Last time I checked, an "operating system" was not just a kernel
Well you can trick your definitions however you want...
But NT is NOT Win32, and runs without Win32, where COM resides. NT is an OS that functions without Win32, and can even use BSD as a upper level subsystem. (See Vista Unix Subsystem)
Also when you say an OS is not just a kernel or kernel architecture, you might want to have a discussion with a Linux user, because when you argue that a feature of something in KDE is a part of the Linux OS, you are not only wrong, grossly wrong. And effectively, this is what you are doing with trying to pretend COM is a part of NT. COM is Win32/Win64, NOT NT.
You need to learn a bit about OSes and expecially NT before you make any more outlandish and horribly incorrect statements.
This is the type of stuff that needs to be kept in the news, as the people who post here often have no understanding of, and the ones that do, have the opportunity to explain this stuff, bringing everyone up to a better level of understanding.
Maybe if we did this, real discussions about the designs and benefits of all technologies could be debated and referenced accruately.. Or even dare say, NT won't have people go ape when someone refers to a good aspect of its kernel design.
Besides COM is not apparently the 'evil' you think it is either. It was a way to bag and tie several programming concepts together. Strapping OLE to ActiveX and to other communication mechanisms.
If you don't like the IE ActiveX integration, then you have a ligitimate bitch. However, if you think dropping an Excel Chart or Corel Graphic in your Word Processor is bad then you are a bit dense.
On a semi-serious note. Then we need to start the OLPS effort. (One laptop per soldier). It is a serious problem that a soldiers computer connected to the military network (for that webcam conversation with home) could be infected by some iSTD(tm) from a bootlegged DVD that potentially could be an attack vector for the network it is connected to and potentially damage critical services. Start with the OLPC machine and run secure Linux instead. And get WINE running "Call of Duty" or select other games or software for diversions. Have to add the DVD player of course.
If the military's security model is based upon clean and secure clients accessing the network/servers then they are insane...
Besides, the Bush Company doesn't give a flying fek about the soldiers out there. I have too many friends in the military and it is beyond horrid the lack of real 'support' this freaking administration has given them. The tons of denied equipment and armor requests, the delays in providing what they do because a Bush Buddy's company is making the new items and are 6mos or a 1 yr behind, even though they can be bought through other companies/channels. AND ON AND ON AND ON.
So why would they give a rat's ass about their computers?
But I don't give a flip what freaking OS you are using, or how 'tight' you might think the security is. SELinux with added on restricted access modes is better than vanilla Linux, but it doesn't make it bullet proof. PERIOD.
Until PEOPLE stop writing code, there will always be 'smarter' people that can circumvent any level of genius, and this applies to OSes as well.
I should ask, do you know what SELinux is? It layman terms, it adds some object intelligence and policy levels to the kernel. - Which is how NT works and was designed - so go ahead and argue how much more secure it is in a GENERIC deployment, based on the Win2k and early XP track record...
And comparing the two, technically, NT is more robust for this segmented type of security with its object based token security model.
The problem I see is that Soldiers were using Windows-based PC's,
Well the training games don't run on SELinux, let alone all the other games they play.
Besides, they buy own their own laptops, if the Bush Company has trouble getting them essentials or housing that doesn't electrify troops, do you really think they have the time or money to get them CDs with SELinux or help them install it? And then what? They boot in Windows 99% of the time because they game and use WebCams to see their kids, etc.
So ya, this is Window's fault if you are trying to distory reality in the hate Windows MS World. Autoload is the problem with a targeted OS. Windows IS NOT THE ONLY OS with autoload, let alone the fact that there are ways to spread this crap WITHOUT autoload.
Want a SELinux targeted Virus, just say so, and give some DVD pirate a couple of hours. It is idiots like you that give people false senses of security when running Linux or OSX, and then Security people have to come in a clean up a mess or a security breach.
What OS you run DOES NOT = LESS or MORE security at this point from an OS architectual standpoint unless you have an older OS without security inherently designed at the core level. (Like Win9x, OS/2, System 9 earlier)
So, um... *cough* Does your house straddle some border or something? Was this "alert" a series of words spoken to the air? *chuckle*
This is being blocked on the server side. The IM makes trips through the server, so location is moot... yes?
Are you on medication?
A FRIEND of mine contacted me that LIVES in Belgium. I mainly reside in the US.
As for location, there is no real relavance except some people were purporting it had to do with MSN TV that rolled out in places like Belgium, but NOT in the US.
Also many US people testing it weren't showing the error, this could be based on how the servers are provisioned by location, etc. (There is not just ONE COMPUTER all IM goes through for MS Messenger.)
IM filtering happens on EVERY IM provider's servers, mainly for security from bots, and other little tricks. When a response don't get a 'pass' it defaults to failing, to error on the side of security. This is what was happening... (Imagine MS erroring on the side of security instead of letting a bot take over the network? AOL fans paying attention here?)
It could have been the result of a set of IM filtering servers at Microsoft, it also could have been some bad packets through the backbone heading into those servers. (A freaking rogue router could malform the IM packet enough to trigger something like this.)
So ya, it was an ERROR on the SERVER side, not sure if it was a problem with the server, a bad router out in the internet, or just a squirrel shorting out out a switch in Chicago for all I know... Which is what I pretty much said before, just in simpiler terms.
I admit the grammar I used wasn't perfect, but it was understandible...
So, why did you post a response asking the same thing again?
For quite a while, when you clicked a link from Google Search it rewrote the URL redirect and sent the information to Google...
(Simple MouseDown JavaScript)
It still may do this in Firefox, can't remember if this was totally removed after a few consumer group complaints or not. IE doesn't respect this type of redirect, and can't test at the moment.
Earlier today some youtube links were being blocked.
Friend in Belgium alerted me to the issue, as trying to send a link across the room to her friend would even fail.
After some investigation...
It looks like it was a temporary error in the server response, so instead of saying yes, it would just deny the link out of default, suspecting an attack or a bot.
The server responses are now working correctly and so are the links.
Back to your tinfoil and OFFICIAL MS IS ALWAYS EVIL CLUB of the insane...
PS - How come when Google/Firefox re-routes or blocks URLs, (in error or for questionable reasonss) it never makes it to the front of SlashDot?
Get over MS, they dumped you or you them, they are your ex girlfriend, you have a new girlfirend(OS), quit stalking her... (Wait, bad analogy in a geek forum.)
Star Wars Episode III screwed you, get over it... (Better analogy?)
Apple systems already share some properties with gaming consoles, namely the harware homogeny of Apple systems.
While to me an annoyance, this standardization might actually work in Apple's favor when trying to woo game makers, as it could act to simplify development.
Apple controlled does NOT equal consistency...
Look at the various models you can buy now, there are several classes of Video Cards, CPUs and that alone is enough to make it a mess.
When you add in the messy nature of the Apple Driver model in OS X, it becames even scarier for games makers. (Apple's desing of working around the monolithic nature of the BSD interface when creating the hybrid OS X driver model has a lot of trade offs that are troublesome, and require kernel level reworking to get the performance up to the level to compete with NT in gaming.)
Mac users expect to buy a Mac and have their Mac software work well. Games running on a low end Video card Mac will PO users faster than anything, as they don't all get the whole 'specifications' of the hardware.
Just with shoving WDDM into Vista, Microsoft has moved forward in creating a consistent gaming environment, and they already own the gaming world because of the past consistency, even though it is has been considerably more inconsistent than a console.
DX10 and especially 10.1 with the WDDM model ensure than games even render consistently with consistent performance levels, even though games on the shelves don't yet reflect the Vista only and forward crowd. (DX10 won't even have performance benefits until games are running on a full DX10 engine, instead of extending textures past DX9.0c, adding in new shadow modeling and calling it DX10, as the engine is still set up for the DX9.0 optimizations and design model. When you see a game on the shelf that says DX10 and Vista Only the quality and performance of the game will reflect what DX10 and 10.1 is bringing when it 'truly' gets here.)
