktop. Period.
Read, please read before posting and know what the hell you are talking about...
I fall on the NT/Unix fence and I am just ashamed of my fellow geeks here when it comes to bashing NT with no knowledge of NT whatsoever.
The MSDOS and Windows' warnings are all something that an 'advanced' user can and usually turns off. Even at the command prompt, these can all be suppressed.
(Assuming that UNIX users are supposed to be advanced, I would have also assumed they would know how to turn them off, even in DOS or Windows)
It is better to have a warning popup for a novice (like Grandma or the new Clerk), especially when advanced users can so easily turn them off.
I don't buy into the idea that it is better to let the novice accidentally nuke something because they just should have known better.
This is also why I think the System protection, System Restore, Volume Shadowing and other technologies that surround WindowsXP are essential. You can get around ALL of them, but a novice won't nuke something important to the operation of the OS even if they give themselves administrative privileges.
The lack of this security in earlier versions of Windows (Pre Win2k) is why people have the perception that Windows9x is buggy. It isn't buggy in and of itself, but when users start installing tons of poorly written software that overwrites files and mess with functions of the Core OS, the operating system becomes a victim to its own flexibility. A shared caveat that binds power and flexibility and also exists in Unix.
WindowXP on the other hand, stands back and will even let the flawed programs think they are getting to mess with the OS, and then WindowsXP moves the files back and isolates the conflicting DLLS for the application, without the user EVER having to worry that the idiot that wrote the software they just installed tried to kill the stability of their OS. It also leaves the flawed app with the ability to run as expected.
WindowsXP will also catch bad system or API calls, fix the call, and let the application go on its way. Another nice technology to keep crappy applications running and not let them mess with the stability of the OS.
PS - The LSD reference was in jest, but Berkley did help popularize it...:)
And what language is most of Microsoft Windows written in? Oh, let me see, C++? Isn't this a bit self-contradictory?
Well, because it was one of the only truly major language players when NT was brought to fruition, and since NT was REQUIRED to be portable, C was the only language that met that standard of availability on all platforms, especially outside the Intel world.
So, yes, contradictory, but not without reason.
You also have to take into account that C# has the underpinnings to assist in bring C++ to the level that other languages like Delphi Pascal already offer.
I still have hopes for OSX but they need to come out swinging with more than what they have now.
Most of the usability and user flow of the OS is either copied from their previous incarnations or other OSes, there are almost no innovative concepts in the UI or the operations of the OS Interface.
I was so hopeful for something that was going to be truly revolutionary when OSX was announce (and Rhapsody, etc).
Instead, OSX is just a nice interface on another UNIX variant at this point. The Core Window Manager has some promise, but it isn't there yet. Quartz, OpenGL, and the PDF abilities are stuff that is found in everyone else's OS, just the names are different and sound cool. For example, OpenGL was in NT back in 1994, Postscript/PDF rendering is something that takes a 15 year old technology and uses it for display? Give me a break.
Quartz - Just a fancy name for something everyone else has as well. Windows XP has OpenGL, DirectX (supporting features OpenGL has yet to implement for hardware based acceleration), and the Windows GDI Manager, including GDI plus in Windows XP. For gods sake, even XP ahs color based anti-aliasing for font rendering (ClearType) - Come on Apple, you used to be the leader in this stuff.
(With just ClearType and GDI+ alone, my Illustrator and Corel creations look closer to print on my XP machines, especially my high resolution display laptops than they do on any of my Macs.) Apple, take your Postscript display concept and rethink this road, please.
And now Apple has Microsoft breathing down their throat with an upcoming 3D structure for the Windows GDI. Which will offer a step into the next level of user interface capabilities. (Window tilting, Desktop Depth, etc)
Please Apple, come out with something we haven't seen before and a new way of computing instead of putting a pretty face on an old dog. Apple, you were the GUI leader of the 80s, and in the 90s you have kept slipping to the point where your innovations are Microsoft Concepts with prettier buttons.
Also make this plea to the Window Manager designers of UNIX variants, quit copying everyone and make something revolutionary. You can always make the mundane stuff easy to use, but it doesn't have to copy Microsoft or Apple, just be CONSISTENT. And the lack of consistency is one of the major cancers of UNIX variants right now.