Apple already tried to push into gaming with Leopard and it fell flat on developer's ears with the updated OpenGL support, that was already showing some age in the OpenGL/Graphics world, and the Apple implementation is less than stellar.
Besides, you can do a simple search and find 1,000s of posts like this already, and Developers are not too happy about these types of responses. (Even the initial Vista backlash on gaming pushed developers to abandon DX10 only titles for an additional year until Vista's drivers caught up to XP. And getting OS X drivers to the same level of gaming performance would be a nightmare with NVidia/ATI/Apple all fighting.)
I think you assume I love Microsoft, which by looking back at my defensive post I can understand why.
You are right, this is not a black and white issue.
I do still contest MS got more of a raw deal out of the anti-trust rulings than they should have. Netscape and Boyd having 'private' meetings all the time, to the companies that screamed the loudest, being the ones that benefited directly from Microsoft being railed in, instead of having to directly compete with them.
I have probably read more on this subject than the average SlashDotter, and was in the middle of portions of it at various points. Even Mark Andersaon (Netscape Dude) later publically admitted that Microsoft got railroaded, and it was more because of their success instead of how they leveraged it.
Some of things people like to repeat about MS's Evils are from a few rouge people and groups rather than a consistent effort. It just looked worse when Gates and others would get angry with a competitor for screwing with MS or even screwing with a customer base.
If you read through the Gates and others emails, you will find they were more irrate at other companies screwing the IT industry or customers more than they were ever angry about them screwing MS. This is something users should have respect for Gates and other, instead of the spin that presents this as the 'get even' crowd.
Nobody is all good or all evil, and the majority of the anti-MS fud tends to try to paint an evil picture that just doesn't fully fit.
It came from obtaining and abusing monopoly power, and he still shows no signs of wanting Microsoft to stop their abuses.
Go read the ruling, they really didn't abuse monopoly powers, and even the EU findings were based on 'potential monopoly predatory' practices.
The only monopoly 'powers' MS employeed where NO different than the exclusive contracts used by IBM, WordPerfect, etc at the SAME time for bundling software. Microsoft became the 99% choice for OEM and then became a big target.
(Remember I was in the OEM business at this time.)
Also Gates pledged to give away his money long before he was nearly as weathly as he is today. Go back to old interviews when he was only marginally rich.
He's had the chance, for a very, very long time now, to play nice with open standards, to stop playing dirty tricks against open source, to stop abusing software patents, and to stop fucking with projects like OLPC because they didn't ship Windows
They play well with standards, considering they have written a large chunk of the standards people use. From XHTML to creating C# and releasing them to outside MS control. Strange how people love to use their stuff, but doesn't get it is their stuff.
Software patents? MS has NEVER pursued a patent claim against anyone, ever. They only time they have used patents is to defend themselves from patent whores. (even the famouse WMA suit from the late 90s wasn't about patent laws, it was about reverse engineering and using source code the person legally knew they had no rights to.)
The OLPC? Um, go read the articles on the project, and the creators. The UI and applications built on the *nix OS failed, they failed horribly in comparison to some simple prototype UI applications put together in a matter of a few days for Windows. Microsoft's hand in this is they provide a better and faster development platform.
Right now MS is in a catch 22, because of FUD like you spouting and believe. If they pull back from the market it screws with customers and businesses as there is nothing to replace them, and if they are overly agressive in providing features, they get smacked around by US and EU. Success cost them more than if they stayed under the rader. Why do you think they don't fight back against the blatently false Apple advertising and horrible marketing tatics? Microsoft needs Apple to have some succes.
MS's biggest mistake was being too successful. Sure you can argue it was bundling and exclusive contracts, etc. But during the same time frame WordPerfect had exclusive bundling contracts with MOST of the OEMs, as Office was too expensive. Yet even though WordPerfect shipped via OEMs more copies of its Suite than Microsoft did, it still was not successful. Crap products don't prevail usually, no matter what the company does.
If Windows really did suck and there were better options, Microsoft would not of had the leverage in the first place. The OSS and OS/2 crowds failed the consumers, not Microsoft. If someone really want to kill Microsoft, they first need to beat them at making an OS better than Windows, and to date the OSS world play mimic and catch up more than anything. Even Vista has WDDM a 5-10 year leap on architectual technology over OS X and Linux, and sadly most OSS people don't even realize it is in Vista.
Am I reading this right? Someone is implying Bill Gates is the Nice guy?! are you forgeting the bad old times during Bill Gates' reign, when every day we would curse and mock our computers because we were forced to use something so horrible
In contrast during these times we could use DR DOS, WP 5.1, Lotus 123, have 1000 printer drivers, take the crap these companies gave us, leave PC level development beyond small developers because of device support for the 1000 printers and displays...
Windows 3.x was the 'good guy' at one point, but somehow this time period is smeared with revisionism.
If this was 1991 again, 99% of the people here would still pick Windows 3.x.
People forget Wordperfect use to cost $600 just for a DOS based non-WYSIWYG wordprocessor, and every printer company had to have a driver for every piece of software on your computer. Let alone any other advance devices.
Everyone here also seems to forget that Novell ruled the PC networking world, and Novell's server pricing was almost 5 times the equivalent server technology today, and it was just a file and print server, virtually no application and no full scale server features.
Microsoft broke these molds, and did so in a way that was rather inexpensive for home users and small businesses to where they could for the first time afford to invest in a PC.
Just bringing a real GUI and consistent driver and development platform to the i286/i386 architecture is enough of a triumph that Microsoft should be cheered. *nix was fragmented as hell, and performed horribly on x86 at the time, especially with the low amounts of RAM users had.
These are the days of Gates putting together stuff for people without the corporate bullshit.
These are the days when you could get development tools and new development tools like VB for almost nothing, when other companies like Novell was charging $4,000 for an SDK that offered limited server side features, or even IBM and OS/2 where $2,500 was your entry level into developing applications. And this wasn't for a fancy IDE, this was the SDK documentation, and a coommand line compiler.
Microsoft broke a lot of ceilings and pricing molds, and sure it pissed these companies off, and you will note they are the first ones to run and cry and testify against Microsoft. But if these companies still had their way, you would be paying $600 for a wordprocessor that was updated every 8 years, or $3,000 for a simple file/print server. And if you were a developer, you would need money as the self or small time developer was locked out of the big boys SDKs and platform development.
Gates isn't black and white, and there is crap he did when he was younger that is questionable, and there is a period when he got his shit together and his company together. There is also the older Gates that gives away more money than the US and Europe combined (sadly), and works hard for economic policy to help poor people and provide aid to places that need it.
If you want to see Gates in more areas of grey - go find some of the summits online that Gates has been a part with regard to charity and econimic assistance. During a recent one, when idiots from the Bush administration talked about 'investment' return on the 'life' of boy or girl in Africa, Gates was livid that prices were put on the lives of people and the 'return of investment' was their consideration. Gates was versed in this mentality and had combated it before, and ripped their heads off for being so monstorous by pricing out the economics of saving lives.
He isn't stupid, tends to do the right thing when it comes to his money, and outside the IT world is highly regarded for not only the use of his money but the peronsal interest he has invested in working to save lives.
Smart people use DMA for shuffling around large blocks of data.
Really? So explain to us mortals how you would move a large set of data being processed by the CPU to the GPU via DMA? Do you even know what DMA is?
I can't believe people are this stupid and race to post crap like this to demonstrate their ignorance.
DMA and 32bit/64bit Diagram for you...