Even consistency is something that Apple has slipped on in the last few years. And it is something that Apple started in mainstream computing (a consistent interface). For example, try training users about the DEL and BackSpace keys on a Mac and why some apps they work in and some they don't. In Windows, they ALWAYS work consistently. Something so small on a Mac, but also so alarming from a company that was supposed to be a standards and consistency pioneer.
*This ends my plea to Apple and rant - no intention to offend anyone but just to voice my concerns and hope that someone from Apple and the UNIX world somewhere hears it*
successfully passes Sun's test suites and otherwise meets the compatibility requirements of the agreements.
This is one of the key points... Sun was NEVER going to give Microsoft approval, no matter what they did. Sun wanted Microsoft's VM development to stop, period.
If you want to believe that Microsoft was polluting Java instead of moving Windows developers to JAVA, then keep that belief. It just isn't true.
Microsoft's intent by providing access to Windows through JAVA was for JAVA developers to easily move existing Windows applications to JAVA and then set a path for total cross platform compatibility once Sun offered comparable OS access features in the JAVA VM specifications. And this is exactly what Sun has been doing.
Microsoft got slapped in the face big time for pushing JAVA with all the work they put into it. Sun wanted total control and was afraid of Microsoft's influence because:
#1) Microsoft was providing a faster Java VM (at the time) on Windows.
#2 Microsoft was also pushing Sun to open Java just as Microsoft has with C#, so that it would become a true cross platform open standard instead of something that Sun is killing by keeping total control.
It you think about it logically, Sun would have been smarter to allow each OS vendor to create the Sun VM for that platform. The OS vendors know their products better than anyone else, so they have the ability to make it faster and more compatible for the OS than Sun ever could. Sun is too arrogant to believe they can make JAVA so consistent that it runs perfectly everywhere by themselves. They just don't have the developers that have the understanding of all OSes...
This is also a subject that time has already told. JAVA compatibility across OSes suck, and performance is still a problem.
Again I urge you to read the internal memos that were leaked by the Solaris and Server teams of Sun that hated JAVA because of its problems even within their own OSes.
I have enjoyed the debate and have gotten something out of it, I hope you did also.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, does anybody know anything more about interix. Is it like cygwin,
cygwin is a EMULATOR, Interix is a true subsystem, NOT an emulation.
It may surprise people, but WindowsNT is more than just the WIN32 Subsystem that everyone associates NT with. Just like the WIN32 Subsystem sits on top of NT, the Interix Subsystem also directly sits on top of the NT kernel.
This is why WIN32 has its OWN kernel that is separate from the true NT kernel(which most people don't realize) and also why Interix can also have its own kernel and be a full UNIX that is also layered as a Subsystem on top of the NT core.
I truly wish more people in the *nix world would at least take the time to see why NT is a bit different than most other OSes.
There are reasons why (even when Microsoft owned UNIX rights) Microsoft's top OS developers, that were coming from the *nix world, abandoned the concept of basing NT on a *nix implementation and instead choose to implement a new OS model that used the latest OS design theories of the time.
NT isn't perfect, but it truly is not just the 'Windows/WIN32' SUBSYSTEM that everyone thinks it is. I also get tired of people comparing Win9x to Linux instead of focusing on a NT version of Windows that has no legacy code (like DOS) in it - WindowsXP is a much better OS to contrast for example.
See Previous Post
Microsoft STILL has a Unix...(See below) It just sits on top of NT. (This is one of the nice features a layered subsystem OS like NT can provide)
There are rumors that Microsoft has in development a full Linux compatible subsystem that sits ontop of the NT core, giving users a full compatible Linux, with the extra features of the NT core underneath.
So if Linux does make roads into the desktop, all Microsoft has to do is release their Linux subsystem for NT, and boom, users get to run both OSes Win32 and Linux in their own Subsystem Layer.
With the NT architecture, Microsoft can pretty much expand to support any 'open source' OS, natively, without emulation and even let the XWindows and Win32 Windows run side by side.
So Microsoft, truely had a stake in licensing from SCO, with or without a conspiracy theory.
Pulled from the MS Web Site...
----------
Interix (For WIndows NT, 2K, XP)
Services for UNIX Version 3.0 includes the Interix subsystem technology - a full featured, robust, UNIX application and scripting environment that runs as a native subsystem on top of the WindowsNT kernel.