32bit All Around - 32bit OS
/ 32bit DRAM \ 32bit CPU - 32bit Host Bridge - 32Bit Bus
32bit CPU/64bit Bus - 32bit OS
/ 64bit DRAM \ 32bit CPU - 32bit Host Bridge - 32Bit Bus
64bit CPU/64bit Bus - 32bit OS
/ 64bit DRAM \ 64bit CPU - 32bit Host Bridge - 64Bit Bus (note 64bit CPU is restricted to 32bit mode, and 32bit transfer to Host Bridge)
64bit CPU/64bit Bus - 64bit OS
/ 64bit DRAM \ 64bit CPU - 64bit Host Bridge - 64Bit Bus
But hey, maybe you know more about OSes and 32bit/64bit than Microsoft: "Performing direct memory access (DMA) Adding 64-bit addressing support to a driver can significantly improve overall system performance." from http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bit/64bitsystems.mspx
And if case you don't realize how DMA and drivers and a 64bit OS relate, here: "DMA Support Use the PHYSICAL_ADDRESS typedef to access physical addresses. PHYSICAL_ADDRESS is 64 bits long. Treat all 64 bits as a valid physical address. Do not ignore the high-end 32 bits. Use the Windows DMA APIs to ensure correct operation on all platforms. These routines include: Use the new scatter/gather DMA APIs when appropriate.
The only time 64bit Drivers don't benefit the performance of a system is when the device itself only has 32bits, then the 64bit OS has to double bounce/buffer. But this is not so common anymore, and is a tiny performance hit. Also considering Video cards, and all performance related devices of a modern system are not 32bit limited, it would not apply in the example you are responding to.
Now go somewhere else to troll, and maybe listen to your own advice, this can apply to the idiot that agreed with your post as well: It is better to remain quiet and have everyone think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Ya, something as complex as a Ribbon Panel would be beyond XAML/WPF. Are you seriously this stupid?
It would be a few lines of XAML, using built in display intheritance, and even be fully dynamic that could change abilities or appearnce as easily as CSS does for the web. Not only would be it less lines of code, but more functionaly, and could be completely implemented by a UI Graphic Designer instead of a geeky programmer. Heck it could even be 'cute' and animate, or use a 3D metaphor to flip between the panes of the Ribbon.
Here try this, go to a search site like Google, and type in [WPF Office Ribbon Control].
There are already 1,000s of them available and being used, and yet people don't even realize this crap is used in applications they are using today.
Besides, the whole idea behind the XAML/WPF paradigm is that controls and UI is not locked to generic implementations, instead offering both generic control concepts and allowing for control consistency with unlimited UI visual constructs. (Default UI control behaviors with any appearance or animated context added to them.)
What about this is so hard for you? I would type slower if I thought it would help...
The SlashDot Borg Icon for Microsoft needs to be Ballmer not Gates.
In Microsoft there are two sets of crowds, the Gates set and the Ballmer set.
The Gates set is more apt to give stuff to users, do things the right way, and has been the underpinnings of things MS has gotten right or had done right by the IT world as a whole. They tend to take what they do seriously, have pride in Microsoft and want it to continue to succeed for the right reasons, etc.
The Ballmer group are the business minded, make a buck, and screw you type of people. They step on each other, screw over other projects if it gains them something, and could give a crap about the IT world or even Microsoft itself in the long run.
When you see the 4 versions of Vista, this was the result of the Ballmer crowd and OEMs wanting a dirt cheap version. The Gates crowd kept NT as two roles, Desktop and Server, but sadly the Ballmer nuts won that war cause they thought it would make MS an extra buck.
Gates = technology and empowering. Ballmer = dominance and money.
Sadly Gates assumes that because most businesses think like Ballmer that Ballmer is doing the right thing, when Microsoft could be structured more like Gate's foundation and not only help the IT world more, but be just as profitable.
I would love to see Ballmer retire and the idiots that think like him go as well.
What is.NET? Every time I've looked it up I've gotten a different answer
I completely agree that Microsoft and the.NET naming period was insane and poor marketing..NET is several things, from a managed framework to extended technology ideas, to even API sets.
Generally it is an application framework that is rich, managed (apps easier to write and won't suck memory as it cleans itself up), and programming agnostic. So if you write in C, C#, Pascal, VB, Python, even ASP or PHP, you can write.NET based applications that can be stand alone programs, web applications, HTML pre-processors, Games, virtually anything, even Silverlight is a variant of.NET technology. It is also highly extensive, as the Vista APIs were added to.NET seamlessly without even changing the core components of the.NET framework. This gave.NET the ability to do XAML, 3D, etc overnight.
It is kind of complex, so this is a very generic description, and hope it helps a bit..NET has some advanced stuff no one else is doing, and there are also some things that suck like all platform/frameworks.
Wow, you are the first post that is so full of crap.
Your assumption that dropping legacy support is always good should tell everyone you are insane or stupid. If this is true, they OS X should drop that 1970/1980 BSD UNIX API interface, and move forward to an Object based kernel technology like NT. Oh, that would break a lot of *nix and NEXT applications.
Apple is more guilty of legacy backbending in terms of reusing old technolgy. Microsoft at least uses new technology and makes it appear to work like the old technology for the legacy applications. (Vista works so much like XP, people don't even realize that even how the screen is draw and fonts are rendered is new code, but it works flawlessly with old applications.) This is a win for the developers and users on Microsoft's part, and a lose for them on Apple's part.
Truly, at least be consistent if you are going to take a side..
Yes, as I said in the posting to which you're replying. I also said, however, "64-bit userland code can talk to 32-bit kernel code just fine." There might be performance boosts from running in 64-bit mode in the kernel, but it's not as if you'd gain much in the way of application functionality, as opposed to application performance, from having a 64-bit kernel.
Actually having 64bit in the kernel does have massive advantages, from maintaining memory paging pools, tracking space, virtualization tracking, and this isn't even getting into the use of 64bit registers and other aspects that the OS can take advantage of.
Also the 64bit driver aspect is big, even things like HD controllers to chipsets, mainboard drivers, etc can benefit greatly from 64bit bandwidth. (Let alone Video like I mentioned before)
I personally don't disagree that what Apple did with Leopard is probably the right thing for them, it is however very misleading to tell people they are the 'first 64bit OS', or even today's marketing that they are a 64bit OS. Leopard is a 32bit OS that can run 64bit Applications, and without full OS support the thunking for the Applications kills the 64bit application performance advantages except with regard to RAM address space.
Apple should at least try to be somewhat honest, even though their marketing team is far from truth tellers. (Places that don't allow deceptive adverstising like the UK bans Apple Ads almost as fast as Apple puts them out. And 64bit OS is one area they stretch the truth to where most Mac users don't know they are using a 32bit OS even.)
LOL, ya kind of... But it also has virtually NO menus and there are NO menu equivalents for the features on the 'toolbars/ribbon', this is where they step off the cliff beyond toolbars, as there is no Menus as a backup if the UI sucked.
Those API's haven't been proven. Yes they look promising, but until there are a significant set of apps out there using them fully, we won't know if they're any good. And there are signs of that not everything is peachy there:
Vista itself using the XAML aspects of these API throughout the OS, from the WDDM to the printing subsystem. These are very proven technologies, and work beyond what OS X can even do at this point. Just having accelerated 3D development that a graphic designer can create with no coding is quite a testament to these APIs, let alone all the communication and other aspects of these APIs built into Vista and used in Vista. (On OS X to get to the WPF levels of features, you literally have to create it yourself and drop to OpenGL.)
Shocking that microsoft would say their technologies are better than the competition.
Actually video is from reserach team and Xerox (you would think Xerox knows something about printing uh?) Go watch the video instead of slamming what you don't even know.
Blah blah blah. We heard plenty of hype about how the compositing in Vista was so wickedly advanced and it allowed effects that couldn't be done on other platforms. That may or may not be true, I haven't studied it in detail so I'm not going to say. And yet in reality it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Vista doesn't have anything that doesn't exist on other platforms as well, requiring less resources. So even if it is more advanced, the actual benefits are not there.