A Native Subsystem, Not an Emulation
The Interix subsystem, unlike the Korn shell and utilities provided in early versions of SFU, is a fully integrated POSIX subsystem that runs natively under Windows NT/2000/XP. This subsystem provides complete support for compiling and running UNIX applications in Windows, allowing enterprises to easily leverage and migrate their existing custom applications. It also provides UNIX developers with full support for more than 1,900 UNIX APIs allowing scripts and applications written to run under UNIX to transfer to Windows easily and naturally.
-----------------------
Plus, how's the video-out on that GF4 MX? I'd be willing to bet it's not as good as the video-out on the x-box card. Not to mention, does the MX even have programmable pixel shaders? You're going to start seeing those in more and more games so cards without that are going to take a big hit in visual quality, and some games may even require that feature.
Your system may run Linux better than the X-Box, but the X-Box is better where it's meant to be: gaming. Games WILL look better and perform better than that system, I guarantee it.
Ok where to start....
#1) Linux is not the primary OS on this laptop, WindowsXP is, thank you very much. VMWare or Microsoft Virtual Server for Linux user support only. I wouldn't give up the performance hit to move to Linux or lose the NT core features that I take for granted everyday. I like NT (being a NT beta tester since 1992) and know just a bit too much about it and the contrasting *nix kernels and cores. I also enjoy the ability to resume from a full power down Hibernate in 3secs, which is handy on a laptop.
#2) The video out on the GeforceMX 440 Go (specifically) is actually very good. It is using the SAME NVIDIA video out technology that is in the XBOX. (Did you miss something, NVIDIA makes both chips?) I can also do a 1024x768 out to a high quality TV and play the game, something that the Xbox analog out does not support. (Yes I know it can do HDTV)
#3) I would definitely argue that games can run better and look better on my laptop. For example running at 1600x1200 a game like RT Castle Wolfenstein runs very smooth and the clarity is spectacular - very crisp - detail that is just lost in the Xbox version. The Xbox can't even touch this resolution even in HDTV mode and would not be able to pull off 60fps while doing it.
In contrast, the Xbox is pushing out only HDTV (if available) or NTSC at 30fps for games. This is far cry from 1600x1200 and 60fps.
If I want to drop to TV Out only and 720x480 and run a game, my laptop will run circles around the Xbox. (Heck I can even dual screen with the game playing on the TV at 720x480 and my laptop screen still at 1600x1200 with someone browsing the net on it and not lose performance in the game.)
Another good example, I own Spiderman-The Movie Game, and on my laptop I can do 1280x1024 (Spidey doesn't offer a higher mode) and the scenes are just breath taking. I also bought a copy for my Xbox, although it looked quite good, even on a TV Screen, it just couldn't compare to the PC version on my laptop.
You should also take just basic specifications and compare. I have almost three times the CPU, I have a video card that is just as fast as what is in the Xbox (if not faster in many cases), I have more Video memory, I have more System RAM, and I also have full 5.1 surround just like the Xbox. So if I drop my video out to the Xbox level and play at 720x480 at 30fps, or even drop to the 1080i HDTV level, there is NO WAY the Xbox is going to keep up.
If I remember right the article you refer to about console games being faster, one of its direct points was that PCs have to push out a higher resolution like 800x600 minimum and do so at 60fps at minimal, where game consoles only have to do NTSC and 30fps. It wasn't saying that PCs couldn't achieve the power of a console, but that on average the console had the advantage because its output was severely restricted to TV standards. Not just that console games were specifically optimized for the console.
As you remember the Xbox is just Windows2000 with a variant of DirectX, and that is all the game developers have to target to make a good Xbox game. (Again why you see many PC and Xbox cross over titles - because they use the same basic fundamental development environment)
However, I am a fan of the Xbox, somehow you missed that. I own all three major consoles, and the Xbox is by far my favorite. It is by far the most advanced for graphics, performance, playability, and ease of game development
No they weren't original titles for the XBox, I never meant to imply that.
However, the point that was being made is that because of the ease in cross platform development, PC games are more likely only to be ported to the XBox or come out on the XBox far in advance of the other console release dates.