Do you have a point other than you don't like Vista? Vista is already supassed all Macs ever sold in the history of Apple, and you act like it is unproven crap? Strange...
As for the performance and features of the APIs and concepts introduced in Vista, you should maybe know a bit about them before you assume they are crap.
Hell let's even talk the WDDM in Vista, I can name 10 things it can do that no OTHER OS can do. From a shared 3D Surface texture composer, vector composer, to GPU RAM sharing, to even GPU multi-tasking, and multi-GPU threading...
Just because you don't know what this does, doesn't mean these are crap concepts or a highly advanced development platform that would take OS X to be re-engineered at the kernel level to attempt to implement because of the legacy BSD API kernel interfaces.
And you know this via your crystal ball? Stop making statements you can't back up.
I know this because I have worked in the UI research industry for many years. If you want innovative User Interaction, you look at what Microsoft Research is doing, not Apple.
Armchair usability experts are funny... And an idiot that thinks giving an OS commands via a word list is 'graphical' or innovative is just damn funny.
Of course every windows app is still 32 bit, so your 64bit OS doesn't really make much difference in performance. The only way to really take advantage of 64 bit these days is to run Linux, where ~95% of your apps will be native 64bit (aside from some proprietary apps).
Really every one? Vista x64's applications are all 64bit, additionally 64bit development from Adobe is nothing to sneeze at. Besides, if you actually looked around, you would have noticed that there are more Vista x64bit applications than all the OS X applications ever developed. (And Vista is only a year old. Does this make Mac Zealots cry?)
Oh, and Vista x64 is a full 64bit OS from the ground up... No hybrid, no 32bit layers thunking 64bit code, etc.
From my experience,.NET feels like a cheap knock off of Java. There are nifty things but API issues, missing features, etc. detract from the experience. Overall, I can sum up my feelings onC# and.NET as "I started with Java 8 years ago. Why do I want to learn it all over again?"
I have friend that took this position as well until they stepped back and realized that.NET is really nothing like Java other than the managed framework..NET is also more than just the generic application platform people see it as, since it ties into many areas people don't even realize. For example parts of DirectX9.0c are running on.NET and keeps performance inline with previous version of DirectX. Additionally Silverlight uses.NET but it is NOT.NET if that makes sense.
Mac OS X may not be the most pragmatic route but it is more fun than Windows. If I'm going to study a programming toolset on my own time, it needs to be fun. That's why OS X will draw more enthusiastic programmers than Windows. The only semi-exciting thing.NET has going for it is XNA.
Go try Blend or some of the XAML samples. I would bet good money you would find it more fun, especially if you have a design background, as you will have an application running without code in a couple of minutes and doing things you can't even do on OS X without diving into OpenGL.
XNA is actually one of the more 'boring' aspects of.NET, even though it is an advanced framework for gaming. Coding in XNA is more old school, unlike creating a WPF.NET based application that takes the fun of AI/CorelDraw/Flash/3D Studio and lets you play while creating a real and effective application.
The XAML properties/binding/animation inherent abilities that allows application development without a line of code is an impressive concept and great first step in the emerging world of super rich UI applications.
OS X is hip right now, and that is ok, but in a year or so when multi-GPU and other new hardware concepts start appearing that Vista is already designed for and works with, OS X users will be left behind, Apple needs to think different 'ahead' of time a bit more rather than meeting the current hardware conceptual needs. Microsoft tends to design for things others aren't even considering or thinking about, and they keep kind of quiet about it, because it isn't a current selling point in general terms, and it lets them keep leapfrogging other OSes.
Also Apple's marketing is so good they are evil. They can take a bad thing and make it an awesome selling point. (See my posts above about 64bit for example):)
Several... Should we start with things like Silverlight, or go into the whole WDDM model of Vista that uses XAML from the composer to printing? You are trying to confuse.NET 3.0 applicaitons here, and you are off track.
Mac OS X's low level graphics APIs are called Quartz and OpenGL. Quartz is effectively Display PDF. Display Postscript sadly died in Apple's hands.
Ok, OpenGL is not Apple's any more than it is Microsoft's.
Display PDF is equivalent to GDI+ from Windows 2000, go look it up. Additionally, Apple's implementation of Display PDF even lacks the full specification, which is sadly dated anyway.
In terms of Alpha, transparency, layering, etc, Display PDF ends up rendering to a bitmap on complex drawings instead of being able to natively draw them using the language of Display PDF.
Go to Channel10, and watch the video of WHY XAML/XPS was developed, how it was created to specifically overcome the limitations and conceptual drawing limitations of Display PDF and Full PDF. (This is why Printing Press companies are starting to use XPS, because it can reproduce images at higher quality without having to full rasterize the image as many do now. i.e. A lot of PDF printing is rasterized and is nothing but a container for the bitmap because PDF cannot do the advanced drawing.)
Take a look at Core Image, Core Animation, and Quartz Composer, and even venerable Quicktime to see where MS got the ideas they imitated badly. Then look into Interface Builder nib files which have provided more than XAML capabilities (on the desk top) since October 1988. It took MS 20 years to copy that one.
First Apple's 'Core' crap is nothing like the new API features or architectual changes in Vista. Core is more about using SSE from the CPU and offers very little new features.
You also need to get out of 'fanboi' mode and check your timelines here a bit. You are trying to compare XML document structures with XAML that uses a XML structure. However, how XAML is stored is irrelevant, it is how it processes graphics, allows for advanced drawing capabilities, internal binding, animation properties, and 3D drawing - in addition to providing a new UI paradigm of control contexts. (Again you really don't know what you are talking about here.)
When you can take a text editor and write 10 lines of XML and create a 3D scene with a movie and UI controls on OS X get back to me, until then, Microsoft has set the stage for the next generation of development, especially when it comes to graphic designers becoming part of the design process.
Did you notice that Windows 95 GUI was a rip-off of the NeXTstep GUI but copied poorly. You have your history wrong.
Actually it wasn't, although many GUIs from this time frame shared a lot of ideas. Win95 was a small subset of Microsoft's development of the OS/2 Object based UI that goes back to 1987/1988.
But when I was talking about IBM and Microsoft writing UI guidelines, I was specifically talking about UI specifications and standardized UI guidelines that defined an era of UI for OSes. Go back and look at the UI guideline papers from OS/2 written by IBM and Microsoft in the 80s, and how even Windows stuck to a version of Common UI guidelines. Additionally, as Apple struggled to implement keyboard support, they took from these Common UI guildelines as well.
You are either too young to know this stuff or just too much of a Mac OMG person to even consider Apple didn't invent everything.
I'll ignore the rest of the nonsense. Suffice it to say that OS X runs 32 bit and 64 bit applications side by side. How does that work in 4 bit Windows?
Perfectly, in fact running Vista x64 on this 2005 laptop, and all my 32bit applications run fine, especially my games that get a punch up in performance because Vista has real x64 bit support and REAL 64bit Video drivers, unlike OS X.
Do you really think Vista x64 bit can't run 32bit applications? Are you that out of touch? Holy crap...
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, an "operating system" was not just a kernel
Well you can trick your definitions however you want...
But NT is NOT Win32, and runs without Win32, where COM resides. NT is an OS that functions without Win32, and can even use BSD as a upper level subsystem. (See Vista Unix Subsystem)
Also when you say an OS is not just a kernel or kernel architecture, you might want to have a discussion with a Linux user, because when you argue that a feature of something in KDE is a part of the Linux OS, you are not only wrong, grossly wrong. And effectively, this is what you are doing with trying to pretend COM is a part of NT. COM is Win32/Win64, NOT NT.
You need to learn a bit about OSes and expecially NT before you make any more outlandish and horribly incorrect statements.
Keep these on Front Page...
This is the type of stuff that needs to be kept in the news, as the people who post here often have no understanding of, and the ones that do, have the opportunity to explain this stuff, bringing everyone up to a better level of understanding.
Maybe if we did this, real discussions about the designs and benefits of all technologies could be debated and referenced accruately.. Or even dare say, NT won't have people go ape when someone refers to a good aspect of its kernel design.
The more complex the software releases become, the more complex and insidious the exploits of them become also.
Exactly, this is why the most complex OS in history, Vista...
Oh wait, Vista is NOT affected.
(Sorry to the MS Haters Club, especially considering the obscurity of this exploit, compared to ANY of the last 5-10 major flaws found in FireFox.)
You're kidding, right? Or are we supposed to assume that Windows "core level" does not include COM?
You mean COM? http://www.microsoft.com/com/default.mspx
Then ya, I'm not kidding as COM is NOT in the NT portion of Windows. Just like KDE libraries are not in the core of Linux.
Why is this so hard for people? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
Besides COM is not apparently the 'evil' you think it is either. It was a way to bag and tie several programming concepts together. Strapping OLE to ActiveX and to other communication mechanisms.
If you don't like the IE ActiveX integration, then you have a ligitimate bitch. However, if you think dropping an Excel Chart or Corel Graphic in your Word Processor is bad then you are a bit dense.
On a semi-serious note. Then we need to start the OLPS effort. (One laptop per soldier). It is a serious problem that a soldiers computer connected to the military network (for that webcam conversation with home) could be infected by some iSTD(tm) from a bootlegged DVD that potentially could be an attack vector for the network it is connected to and potentially damage critical services. Start with the OLPC machine and run secure Linux instead. And get WINE running "Call of Duty" or select other games or software for diversions. Have to add the DVD player of course.
If the military's security model is based upon clean and secure clients accessing the network/servers then they are insane...
Besides, the Bush Company doesn't give a flying fek about the soldiers out there. I have too many friends in the military and it is beyond horrid the lack of real 'support' this freaking administration has given them. The tons of denied equipment and armor requests, the delays in providing what they do because a Bush Buddy's company is making the new items and are 6mos or a 1 yr behind, even though they can be bought through other companies/channels. AND ON AND ON AND ON.
So why would they give a rat's ass about their computers?
You don't know what SELinux is, do you?
Actually I do...
But I don't give a flip what freaking OS you are using, or how 'tight' you might think the security is. SELinux with added on restricted access modes is better than vanilla Linux, but it doesn't make it bullet proof. PERIOD.
Until PEOPLE stop writing code, there will always be 'smarter' people that can circumvent any level of genius, and this applies to OSes as well.
I should ask, do you know what SELinux is? It layman terms, it adds some object intelligence and policy levels to the kernel. - Which is how NT works and was designed - so go ahead and argue how much more secure it is in a GENERIC deployment, based on the Win2k and early XP track record...
And comparing the two, technically, NT is more robust for this segmented type of security with its object based token security model.
The problem I see is that Soldiers were using Windows-based PC's,
Well the training games don't run on SELinux, let alone all the other games they play.
Besides, they buy own their own laptops, if the Bush Company has trouble getting them essentials or housing that doesn't electrify troops, do you really think they have the time or money to get them CDs with SELinux or help them install it? And then what? They boot in Windows 99% of the time because they game and use WebCams to see their kids, etc.
So ya, this is Window's fault if you are trying to distory reality in the hate Windows MS World. Autoload is the problem with a targeted OS. Windows IS NOT THE ONLY OS with autoload, let alone the fact that there are ways to spread this crap WITHOUT autoload.
Want a SELinux targeted Virus, just say so, and give some DVD pirate a couple of hours. It is idiots like you that give people false senses of security when running Linux or OSX, and then Security people have to come in a clean up a mess or a security breach.
What OS you run DOES NOT = LESS or MORE security at this point from an OS architectual standpoint unless you have an older OS without security inherently designed at the core level. (Like Win9x, OS/2, System 9 earlier)
So, um... *cough* Does your house straddle some border or something? Was this "alert" a series of words spoken to the air? *chuckle*
This is being blocked on the server side. The IM makes trips through the server, so location is moot... yes?
Are you on medication?
A FRIEND of mine contacted me that LIVES in Belgium. I mainly reside in the US.
As for location, there is no real relavance except some people were purporting it had to do with MSN TV that rolled out in places like Belgium, but NOT in the US.
Also many US people testing it weren't showing the error, this could be based on how the servers are provisioned by location, etc. (There is not just ONE COMPUTER all IM goes through for MS Messenger.)
IM filtering happens on EVERY IM provider's servers, mainly for security from bots, and other little tricks. When a response don't get a 'pass' it defaults to failing, to error on the side of security. This is what was happening... (Imagine MS erroring on the side of security instead of letting a bot take over the network? AOL fans paying attention here?)
It could have been the result of a set of IM filtering servers at Microsoft, it also could have been some bad packets through the backbone heading into those servers. (A freaking rogue router could malform the IM packet enough to trigger something like this.)
So ya, it was an ERROR on the SERVER side, not sure if it was a problem with the server, a bad router out in the internet, or just a squirrel shorting out out a switch in Chicago for all I know... Which is what I pretty much said before, just in simpiler terms.
I admit the grammar I used wasn't perfect, but it was understandible...
So, why did you post a response asking the same thing again?
Here's a cute one:
For quite a while, when you clicked a link from Google Search it rewrote the URL redirect and sent the information to Google...
(Simple MouseDown JavaScript)
It still may do this in Firefox, can't remember if this was totally removed after a few consumer group complaints or not. IE doesn't respect this type of redirect, and can't test at the moment.
Earlier today some youtube links were being blocked.
Friend in Belgium alerted me to the issue, as trying to send a link across the room to her friend would even fail.
After some investigation...
It looks like it was a temporary error in the server response, so instead of saying yes, it would just deny the link out of default, suspecting an attack or a bot.
The server responses are now working correctly and so are the links.
Back to your tinfoil and OFFICIAL MS IS ALWAYS EVIL CLUB of the insane...
PS - How come when Google/Firefox re-routes or blocks URLs, (in error or for questionable reasonss) it never makes it to the front of SlashDot?
Get over MS, they dumped you or you them, they are your ex girlfriend, you have a new girlfirend(OS), quit stalking her... (Wait, bad analogy in a geek forum.)
Star Wars Episode III screwed you, get over it... (Better analogy?)
Apple systems already share some properties with gaming consoles, namely the harware homogeny of Apple systems.
While to me an annoyance, this standardization might actually work in Apple's favor when trying to woo game makers, as it could act to simplify development.
Apple controlled does NOT equal consistency...
Look at the various models you can buy now, there are several classes of Video Cards, CPUs and that alone is enough to make it a mess.
When you add in the messy nature of the Apple Driver model in OS X, it becames even scarier for games makers. (Apple's desing of working around the monolithic nature of the BSD interface when creating the hybrid OS X driver model has a lot of trade offs that are troublesome, and require kernel level reworking to get the performance up to the level to compete with NT in gaming.)
Mac users expect to buy a Mac and have their Mac software work well. Games running on a low end Video card Mac will PO users faster than anything, as they don't all get the whole 'specifications' of the hardware.
Just with shoving WDDM into Vista, Microsoft has moved forward in creating a consistent gaming environment, and they already own the gaming world because of the past consistency, even though it is has been considerably more inconsistent than a console.
DX10 and especially 10.1 with the WDDM model ensure than games even render consistently with consistent performance levels, even though games on the shelves don't yet reflect the Vista only and forward crowd. (DX10 won't even have performance benefits until games are running on a full DX10 engine, instead of extending textures past DX9.0c, adding in new shadow modeling and calling it DX10, as the engine is still set up for the DX9.0 optimizations and design model. When you see a game on the shelf that says DX10 and Vista Only the quality and performance of the game will reflect what DX10 and 10.1 is bringing when it 'truly' gets here.)