XBox game development is one of its strongest features, as most game developers will agree with. Microsoft took great pains in ensuring that the model the XBox uses for development is easy. (Follow the pre-reviews that are still on the Web before the XBox was released and the vast developer support of its game development specifications.)
Game developers can target the PC and quickly move the game to the XBox with little modification. They don't have to do things that are done on other consoles to get the best performance out of the games.
Take the PS2 for example, even with what graphics potential it has, it takes a lot of development and design to get the game to play well by pushing the right bits down the right pipes at the right time. It is a far cry from DirectX based development environment that PC game designers and XBox game designers enjoy.
DirectX does quite well at removing the developer from the tweaking of hardware to achieve game performance, and instead lets the graphics card manufacturers do the driver tweaking to offer the performance to developers. (Hence the big DirectX9 support and benchmarks debate now.)
When OpenGL stopped its progression towards a 3D standard that was conducive to upcoming graphic accelerated games on the PC environment, Microsoft made a radical shift to develop its own technology; hence the creation of DirectX (WinG, etc).
Many people think Microsoft made DirectX to compete with OpenGL, but at the time Microsoft wanted OpenGL to become what it has become and then there wouldn't be the need for DirectX. It was the reluctance of the industry to move OpenGL to a gaming model and create an interface between video hardware acceleration and applications, which in turn forced Microsoft to create the WinG and DirectX layers.
Microsoft pushed the OpenGL standard to move in that direction a long time before they ever had plans to create their own layer (DirectX).
As most know and remember NT supported OpenGL far before DirectX was conceived of, as it was to be the standard for the NT OS for the next generation of video and gaming.
It is just too bad OpenGL didn't move to create that level of complexity and hardware support at the time.
But then again, having two standards, OpenGL and DirectX, that are now somewhat in competition is a good thing. It has pushed DirectX to natively support and even push the limits of the graphic card manufacturers capabilities. (Again, hence the new GeforceFX and ATI9700/9800)
Disagree, I actually own several XBox titles, and I have access through one of my clients to rent games for free as much as I like through the local video store.
Buffy, Kungfu Chaos, MechAssault, Halo, Castle Wolfensten, BaldersGate, etc, etc.
Halo isn't the 'only' good XBox game out there or I would just rent them when I wanted to play instead of buying them. Trust me...
Yeah you are saving $175 to hack the XBox, but the PC the guy listed is several times faster than the XBox. The XBox has a 733mhz PIII, only 64mb of RAM, only a 8gb hard drive, and a NVidia video chipset that is in the class of the Geforce3. The listed system is a 1+ghz Processor, a Geforce4 (and even the MX can put out more graphical punch than the Geforce3), more Ram and a larger Hard Drive.
For a gaming console the XBox is still at the top of the league for performance, but compared to a cheap PC, it isn't that special anymore.
(Even the laptop I am typing this on can put out several times the poly's and pixels per sec than an XBox)
The XBox runs the Windows 2000/NT core with a version of DirectX that is on par with DirectX8.
However, you don't get Explorer and the other GUI applications of Win2k.
WindowsCE has some NT Core concepts in it, but it is another OS entirely.
Um... Close, but not quite.
If you will notice a Media Center PC can Record and View Television, as well as burn DVDs of the recorded shows.
A Media Center PC can also do a few other things that just isn't available with the current XBox hardware.
BTW The XBox already has virtual jukebox abilities by copying your CDs to the hard drive, and this is a standard feature - no hack needed.
Yeah, you would think, but if you had been paying attention you would have seen that Microsoft is set to ship a Media update for the Xbox in the fall that will be a media point and access music and pictures from local PCs connected to the home network.
And hey, they are even putting in a virtual dance studio and karaoke capabilities.
Although I do wish they would take things a bit farther and add a browser for Live (Online) users and a few other basic features.
Finally, a rational perspective through an obscure allegory.
Thank You...
Actually there are hacks out there for running full versions of Windows2k and WindowsXP, as well as adding more features to the Win2k core in the Xbox so it can run Windows applications.
:)
But that isn't as fun as telling the world that people are only using it for Linux.
It is funny how people will so easily eat up the journalism word for word and yet not stop to check the facts for themselves.
Since we are policing grammar, should I point out the mistakes in your post as well?
Maybe I can start with the fragmented sentence or the incorrect comma usage?