Apple already tried to push into gaming with Leopard and it fell flat on developer's ears with the updated OpenGL support, that was already showing some age in the OpenGL/Graphics world, and the Apple implementation is less than stellar.
Besides, you can do a simple search and find 1,000s of posts like this already, and Developers are not too happy about these types of responses. (Even the initial Vista backlash on gaming pushed developers to abandon DX10 only titles for an additional year until Vista's drivers caught up to XP. And getting OS X drivers to the same level of gaming performance would be a nightmare with NVidia/ATI/Apple all fighting.)
http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion/index.php?t41615.html
http://zuneinsider.com/archive/2008/05/07/just-so-no-one-gets-the-wrong-idea.aspx
Other sites have all had retractions, dispelled the FUD with other facts, and yet on SlashDot the conversation still goes on like this is true?
Next week monkeys from Mars, and we can discuss it for a whole month before anyone notices it IS NOT REAL...
I think you assume I love Microsoft, which by looking back at my defensive post I can understand why.
You are right, this is not a black and white issue.
I do still contest MS got more of a raw deal out of the anti-trust rulings than they should have. Netscape and Boyd having 'private' meetings all the time, to the companies that screamed the loudest, being the ones that benefited directly from Microsoft being railed in, instead of having to directly compete with them.
I have probably read more on this subject than the average SlashDotter, and was in the middle of portions of it at various points. Even Mark Andersaon (Netscape Dude) later publically admitted that Microsoft got railroaded, and it was more because of their success instead of how they leveraged it.
Some of things people like to repeat about MS's Evils are from a few rouge people and groups rather than a consistent effort. It just looked worse when Gates and others would get angry with a competitor for screwing with MS or even screwing with a customer base.
If you read through the Gates and others emails, you will find they were more irrate at other companies screwing the IT industry or customers more than they were ever angry about them screwing MS. This is something users should have respect for Gates and other, instead of the spin that presents this as the 'get even' crowd.
Nobody is all good or all evil, and the majority of the anti-MS fud tends to try to paint an evil picture that just doesn't fully fit.
Take Care.
It came from obtaining and abusing monopoly power, and he still shows no signs of wanting Microsoft to stop their abuses.
Go read the ruling, they really didn't abuse monopoly powers, and even the EU findings were based on 'potential monopoly predatory' practices.
The only monopoly 'powers' MS employeed where NO different than the exclusive contracts used by IBM, WordPerfect, etc at the SAME time for bundling software. Microsoft became the 99% choice for OEM and then became a big target.
(Remember I was in the OEM business at this time.)
Also Gates pledged to give away his money long before he was nearly as weathly as he is today. Go back to old interviews when he was only marginally rich.
He's had the chance, for a very, very long time now, to play nice with open standards, to stop playing dirty tricks against open source, to stop abusing software patents, and to stop fucking with projects like OLPC because they didn't ship Windows
They play well with standards, considering they have written a large chunk of the standards people use. From XHTML to creating C# and releasing them to outside MS control. Strange how people love to use their stuff, but doesn't get it is their stuff.
Software patents? MS has NEVER pursued a patent claim against anyone, ever. They only time they have used patents is to defend themselves from patent whores. (even the famouse WMA suit from the late 90s wasn't about patent laws, it was about reverse engineering and using source code the person legally knew they had no rights to.)
The OLPC? Um, go read the articles on the project, and the creators. The UI and applications built on the *nix OS failed, they failed horribly in comparison to some simple prototype UI applications put together in a matter of a few days for Windows. Microsoft's hand in this is they provide a better and faster development platform.
Right now MS is in a catch 22, because of FUD like you spouting and believe. If they pull back from the market it screws with customers and businesses as there is nothing to replace them, and if they are overly agressive in providing features, they get smacked around by US and EU. Success cost them more than if they stayed under the rader. Why do you think they don't fight back against the blatently false Apple advertising and horrible marketing tatics? Microsoft needs Apple to have some succes.
MS's biggest mistake was being too successful. Sure you can argue it was bundling and exclusive contracts, etc. But during the same time frame WordPerfect had exclusive bundling contracts with MOST of the OEMs, as Office was too expensive. Yet even though WordPerfect shipped via OEMs more copies of its Suite than Microsoft did, it still was not successful. Crap products don't prevail usually, no matter what the company does.
If Windows really did suck and there were better options, Microsoft would not of had the leverage in the first place. The OSS and OS/2 crowds failed the consumers, not Microsoft. If someone really want to kill Microsoft, they first need to beat them at making an OS better than Windows, and to date the OSS world play mimic and catch up more than anything. Even Vista has WDDM a 5-10 year leap on architectual technology over OS X and Linux, and sadly most OSS people don't even realize it is in Vista.
Am I reading this right? Someone is implying Bill Gates is the Nice guy?! are you forgeting the bad old times during Bill Gates' reign, when every day we would curse and mock our computers because we were forced to use something so horrible
In contrast during these times we could use DR DOS, WP 5.1, Lotus 123, have 1000 printer drivers, take the crap these companies gave us, leave PC level development beyond small developers because of device support for the 1000 printers and displays...
Windows 3.x was the 'good guy' at one point, but somehow this time period is smeared with revisionism.
If this was 1991 again, 99% of the people here would still pick Windows 3.x.
People forget Wordperfect use to cost $600 just for a DOS based non-WYSIWYG wordprocessor, and every printer company had to have a driver for every piece of software on your computer. Let alone any other advance devices.
Everyone here also seems to forget that Novell ruled the PC networking world, and Novell's server pricing was almost 5 times the equivalent server technology today, and it was just a file and print server, virtually no application and no full scale server features.
Microsoft broke these molds, and did so in a way that was rather inexpensive for home users and small businesses to where they could for the first time afford to invest in a PC.
Just bringing a real GUI and consistent driver and development platform to the i286/i386 architecture is enough of a triumph that Microsoft should be cheered. *nix was fragmented as hell, and performed horribly on x86 at the time, especially with the low amounts of RAM users had.
These are the days of Gates putting together stuff for people without the corporate bullshit.
These are the days when you could get development tools and new development tools like VB for almost nothing, when other companies like Novell was charging $4,000 for an SDK that offered limited server side features, or even IBM and OS/2 where $2,500 was your entry level into developing applications. And this wasn't for a fancy IDE, this was the SDK documentation, and a coommand line compiler.
Microsoft broke a lot of ceilings and pricing molds, and sure it pissed these companies off, and you will note they are the first ones to run and cry and testify against Microsoft. But if these companies still had their way, you would be paying $600 for a wordprocessor that was updated every 8 years, or $3,000 for a simple file/print server. And if you were a developer, you would need money as the self or small time developer was locked out of the big boys SDKs and platform development.
Gates isn't black and white, and there is crap he did when he was younger that is questionable, and there is a period when he got his shit together and his company together. There is also the older Gates that gives away more money than the US and Europe combined (sadly), and works hard for economic policy to help poor people and provide aid to places that need it.
If you want to see Gates in more areas of grey - go find some of the summits online that Gates has been a part with regard to charity and econimic assistance. During a recent one, when idiots from the Bush administration talked about 'investment' return on the 'life' of boy or girl in Africa, Gates was livid that prices were put on the lives of people and the 'return of investment' was their consideration. Gates was versed in this mentality and had combated it before, and ripped their heads off for being so monstorous by pricing out the economics of saving lives.
He isn't stupid, tends to do the right thing when it comes to his money, and outside the IT world is highly regarded for not only the use of his money but the peronsal interest he has invested in working to save lives.
Smart people use DMA for shuffling around large blocks of data.