Intelligence without tolerance is the ultimate oxymoron. - Unknown
TheNetAvenger
#3 You haven't played Castle Wolfenstein on the XBOX - obviously. Halo is a great game with great game play, especially in the upper levels with vehicles.
:)
#5 The Original controller is large, but it is NO longer being shipped with XBoxes, they moved to the S Controller like 8 months ago. And again, if you already have the large controller, trade it for an S controller at any GameCrazy for a few dollars difference.
#7 This is a first version console, of course it will lag in sales compared to two console makers that have dominated the market since the mid 80s. But considering it is out selling GameCube, the former US leader, is quite a good sign.
#8 Buffy is great XBox game available no where else, the moves, fighting and character play are truly above most games. Also Kung Fu Chaos and several other titles are out there that are XBox Only.
You will also see several XBox and PC only games - XBOX being the only console release. (Hence XBox game development is just an expansion of DirectX for Windows - so of course there are many PC XBox cross overs - it is very easy for developers to make a PC game and basically add the XBox interface requirements to it.)
Also notice that many of the 'better' games being released are coming out on the XBox months before they are being released on other platforms. Castle Wolfenstein is out for XBox, and just now getting ready for release on PS2 (with quite a drop in frame rate and graphics on the PS2 as well)
#10 Having a good friend that is in the Gamer world professionally, I have heard of a few XBox with bad DVD drives. The lockups are from the drive having trouble reading the disk. Trust me it is not the Win2k core crashing. And it is still better than the number of people he has encountered that have had their PS2's literally catch on fire. (No joke)
Hope your 'friend' enjoys their GameCube, they have several nice titles, but playing a game like BaldersGate on the GameCube after playing it on the XBox made me realize how slow the GameCube can be, and how much graphic detail is lost.
The same can be said for cross plat titles that I have played on XBox and then play on the PS2, the graphics are usually lower quality, the load times are 5 times longer than the XBox and even the frame rates suffer on high polygon scenes. Reference Enter the Matrix for a good example, the PS2 version is jerky, and the scene load times are terrible. It is just too bad they textured the game at the PS2 level and not the XBox level, it could have looked more impressive with by taking advantage of the XBox's graphics capabilities. Even Buffy has better graphics and gameplay, but whoops, it is an XBox only title.
BTW, since my friend 'is' in the gamer business, I have all three systems. So I have no 'proud owner' bias. The XBox is by far ahead of the other two in performance, graphics, and gameplay.
Nothing but the truth...
The small 's' controller is now standard in new XBox machines sold in the US now. It has been for quite a while.
I also prefer the smaller S controller, and you can trade in your 'big' original controller and pick up an 'S' controller for not much money.
Go to someplace like GameCrazy (in most hollywood Video stores) and trade in the 'Big' controller for credit towards the 'S' controller.
I traded in my PS1 with a few games and had enough credit to get a Refurbished XBOX with 1 year no question GameCrazy warranty and a couple of games.
BTW Buffy, Halo, and Castle Wolfenstein on the XBOX look and play awesome.
Wolfenstein is well done, taking advantage of the XBox's graphics and is so smooth and fluid, reminded me of the good old Doom days on a descent PC. (Except the graphics now look almost real.)
Mount Points are different, but it is how they are implemented is what I was referring to.
For more info on Hardlinks and Symbolic Links, I shall refer you to a quick search on the Microsoft Web Site.
The point is, they are in NTFS, just because they are not in the GUI, they are still there, and have been for quite some time.
FS/OS support for links makes it so easy to do such cool stuff that's essentially impossible in some other operating systems (Shortcuts are files that are treated specially by the shell in Windows. Not by the OS's FS layer. Therefore, they're nowheres comparable.)
Shortcuts, yes you are correct; however, NTFS (at the OS-FS level) supports Hard and Symbolic Links. It is not something most people know is there, but it is, and there are APIs for using and creating these types of Links as well as several utilities running around if you look. Our development team even created a tool for creating them, and there are tools in the resource kits as well.
When a HardLink is made, Windows at the FS and GUI level handle the link as a real link, it is not just a Shell Shortcut.
However, in the Win32 world, the necessity of HardLinks are not as necessary, so they are not a part of the Win32 GUI. Because of the diferences in the file locking mechanisms between NTFS and most Unix FS concepts, Windows has less need for HardLinks. Although I also agree that there are times that it is handy to have and use them.