Really? So explain to us mortals how you would move a large set of data being processed by the CPU to the GPU via DMA? Do you even know what DMA is?
I can't believe people are this stupid and race to post crap like this to demonstrate their ignorance.
DMA and 32bit/64bit Diagram for you...
32bit All Around - 32bit OS
/ 32bit DRAM \
32bit CPU - 32bit Host Bridge - 32Bit Bus
32bit CPU/64bit Bus - 32bit OS
/ 64bit DRAM \
32bit CPU - 32bit Host Bridge - 32Bit Bus
64bit CPU/64bit Bus - 32bit OS
/ 64bit DRAM \
64bit CPU - 32bit Host Bridge - 64Bit Bus
(note 64bit CPU is restricted to 32bit mode, and 32bit transfer to Host Bridge)
64bit CPU/64bit Bus - 64bit OS
/ 64bit DRAM \
64bit CPU - 64bit Host Bridge - 64Bit Bus
But hey, maybe you know more about OSes and 32bit/64bit than Microsoft:
"Performing direct memory access (DMA)
Adding 64-bit addressing support to a driver can significantly improve overall system performance." from http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/64bit/64bitsystems.mspx
And if case you don't realize how DMA and drivers and a 64bit OS relate, here:
"DMA Support
Use the PHYSICAL_ADDRESS typedef to access physical addresses. PHYSICAL_ADDRESS is 64 bits long.
Treat all 64 bits as a valid physical address. Do not ignore the high-end 32 bits.
Use the Windows DMA APIs to ensure correct operation on all platforms. These routines include: Use the new scatter/gather DMA APIs when appropriate.
Significantly improve performance by using devices with 64-bit addressing capability.
" from http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/64bit_chklist.mspx
The only time 64bit Drivers don't benefit the performance of a system is when the device itself only has 32bits, then the 64bit OS has to double bounce/buffer. But this is not so common anymore, and is a tiny performance hit. Also considering Video cards, and all performance related devices of a modern system are not 32bit limited, it would not apply in the example you are responding to.
Now go somewhere else to troll, and maybe listen to your own advice, this can apply to the idiot that agreed with your post as well:
It is better to remain quiet and have everyone think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
How do I do a Ribbon with XAML by the way?
Ya, something as complex as a Ribbon Panel would be beyond XAML/WPF. Are you seriously this stupid?
It would be a few lines of XAML, using built in display intheritance, and even be fully dynamic that could change abilities or appearnce as easily as CSS does for the web. Not only would be it less lines of code, but more functionaly, and could be completely implemented by a UI Graphic Designer instead of a geeky programmer. Heck it could even be 'cute' and animate, or use a 3D metaphor to flip between the panes of the Ribbon.
Here try this, go to a search site like Google, and type in [WPF Office Ribbon Control].
There are already 1,000s of them available and being used, and yet people don't even realize this crap is used in applications they are using today.
Besides, the whole idea behind the XAML/WPF paradigm is that controls and UI is not locked to generic implementations, instead offering both generic control concepts and allowing for control consistency with unlimited UI visual constructs. (Default UI control behaviors with any appearance or animated context added to them.)
What about this is so hard for you? I would type slower if I thought it would help...
The SlashDot Borg Icon for Microsoft needs to be Ballmer not Gates.
In Microsoft there are two sets of crowds, the Gates set and the Ballmer set.
The Gates set is more apt to give stuff to users, do things the right way, and has been the underpinnings of things MS has gotten right or had done right by the IT world as a whole. They tend to take what they do seriously, have pride in Microsoft and want it to continue to succeed for the right reasons, etc.
The Ballmer group are the business minded, make a buck, and screw you type of people. They step on each other, screw over other projects if it gains them something, and could give a crap about the IT world or even Microsoft itself in the long run.
When you see the 4 versions of Vista, this was the result of the Ballmer crowd and OEMs wanting a dirt cheap version. The Gates crowd kept NT as two roles, Desktop and Server, but sadly the Ballmer nuts won that war cause they thought it would make MS an extra buck.
Gates = technology and empowering.
Ballmer = dominance and money.
Sadly Gates assumes that because most businesses think like Ballmer that Ballmer is doing the right thing, when Microsoft could be structured more like Gate's foundation and not only help the IT world more, but be just as profitable.
I would love to see Ballmer retire and the idiots that think like him go as well.
What is .NET? Every time I've looked it up I've gotten a different answer
.NET naming period was insane and poor marketing. .NET is several things, from a managed framework to extended technology ideas, to even API sets.
.NET based applications that can be stand alone programs, web applications, HTML pre-processors, Games, virtually anything, even Silverlight is a variant of .NET technology. It is also highly extensive, as the Vista APIs were added to .NET seamlessly without even changing the core components of the .NET framework. This gave .NET the ability to do XAML, 3D, etc overnight.
.NET has some advanced stuff no one else is doing, and there are also some things that suck like all platform/frameworks.
I completely agree that Microsoft and the
Generally it is an application framework that is rich, managed (apps easier to write and won't suck memory as it cleans itself up), and programming agnostic. So if you write in C, C#, Pascal, VB, Python, even ASP or PHP, you can write
It is kind of complex, so this is a very generic description, and hope it helps a bit.
Wow, you are the first post that is so full of crap.
Your assumption that dropping legacy support is always good should tell everyone you are insane or stupid. If this is true, they OS X should drop that 1970/1980 BSD UNIX API interface, and move forward to an Object based kernel technology like NT. Oh, that would break a lot of *nix and NEXT applications.
Apple is more guilty of legacy backbending in terms of reusing old technolgy. Microsoft at least uses new technology and makes it appear to work like the old technology for the legacy applications. (Vista works so much like XP, people don't even realize that even how the screen is draw and fonts are rendered is new code, but it works flawlessly with old applications.) This is a win for the developers and users on Microsoft's part, and a lose for them on Apple's part.
Truly, at least be consistent if you are going to take a side..
Yes, as I said in the posting to which you're replying. I also said, however, "64-bit userland code can talk to 32-bit kernel code just fine." There might be performance boosts from running in 64-bit mode in the kernel, but it's not as if you'd gain much in the way of application functionality, as opposed to application performance, from having a 64-bit kernel.
Actually having 64bit in the kernel does have massive advantages, from maintaining memory paging pools, tracking space, virtualization tracking, and this isn't even getting into the use of 64bit registers and other aspects that the OS can take advantage of.
Also the 64bit driver aspect is big, even things like HD controllers to chipsets, mainboard drivers, etc can benefit greatly from 64bit bandwidth. (Let alone Video like I mentioned before)
I personally don't disagree that what Apple did with Leopard is probably the right thing for them, it is however very misleading to tell people they are the 'first 64bit OS', or even today's marketing that they are a 64bit OS. Leopard is a 32bit OS that can run 64bit Applications, and without full OS support the thunking for the Applications kills the 64bit application performance advantages except with regard to RAM address space.
Apple should at least try to be somewhat honest, even though their marketing team is far from truth tellers. (Places that don't allow deceptive adverstising like the UK bans Apple Ads almost as fast as Apple puts them out. And 64bit OS is one area they stretch the truth to where most Mac users don't know they are using a 32bit OS even.)
It's a toolbar, dude. A toolbar.
LOL, ya kind of... But it also has virtually NO menus and there are NO menu equivalents for the features on the 'toolbars/ribbon', this is where they step off the cliff beyond toolbars, as there is no Menus as a backup if the UI sucked.
Those API's haven't been proven. Yes they look promising, but until there are a significant set of apps out there using them fully, we won't know if they're any good. And there are signs of that not everything is peachy there:
Vista itself using the XAML aspects of these API throughout the OS, from the WDDM to the printing subsystem. These are very proven technologies, and work beyond what OS X can even do at this point. Just having accelerated 3D development that a graphic designer can create with no coding is quite a testament to these APIs, let alone all the communication and other aspects of these APIs built into Vista and used in Vista. (On OS X to get to the WPF levels of features, you literally have to create it yourself and drop to OpenGL.)