Symbolic Links are in the GUI, as you can use them for mount points, etc. Mount a Drive/Partion to a folder, etc, using Symbolic Links in the Windows Disk Management Console.
Just correcting a bit of mis-information, no harm intended.
If these OSes are running like a DOG on your system, then your system has problems.
;)
We run WindowsXP on 200mhz, 80mb Laptops and the performance is outstanding.
Shoot even one of our test Windows 2003 Servers is only a 400mhz with 128mb of RAM, and it is a 'used' test server that we remote into as well as use it as a Web Server, File Server, Print Server, etc...
And doing a Remote Session logged into this machine 'over the internet even' is still fast. Running apps like Office and CorelDraw, etc.
We tend to do quite a bit of testing in our labs and put older hardware into production just to see what the true minimums of getting by.
So again, if you have at least 128mb of RAM and a 400mhz CPU, you should be able to run about any OS out there currently with good performance.
The only trick, buy a good video card. There are some onboard chipsets that are simply awful for performance, and finding drivers 4 years old is pretty good sign you need a new video card.
BTW Windows(NT) was designed to be a SeverOS first and a desktop workstation second. This is why they eroded the Novell market in the 90s because it was designed as a Server first.
Additionally, as with WinNT4, the GUI only consumed about 2-4Mb of RAM, and it took no processing time away from the server portion of the OS. This is how it was designed.
Have you not seen any of the recent test reports of Transactions per second and Web Server performance? Windows 2003 is leaping ahead in terms of pure and raw Server performance. And the leaps it is making is mainly over Windows2k which also at its time was a performance leader for Web, File, and DB transactions. (I shall refer you to a Web Search if you question this)
(And yes, I have read the article where IBM regained the DB Transaction crown.)
Am I correct that XP doesn't anti-alias, relying instead on the quality of their fonts?)
w to /customize/cleartype/tuner/default.asp
To answer your question, yes and no. With standard 'font smoothing' turned on, most fonts in the 8-12 point font size are just using font hinting, instead of anti-aliasing.
It is the design of the font that specifies at what point size they do full smoothing and what point size they only do hinting, this is how fonts are designed and Windows conforms to the specification. (There are tricks or tools to alter the fonts hinting and smooth point size ranges that I used prior to WindowsXP to enable full anti-aliasing in Windows2K)
However, if you open up your display properties and click on the Effects button in the Appearance Tab, you will find a drop down box below the 'font smoothing' checkbox. In this box CHANGE IT TO ClearType.
With ClearType on, fonts are fully anti-aliased even at hinted point sizes. It uses a method of 'color' based anti-aliasing that also uses sub pixel shifting. The sub pixel shifting is the extra goodie for LCD users as their displays will be a bit crisper and smoother than a normal CRT.
Since ClearType does use color based anti-aliasing, it also works great on CRT (regular) monitors as well.
With ClearType, the fonts are smooth and consistent and even handle anti-aliasing with any color font on any color background.
So if you are using WindowsXP, for God's sake, turn on ClearType to make the fonts that much easier to read. (I'm typing this on a Laptop Screen where ClearType makes my fonts over 200dpi.)
BTW If you turn ClearType on and it looks a bit blurry or the fonts are slightly off color (hints of red, green, etc) then you need to adjust ClearType for your monitor. To do this go to:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/ho
There you will find a utility to adjust the ClearType settings. (It does require you to install an ActiveX IE component.)
Actually, NT had a journalling file system, but it's lack of support for many standard Win32 applications (which would not run if located on an NTFS drive) basically dictated nearly everyone using NT to use FAT32.
This is so rubbish... Been beta testing NT since Alpha of 3.1.
The only apps that failed on NTFS were apps that directly modified the hard drive file structure like Norton Disk Doctor.
Programs like WordPerfect or 99.9% of normal programs could see and SAW no difference in the file system. THAT IS WHAT AN OS DOES, ABSTRACT THE HANDLING OF INPUT/OUTPUT FROM THE APPLICATION AND/OR USERS. Geesh.
NT hands the files to the applications whether it is NTFS, FAT32, or even back in the day HPFS.
The application didn't know or care what the file system was, and most applications still don't - unless they are messing with the file system table directly, and VERY VERY few programs do this....
Geesh...
I was running Doom on NT 3.1 in 1992 and every other Win 3.1 or Win32 program I owned at the time, the only ones I couldn't run on NTFS was Norton Disk Doctor or something like Stacker. Geeeeesh....
Even today, NTFS is completely transparent to the applications, that is how the OS is engineered. This is why you can have a compressed or encrypted NTFS file and ANY application just sees it as a normal file. The NT core handles decrypting or uncompressing the file for read and write access, not the programs.
The same for Volume Shadowing in Win2003 Server, the applications don't care or know about version control, NTFS and the NT core just handle it.
Would someone here please read a book on NT or actually use WindowsXP before getting on the soapbox to tell us how it does or doesn't do this or that...
I see more WindowsXP/NT ignorance in here than I see Linux/Unix ignorance in an AOL newbie room.
In the Microsoft groups, they know Linux/Unix far better than the posters here know WindowsXP or the NT core, and that is a sad thing.
If you want UNIX or Linux or Open Source to succeed, then you BETTER KNOW YOUR competition.
I was reading an article just a couple of days ago about 'great new upcoming features' in a Linux variant, and the article was filled with errors when comparing it to NT technology, stuff NT had been doing since 1992 and they were making it sound like NT either just got the technology or didn't have it.
Come on guys, if you don't know, then find out, don't pretend like you do.
Just like the original post, it was completely inaccurate about NT and the upcoming Longhorn.
And comparing the 3D interface of Longhorn to what is in OSX now is just ridiculous.
The UI of OSX is still a 2D rendering engine laying on the 'core window manager'. Sure it supports OpenGL, Quartz, etc; but WindowsXP also supports OpenGL, and DirectX, it doesn't mean that either are a part of the basic UI Window Manager. OSX does NOT have a 3D Window Manager system for the basic Window UI. If it did, you could tilt windows back, or skew them to the side or push them back in a 3D space on the desktop. Period.
Read, please read before posting and know what the hell you are talking about...
I fall on the NT/Unix fence and I am just ashamed of my fellow geeks here when it comes to bashing NT with no knowledge of NT whatsoever.
The MSDOS and Windows' warnings are all something that an 'advanced' user can and usually turns off. Even at the command prompt, these can all be suppressed.
:)
(Assuming that UNIX users are supposed to be advanced, I would have also assumed they would know how to turn them off, even in DOS or Windows)
It is better to have a warning popup for a novice (like Grandma or the new Clerk), especially when advanced users can so easily turn them off.
I don't buy into the idea that it is better to let the novice accidentally nuke something because they just should have known better.
This is also why I think the System protection, System Restore, Volume Shadowing and other technologies that surround WindowsXP are essential. You can get around ALL of them, but a novice won't nuke something important to the operation of the OS even if they give themselves administrative privileges.
The lack of this security in earlier versions of Windows (Pre Win2k) is why people have the perception that Windows9x is buggy. It isn't buggy in and of itself, but when users start installing tons of poorly written software that overwrites files and mess with functions of the Core OS, the operating system becomes a victim to its own flexibility. A shared caveat that binds power and flexibility and also exists in Unix.
WindowXP on the other hand, stands back and will even let the flawed programs think they are getting to mess with the OS, and then WindowsXP moves the files back and isolates the conflicting DLLS for the application, without the user EVER having to worry that the idiot that wrote the software they just installed tried to kill the stability of their OS. It also leaves the flawed app with the ability to run as expected.
WindowsXP will also catch bad system or API calls, fix the call, and let the application go on its way. Another nice technology to keep crappy applications running and not let them mess with the stability of the OS.
PS - The LSD reference was in jest, but Berkley did help popularize it...
And what language is most of Microsoft Windows written in? Oh, let me see, C++? Isn't this a bit self-contradictory?
Well, because it was one of the only truly major language players when NT was brought to fruition, and since NT was REQUIRED to be portable, C was the only language that met that standard of availability on all platforms, especially outside the Intel world.
So, yes, contradictory, but not without reason.
You also have to take into account that C# has the underpinnings to assist in bring C++ to the level that other languages like Delphi Pascal already offer.
*Just my two cents*
yet have a GUI which is stable, fast, and elegant
Elegant - yes, fast - no...