Shocking that microsoft would say their technologies are better than the competition.
Actually video is from reserach team and Xerox (you would think Xerox knows something about printing uh?) Go watch the video instead of slamming what you don't even know.
Blah blah blah. We heard plenty of hype about how the compositing in Vista was so wickedly advanced and it allowed effects that couldn't be done on other platforms. That may or may not be true, I haven't studied it in detail so I'm not going to say. And yet in reality it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Vista doesn't have anything that doesn't exist on other platforms as well, requiring less resources. So even if it is more advanced, the actual benefits are not there.
Do you have a point other than you don't like Vista? Vista is already supassed all Macs ever sold in the history of Apple, and you act like it is unproven crap? Strange...
As for the performance and features of the APIs and concepts introduced in Vista, you should maybe know a bit about them before you assume they are crap.
Hell let's even talk the WDDM in Vista, I can name 10 things it can do that no OTHER OS can do. From a shared 3D Surface texture composer, vector composer, to GPU RAM sharing, to even GPU multi-tasking, and multi-GPU threading...
Just because you don't know what this does, doesn't mean these are crap concepts or a highly advanced development platform that would take OS X to be re-engineered at the kernel level to attempt to implement because of the legacy BSD API kernel interfaces.
And you know this via your crystal ball? Stop making statements you can't back up.
I know this because I have worked in the UI research industry for many years. If you want innovative User Interaction, you look at what Microsoft Research is doing, not Apple.
Armchair usability experts are funny...
And an idiot that thinks giving an OS commands via a word list is 'graphical' or innovative is just damn funny.
Of course every windows app is still 32 bit, so your 64bit OS doesn't really make much difference in performance. The only way to really take advantage of 64 bit these days is to run Linux, where ~95% of your apps will be native 64bit (aside from some proprietary apps).
Really every one? Vista x64's applications are all 64bit, additionally 64bit development from Adobe is nothing to sneeze at. Besides, if you actually looked around, you would have noticed that there are more Vista x64bit applications than all the OS X applications ever developed. (And Vista is only a year old. Does this make Mac Zealots cry?)
Oh, and Vista x64 is a full 64bit OS from the ground up... No hybrid, no 32bit layers thunking 64bit code, etc.
From my experience, .NET feels like a cheap knock off of Java. There are nifty things but API issues, missing features, etc. detract from the experience. Overall, I can sum up my feelings onC# and .NET as "I started with Java 8 years ago. Why do I want to learn it all over again?"
.NET is really nothing like Java other than the managed framework. .NET is also more than just the generic application platform people see it as, since it ties into many areas people don't even realize. For example parts of DirectX9.0c are running on .NET and keeps performance inline with previous version of DirectX. Additionally Silverlight uses .NET but it is NOT .NET if that makes sense.
.NET has going for it is XNA.
.NET, even though it is an advanced framework for gaming. Coding in XNA is more old school, unlike creating a WPF.NET based application that takes the fun of AI/CorelDraw/Flash/3D Studio and lets you play while creating a real and effective application.
:)
I have friend that took this position as well until they stepped back and realized that
Mac OS X may not be the most pragmatic route but it is more fun than Windows. If I'm going to study a programming toolset on my own time, it needs to be fun. That's why OS X will draw more enthusiastic programmers than Windows. The only semi-exciting thing
Go try Blend or some of the XAML samples. I would bet good money you would find it more fun, especially if you have a design background, as you will have an application running without code in a couple of minutes and doing things you can't even do on OS X without diving into OpenGL.
XNA is actually one of the more 'boring' aspects of
The XAML properties/binding/animation inherent abilities that allows application development without a line of code is an impressive concept and great first step in the emerging world of super rich UI applications.
OS X is hip right now, and that is ok, but in a year or so when multi-GPU and other new hardware concepts start appearing that Vista is already designed for and works with, OS X users will be left behind, Apple needs to think different 'ahead' of time a bit more rather than meeting the current hardware conceptual needs. Microsoft tends to design for things others aren't even considering or thinking about, and they keep kind of quiet about it, because it isn't a current selling point in general terms, and it lets them keep leapfrogging other OSes.
Also Apple's marketing is so good they are evil. They can take a bad thing and make it an awesome selling point. (See my posts above about 64bit for example)
OK, how may Microsoft applications use WPF/WCF ?
.NET 3.0 applicaitons here, and you are off track.
Several... Should we start with things like Silverlight, or go into the whole WDDM model of Vista that uses XAML from the composer to printing? You are trying to confuse
Mac OS X's low level graphics APIs are called Quartz and OpenGL. Quartz is effectively Display PDF. Display Postscript sadly died in Apple's hands.
Ok, OpenGL is not Apple's any more than it is Microsoft's.
Display PDF is equivalent to GDI+ from Windows 2000, go look it up. Additionally, Apple's implementation of Display PDF even lacks the full specification, which is sadly dated anyway.
In terms of Alpha, transparency, layering, etc, Display PDF ends up rendering to a bitmap on complex drawings instead of being able to natively draw them using the language of Display PDF.
Go to Channel10, and watch the video of WHY XAML/XPS was developed, how it was created to specifically overcome the limitations and conceptual drawing limitations of Display PDF and Full PDF. (This is why Printing Press companies are starting to use XPS, because it can reproduce images at higher quality without having to full rasterize the image as many do now. i.e. A lot of PDF printing is rasterized and is nothing but a container for the bitmap because PDF cannot do the advanced drawing.)
Take a look at Core Image, Core Animation, and Quartz Composer, and even venerable Quicktime to see where MS got the ideas they imitated badly. Then look into Interface Builder nib files which have provided more than XAML capabilities (on the desk top) since October 1988. It took MS 20 years to copy that one.
First Apple's 'Core' crap is nothing like the new API features or architectual changes in Vista. Core is more about using SSE from the CPU and offers very little new features.
You also need to get out of 'fanboi' mode and check your timelines here a bit. You are trying to compare XML document structures with XAML that uses a XML structure. However, how XAML is stored is irrelevant, it is how it processes graphics, allows for advanced drawing capabilities, internal binding, animation properties, and 3D drawing - in addition to providing a new UI paradigm of control contexts. (Again you really don't know what you are talking about here.)
When you can take a text editor and write 10 lines of XML and create a 3D scene with a movie and UI controls on OS X get back to me, until then, Microsoft has set the stage for the next generation of development, especially when it comes to graphic designers becoming part of the design process.
Did you notice that Windows 95 GUI was a rip-off of the NeXTstep GUI but copied poorly. You have your history wrong.
Actually it wasn't, although many GUIs from this time frame shared a lot of ideas. Win95 was a small subset of Microsoft's development of the OS/2 Object based UI that goes back to 1987/1988.
But when I was talking about IBM and Microsoft writing UI guidelines, I was specifically talking about UI specifications and standardized UI guidelines that defined an era of UI for OSes. Go back and look at the UI guideline papers from OS/2 written by IBM and Microsoft in the 80s, and how even Windows stuck to a version of Common UI guidelines. Additionally, as Apple struggled to implement keyboard support, they took from these Common UI guildelines as well.
You are either too young to know this stuff or just too much of a Mac OMG person to even consider Apple didn't invent everything.
I'll ignore the rest of the nonsense. Suffice it to say that OS X runs 32 bit and 64 bit applications side by side. How does that work in 4 bit Windows?
Perfectly, in fact running Vista x64 on this 2005 laptop, and all my 32bit applications run fine, especially my games that get a punch up in performance because Vista has real x64 bit support and REAL 64bit Video drivers, unlike OS X.
Do you really think Vista x64 bit can't run 32bit applications? Are you that out of touch? Holy crap...