I still have hopes for OSX but they need to come out swinging with more than what they have now.
Most of the usability and user flow of the OS is either copied from their previous incarnations or other OSes, there are almost no innovative concepts in the UI or the operations of the OS Interface.
I was so hopeful for something that was going to be truly revolutionary when OSX was announce (and Rhapsody, etc).
Instead, OSX is just a nice interface on another UNIX variant at this point. The Core Window Manager has some promise, but it isn't there yet. Quartz, OpenGL, and the PDF abilities are stuff that is found in everyone else's OS, just the names are different and sound cool. For example, OpenGL was in NT back in 1994, Postscript/PDF rendering is something that takes a 15 year old technology and uses it for display? Give me a break.
Quartz - Just a fancy name for something everyone else has as well. Windows XP has OpenGL, DirectX (supporting features OpenGL has yet to implement for hardware based acceleration), and the Windows GDI Manager, including GDI plus in Windows XP. For gods sake, even XP ahs color based anti-aliasing for font rendering (ClearType) - Come on Apple, you used to be the leader in this stuff.
(With just ClearType and GDI+ alone, my Illustrator and Corel creations look closer to print on my XP machines, especially my high resolution display laptops than they do on any of my Macs.) Apple, take your Postscript display concept and rethink this road, please.
And now Apple has Microsoft breathing down their throat with an upcoming 3D structure for the Windows GDI. Which will offer a step into the next level of user interface capabilities. (Window tilting, Desktop Depth, etc)
Please Apple, come out with something we haven't seen before and a new way of computing instead of putting a pretty face on an old dog. Apple, you were the GUI leader of the 80s, and in the 90s you have kept slipping to the point where your innovations are Microsoft Concepts with prettier buttons.
Also make this plea to the Window Manager designers of UNIX variants, quit copying everyone and make something revolutionary. You can always make the mundane stuff easy to use, but it doesn't have to copy Microsoft or Apple, just be CONSISTENT. And the lack of consistency is one of the major cancers of UNIX variants right now.
Even consistency is something that Apple has slipped on in the last few years. And it is something that Apple started in mainstream computing (a consistent interface). For example, try training users about the DEL and BackSpace keys on a Mac and why some apps they work in and some they don't. In Windows, they ALWAYS work consistently. Something so small on a Mac, but also so alarming from a company that was supposed to be a standards and consistency pioneer.
*This ends my plea to Apple and rant - no intention to offend anyone but just to voice my concerns and hope that someone from Apple and the UNIX world somewhere hears it*
Glad to see we were closer to being on the same page than we thought.
I have enjoyed the debate and have gotten something out of it for the good, and hope you have too.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
successfully passes Sun's test suites and otherwise meets the compatibility requirements of the agreements.
This is one of the key points... Sun was NEVER going to give Microsoft approval, no matter what they did. Sun wanted Microsoft's VM development to stop, period.
If you want to believe that Microsoft was polluting Java instead of moving Windows developers to JAVA, then keep that belief. It just isn't true.
Microsoft's intent by providing access to Windows through JAVA was for JAVA developers to easily move existing Windows applications to JAVA and then set a path for total cross platform compatibility once Sun offered comparable OS access features in the JAVA VM specifications. And this is exactly what Sun has been doing.
Microsoft got slapped in the face big time for pushing JAVA with all the work they put into it. Sun wanted total control and was afraid of Microsoft's influence because:
#1) Microsoft was providing a faster Java VM (at the time) on Windows.
#2 Microsoft was also pushing Sun to open Java just as Microsoft has with C#, so that it would become a true cross platform open standard instead of something that Sun is killing by keeping total control.
It you think about it logically, Sun would have been smarter to allow each OS vendor to create the Sun VM for that platform. The OS vendors know their products better than anyone else, so they have the ability to make it faster and more compatible for the OS than Sun ever could. Sun is too arrogant to believe they can make JAVA so consistent that it runs perfectly everywhere by themselves. They just don't have the developers that have the understanding of all OSes...
This is also a subject that time has already told. JAVA compatibility across OSes suck, and performance is still a problem.
Again I urge you to read the internal memos that were leaked by the Solaris and Server teams of Sun that hated JAVA because of its problems even within their own OSes.
I have enjoyed the debate and have gotten something out of it, I hope you did also.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger