Define "throughout the OS". In Leopard, almost all the libraries come in 32-bit and 64-bit forms; it's just the kernel and a lot of executables that come with the OS that are 32-bit only. 64-bit userland code can talk to 32-bit kernel code just fine.
Leopard's idea of 64bit is providing a 64bit version of Cocoa for applicaiton development. Like Tiger there are a few OS level 64bit pieces for addressing more RAM than 32bit, but the majority of the OS kernel itself is 32bit still. (Carbon was supposed to be moved to 64bit as well, but Apple gave up on it.)
So this is why you only get 32bit drivers with OS X, because that is what the OS is. Apple tries to use this as a marketing tool, from their own web site:
"Leopard is the first universal operating system to seamlessly support both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. There's no need to upgrade drivers, and you can even stick with your existing printers, storage devices, and PCI Express cards." http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/leopard.html
However, because you there are areas where 64bits at the OS level DOES help that Apple is not using, it a hybrid at best and a 32bit OS with 64bit application support and a few kernel level *nix 64bit flags to be more generic.
For example, one area where Apple would benefit from full 64bits would be in Video Drivers, as shoving data to GPUs in 64bit chunks is much more efficient and faster. (There are other areas, that can be seen if you contrast Vista x64 vs Vista x32, as Vistax64 with 2GB of RAM runs even 32bit applications 5-15% faster, especially gaming applications because of the 64bit driver support.)
Unlike a lot of fanbois would like people to believe 64bit is not slower, even if it is allocating or shoving twice the bits around, as the other benefits of the 64bit CPUs of today more than make up for it, just like the process scheduler in the 386 was worth the 16-32bit jump, in addition to additional registers less internal tracking and paging, etc.
Ok, I'm not a developer, and haven't studied GUI design to any degree of expertise - but what is the problem with menus?
Menus were implemented because there was no 'good' graphical UI concept at the time to provide a large amount of features in the screen real estate available. Some ideas were thrown around, but Apple and others came back to Menus as they were 'easy' even though they break the GRAPHICAL UI concepts.
Just like icons, it is easier for the human mind to remember a small picture than the text associated with it.
Toolbars were a first step in assiting with the problems of menus, by providing some of the features and associating graphical representations for these features. Toolbars were a good step forward as screen real estate and computing power allowed for them.
The ideal metaphor though is to remove as much of the 'word lists/menus' as you can from an application. An application should be 'intelligent' enough to know more of what you are doing and not rely on you to click through a series of words to 'speak to it' as one might put it.
Microsoft has worked a long time on replacement concepts for Menus, from their first toolbar implementations to finally moving up the 'audience' so to speak by ripping out as many menus as they can from Vista and Office 2007. There are still menus in Vista, but they are hidden by default (although hitting the ALT key makes them magically appear), and there are very few features in the Menus that are not available in the graphical representation of the application or the UI in Vista.
Vista's successor will even be smarter and require fewer menus as contextual toolbar concepts we have now will move to being more intelligently assistive and the OS or applications will start helping and knowing instead of waiting for specific commands. It will also move more of the UI concepts developed from the Office 2007 research and even the other GUI research teams at Microsoft. (Look at the XBox 360 Blade interface, it is quite good and simplistic for what it offers, and is from another area of Microsoft Research.)
One day you will look back at Menu based GUIs and go, OMG that is so outdated, just like looking at a Command Line/DOS application in comparison to usability of modern applications.
In the near future the OS and applications will be smarter and KNOW what you are doing and assist instead of having to be guided through a series of commands. The computing power is here to do this, and it is time for the GUI metaphor to move forward.
So far Microsoft is on the right track, and they for the last several years have been the ones pushing the GUI and UI forward. You don't see Microsoft imitating OS X or KDE, it is more them imitating Microsoft. (Even iTunes' interface is based off of a Longhorn Preview of Windows Media Player that became WMP11 - including the integrated search, library features, etc.) MS does spend more on testing and UI research than any company out there by several factors, and there are several competing research teams so they don't get stuck in one conceptual rut. There is even a team that is focusing on removing the concept of Windowed applications and the pros and cons, even if nothing from it ever sees the light of day.
So, ya, menus are not a GUI element, but became one. They are command word list concept used in GUIs because of the lack of other solutions that fit the hardware of the time, as well as the thinking of the time.
So UI change is a product of technology and conversion of thinking. The last one being the hardest.
Even early versions of Finder and Windows FileManager worked like a visual command line folder tree, and today you can still see these trees in OS X and Vista on the left hand pane if you turn it on. But it is there for people that haven't moved on to the newer way of thinking, it is not there because it is a good method or even efficient.
And Ironically, OS X back stepped and implemented an 'explorer' type view for Finder, when they shou
No concept of what.NET really is, misleading users.
No mention or acknowledgement of WPF/WCF or the new APIs that are and 'set' to replace Win32/Win64
Completely misleads users about API concepts and features of OS X compared to Windows, for example XAML/XPS concepts compared to Display Postscript is a massive difference in display technologies that are part of the new Windows API sets, that Carbon or Cocoa cannot provide to developers. (Go to Channel 10 and watch videos on why XAML/XPS was created and how it trumps every aspect of other display/print technologies. - Let alone how it is an integrated aspect of the video API system in Vista, making programming freaky simple for advanced features and new UI platforms like 3D.)
The author then jumps into UI consistency with dialog wording, and doesn't mention OS Xs lack of keyboard support, consistency of delete/backspace or 100 other things more important than dialog wording which is also NOT PART of Win32 inherently.
Author doesn't realize Microsoft and IBM wrote most of the GUI and UI guidelines that OS X even uses today.
Office 2007 is a new direction in GUI paradigms, and is WELL accepted in the business world. Not something to make fun of when OS X is still using old MENU (textual word lists) concepts. Menus were a hack to make features available in a GUI context, but are a draw back to non-graphical UIs. Vista and Office 2007 moving away from word lists (MENUS) is the right direction, too bad Apple isn't innovating on UI and just keeps throwing the same UI slop at users and telling them it is good. (And don't even mention multi-touch UI, go watch the freaking TED conferences Apple ripped the ideas off from several years ago, let alone the MS multi-touch work that also preceded the TED conference. MS Research has and is doing more with UI than any other think tank in the world.)
Author also totally ignores Adobe not providing any 64bit support for OS X because Apple dropped the ball on Carbon x64bit support that has been promised forever from Apple. In contrast 64bit development on Windows in both Win32/Win64 and.NET/WPF is easy, transparent and has clear and easy paths for migration. (Let alone OS X is still a hybrid 64bit OS, using 32bit code throughout the OS, unlike Vista x64)
So for 'real developers' like Adobe (OS X) is a failure, and has failed paths. Which means if you want a 64bit version of Adobe products, you will have to move to Windows for the peformance and benefits. Oh, how brilliant Apple and OS X is...
This brings up the horrid Carbon/Cocoa platforms and migration paths, and even then not even touching on the development tool constrast between the two platforms.
I challenge Mr. Bright to a real debate on the topics covered, maybe he can try to justify some of his misleading and outrageous claims.
SO you are arguing the *linux* innovation is an Apple rip off. Fine, I'll go with that too, but this still holds my freaking point, it is NOT NEW!!!
GOT IT, Ass-masticator?
PS Comparing the kernel shufflings of a monitored process of GS/OS to something hotpatching portions of a kernel like NT is like comparing your Green Machine you had when you were three to your Hummer and claiming the technology is the same and fits the example.
It's still going to be than the real thing. Show me how fast Vista runs Crysis on a fast 256MB/512MB card compared to a fast 1GB card at high res with AA on.
Of course more VRAM gives games more room and Vista more room, who said it didn't? AA isn't always the best example though, as most implementations use selective AA, instead of full image sub rendering that requires large chunks of RAM.
(PS Crysis isn't a full DX10 game. When the game says DX10 only, then you will see the performance benefits of DX10, for things like 16X Full Image AA at resolutions higher than 1920x1200.)
And that virtual video RAM seems to mean that if you have 2GB of real RAM, Vista takes 1GB for the O/S, and 512-1GB for the vidcard and that leaves you with nothing much left over for the game.
Vista takes 1GB for the OS? Are you high or just painfully misinformed? Vista manages RAM between the OS/Applications/VRAM very well, and if the game is requesting more system RAM, Vista gives it up, no questions asked. You act like Vista is choking applications to do what it does. Wrong.
Also Vista don't chunk 1GB for the OS, and when running games virtually anything non-essential is paged out if necessary as the game/application requests RAM. Go read up on NT memory management, then read the Vista kernel additions on memory prioritization and additional scheduling.
As long as the O/S is still 32bit you'll also have the problem of only 4GB of easily addressable space. So no point installing 4GB of system RAM on your board. You might as well stick to 2 or 3GB system RAM and spend the extra money on a video card with real video RAM.
Again, who SAID not to buy a video card with the most VRAM you can? This is NOT THE POINT, and NOT THE SUBJECT HERE. Vista's ability to virtualize VRAM, is like OSes virtualizing System RAM to a pagefile. It is nice to have if needed, as the applications don't fail with a lack of memory. The only difference here is Vista's VRAM virtualization performance (if used) is very tiny, as it writes directly to the GPU via AGP/PCI Express concepts.
So it's a good idea to ignore that crap till 64 bit O/Ses become mainstream.
Um, most everyone I know runs Vista x64. It has more driver support than Windows XP 32bit, and is a virtual carbon copy of x32 Vista unlike x64 XP where several features were never added to the x64 version.
And this list of people includes everyone from large clients deploying Vista x64 on desktops to any serious gamer or 'tech minded' home user.
Do you not realize that there are more copies of Vista x64 running than all versions of Linux and OS X combined? (This isn't even touching x32 Vista.) So I would make a good argument that x64 Vista is a mainstream OS. Also unlike OS X that still has hybrid 32bit aspects, Vista x64 is a ground up 64bit OS, with all aspects of the WinXX subsystem being 64bit as well.
Also if you happen to google Vista x64, it outperforms even XP 32bit easily, and is the OS of choise for gamers, even running 32bit applications on the OS, as the 64bit OS, that can use the 64bit registers, address space, and driver memory transfers does out perform the x32bit version of Vista, even with 32bit applications.
Lastly, I don't seem to have problems running multiple 3D apps at the same time on Win2K. So what's the big deal?
Really? Ok, open 2, 3, or even 5 3D applications in a Window, so they are running side by side concurrently. Make sure a couple are hard hitting games, heck even Crysis. How well does that work for you? And use your choice of 3D technology, DirectX or OpenGL... Heck even set 2 of the 3D applications to 50% transparency using the GDI+ layers introduced in Win2K. How is performance now?
On any OS prior to Vista, 3D applications will starve for GPU time and GPU RAM. PERIOD. OpenGL TRIES to cooperative multi-task, but it all up to the applications to yield RAM and resources. DirectX also tries to yeild in a cooperat
CPU based GPU will not work as good as long as they have to use the main system ram also heat will limit there power. NVIDIA should start working HTX video card so you can the video card on the cpu bus but it is on a card so you put ram and big heat sinks on it.
I agree that GPU/CPU will need to be integrated at a lower level than current technologies, but not in the near future as PCI Expres 2.0 doesn't even benefit yet.
However, don't discount System and VRAM becoming a unified concept. This has already happened with Vista, and is one of the things that gave NVidia and ATI such trouble with the WDDM, as OS handled VRAM virtualization was not something either company was use to coding for in high performance instances. (Also the preemptive multitasking GPU nature of Vista is another shiney new bell they had to hurdle.)
Vista (now with current drivers) shows that the WDDM and using memory prioritization even for Gaming and System/VRAM virtualization works, and works well. This allows users with low VRAM amounts to crank up texture sizes that exceed the Video card's RAM, without performance loss.
Additionally as multi-3D application concepts become more standard, system RAM virtualization will be as necessary as HD or other virtualization/paging techniques are in other aspects of computing.
Not a lot of users run more than one game on the screen at once, but with new application UI concepts like WPF.NET in Vista that inherently doest 3D, this will become common in all Oses. Even running a game in a Window on Vista while Aero is active, is using the multi-3D paradigm, and with the shared texture nature of the Vista composer it can do this with no FPS loss, even with more than one 3D game on screen active at a time (and even Exposed or Flip3D'd on the screen, something that would bring other composers or VIdeo subystem/driver models to a crawl in other consumer OSes.
Microsoft somehow realized this (actually the XBOX team realized this, and shoved to get these features to be a core of WDDM in Vista.)
I'm surprised others don't get this, and don't realize that besides the media/SlashDot Vista slam, Vista has done this right, and does it well. Putting it several years ahead of OS X, Linux, etc.
If people think NVidia or ATI are looking to the OS model of *nix, or OSX for future directions, they are fooling themselves. Microsoft with Vista and especially Microsoft's XBox graphic researchers are mapping the road of the future. The XBox 360 team already has done this with Vista, and the VRAM virtualization concepts, and the unified shader push, and the next big thing will be an extention of this and from them.
truthfully only real application for the gpu/cpu hybrid would be in laptop use where they can get away with using lower end gpu chips
These kind of comments scare me, is everyone new, or just not paying attention.
The PCI Express 16x has amazing overhead even on the most hardcore gaming today, expecially when utilizing SLI/Crossfire configurations.
As for this ONLY BEING for LOW END? Did you ever read the PCI/AGP/PCI Express specifications?
Just because RAM sharing was ONLY used in low end on board GPUs doesn't mean that if system RAM is fast enough (or managed properly) that it can't be use in gaming.
This is where a normal Vista plug would come in, as people don't realize this is ONE OF THE GOOD things of the Vista WDDM (besides being the first OS driver model providing GPU preemptive multitasking). Vista also intelligently manages and virtualizes VRAM to system RAM, and uses AGP/PCI Express techniques so that the memory space is seen by all applications as available VRAM.
Vista then uses the new memory prioritizers for VRAM operations as well and will swap low performance needs textures between system and VRAM transparently. This not only works, but with the AGP/PCI Express concepts is fast enough that it gives games more VRAM room for better texture quality at the same performance.
This is EXACTLY how Vista can take a HIGH PERFORMANCE DEDICATED Video Card with 128mb or 256mb of VRAM and allow applications to use textures that exceed the VRAM of the card transparently with no performance loss. In addition, because of the multi-core/multi-GPU tasking nature of Vista, SEVERAL 3D applications can run at once expecting full control the Video card and VRAM at the same time, and not even realize Vista is making this happen.
The old 'shared system' RAM concepts were SLOW, but mainly because the low end GPUs paired with the mainboards providing this were SLOW.
Vista does this even with new NVidia 9800s and gives it higher texture quality and performance over XP, so this is NO LONGER a low end concept.
So I ask again, does anyone even pay attention to what is being done in the GPU/OS realm, or do you just ignore crap because MS created it? If so, no wonder the Linux composers and even the OS X composer and driver technologies are half a decade behind Vista, and people don't even 'get it' until the market notices this and Linux and OS X are screwed and trying to catch up... (This is such a sad pattern, as Linux could have been a 'leader' instead of copy follower of OS X and NT technologies, which is all that seems to happen beyond basic kernel optimizations.)
Everyone that use to slap XP around are now among the group of anti-Vista people that are making XP into a legendary OS.
The weird part, this is a win/win for Microsoft. (Ever hear of Classic Coke?)
So do you really think MS cares? If they cared, the WPF/desktop search and other 'user' level aspects of Vista would never have been back ported to XP. The only things not available on XP from Vista is the architectural changes that includes the WDDM that handles GPU virtualization and GPU multi-tasking at the OS level that DirectX 10 requires, because future games will expect the OS to handle this for them when they release a TRUE DirectX10 only incarnation.
I personally think from an OS Engineer viewpoint, that Vista is a Superior OS in virtually every measure, but hey if the world wants to rally around XP, to the point even the anti-MS OSS world rallys around XP (like I see today on Slashdot again), then so be it, maybe some of the anti-MS crowd will give XP a second look and realize it is nothing like Win9x when they left the Windows world and moved to a *nix.
Slashdot news - making money for Microsoft by hating Microsoft. This is so freaking weird that I wonder if this side effect is shocking to even Apple's marketing con artists, as they have been a part of making this happen by accident as well.
Let all of us go through the MS patents, and write an article or tech paper on it pertaining to Linux so we can pretend we invented the concept.
Hell, most Linux users ignore Microsoft, so they would buy it 99% of the time, until they do it and MS knocks on the door and goes, "Nope..."
If we are going to apply this stuff to Linux, we need to at least give Microsoft credit or pretend it is not our 'brainchild', and maybe Micorsoft will continue to leave us alone.
Exactly, SMB comes from IBM; however, MS has added features to it over the years. This was my point, as SMB information has been available forever, not sure why you assumed I was stating something different.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I would say all of these "features" l
Ok, I'll correct ya, well I'll go for a couple cause you and I are on different tracks of communication and I don't think you or I are disputing the same things...
First you act like you are arguing a patent dispute, this isn't.
Secondly this is not about a 'comcept' but the SPECIFIC implementation. So even though ACLs or other aspects have been around in various forms for a while, does not mean that the way they are implemented on Windows Server is not unique.
So ACL - this is implemented in a unique way on NT. NT uses an token/object system for security, both at the FS level and even at the communication level of the kernel. These are MS owned, as the way NT implements this is unique, and SAMBA always just reverse engineered it in the past to provide the basic functionality at the network server level. If they have licensed this ability from MS, they can implement the FS security as Windows Server does on NTFS, and additionally, use MS security protocols internally. A big step forward instead of 'emulating' the Microsoft Security model.
One reason SAMBA could perform well against Windows Server is that it 'faked' the security, as it only needed to provide security context to clients, and internally did not have to operate in a secure fashion, as it only had to operate in the UNIX construct of security concepts. So when you see performance of SAMBA vs Windows Server, and they are close, remember that for each request and response Windows Server is going through a much longer process than SAMBA always has had to, which makes the Windows Server often besting SAMBA quite impressive for people that understand technology at this level.
Additionally, we could take each item from my quick and 'generic' list and say the same things, as the specific way they implemented or handled at the Server level is specific to NT technology and how Microsoft designed these operations/features. It doesn't matter who invented the 'concepts', and sadly I am not sure why this is important to people, especially in the OSS world where building on the past is a key component of technology advancement.
So NT uses specific methods to implement the policies and how the protocol deals with the policies, the roaming profiles, and how they are stored and transfered between the server and client OSes, and also there are more advanced concepts introduced with Vista and Windows 2008 server that would be 'hard' for SAMBA to reverse engineer as it deals with encrypted data over SMB and block/bit compression and remote differential copying, so only the bits changed get transmitted.
Again, I'm not saying MS invented any of this, although the specific method or unique code they use is novel in that it works well, is more efficent than many of these concepts in past solutions, and are all integrated to work seamlessly so that encryption and roaming and RDC all work transparently to the client OS and the main functions of the File Server of the NT Server.
Why hasn't MS come out and listed their patent concerns instead of spreading Linux FUD?
If they did, they would lose their leverage, as Linux would get combed through to remove as much of these patents as possible. So why show the competition your cards unless you intend to play them? I would be happy they don't seem to intend to play them, and so far only use them to protect themselves from gold diggers, instead of being like Apple or Sun and suing everyone and their dog for patent violations. (Apple and Sun are good company why again?)
The problem is MS holds patents for very basic GUI concepts that all OSes today use throughout the UI. OS X is also guilty of smacking into tons of MS patents.
Which stuns me therefore that you know so little about the global position of Windows Mobile. If you prefixed your statements by saying "US market" then you'd be slight more accurate, but on a global scale (especially Japan and Europe) you are extremely wide of the mark on the multi-media marketing of phones and on the position of Windows Mobile.
I do know the US Markets better, but I also know that EDS Europe uses the hell out of Windows Mobile cell phones. Just being able to do remote desktop from their phone is a big seller for IT people helping customers or administrating servers. An EDS is just an example, as a lot of tech oriented people in Europe use the hell out of Windows Mobile.
So it isn't the red-headed step child that you keep suggesting.
In the consumer markets you are right, it isn't as popular in the European markets, but for 'high' end phones, it is the MAIN choice by offering a full OS experience on a handheld device. It is just most cell user's don't give a flip about features, like we talked about before. However, the people that 'do' care, do pick Windows Mobile phones, and would pick one over an iPhone in a second, as smart people/geeks don't give a crap about marketing cons and prefer functionality.
The 'Protocols' have ALWAYS been fairly open for MS Server products.
The part that SAMBA is licensing and NEEDS to license is when they are implementing features normally found in Windows Server that are not open.
Off top of my head I would guess these would be:
ACL & Security Group Policy Features Domain Features Roaming Profiles, etc. FS Search Network Queries ala Vista/Windows Desktop Search
etc etc etc...
The freaking communications and protocols are never been a big MS secret, as they are just evolutionary methods, it is the guts that SAMBA also tries to provide that has always been 'reverse engineered' and is now 'licensed' instead.
Maybe it is a Vista/XP thing, as GPU rotated displays have been around for a while (TabletPC for example), and they are still fully accelerated no matter if portrait or landscape.
Nvidia introduced NVRotate in the FX series, their first generation PS 2.0 cards. ATI also has provided accelerated rotated display drivers for as long as NVidia has.
Even Intel TabletPCs provide acceleration, and they are bottom of the rung GPU technology.
There was an early beta driver of NVidia drivers for Vista, before Vista shipped that didn't do Aero when rotated, but this was a bug and fixed in the NVidia drivers before Vista shipped.
What OS drivers at this day and age still turn off Acceleration, and why?
I was at my mothers house last week and 'Dirt' was on and we were all partially watching it. There was a moment in the episode where 'Lucy' was complaining to her photographer about getting a new Cell Phone since his was junk.
My mom, who is not a technical person at all, said, "Why don't she get a new phone, is she cheap or is this an old show?"
I asked mom what she meant, and she went on a little rant about how 'Lucy' is bitching about the guys cell phone, while she is dialing her phone by hand and using a corded headset. Mom asked what kind of crap is she using, and I responded an 'iPhone', and my mother literally gasped.
I explained to her, that iPhones support bluetooth headsets, like my mom has, but you can't dial from them as it doesn't have voice recognition dialing.
My mom was literally shocked that the phone she had heard so many people talking about couldn't do a basic thing her 4 year old phone could, like do voice recognition.
I actually tried to defend the iPhone for a bit, then started thinking, I don't care. My mom's sense of 'oh my gawd that is so stupid', was justified, since she uses her headset 24/7 and couldn't dream of having to go back to looking at a cellphone to dial it.
My spouse then added, it also don't have GPS, which mom uses on her phone for turn by turn instructions, and it doesn't have 3G(high speed) so it can't be used it to watch videos or TV away from a WiFi hotspot, which my mom does all the time because she has the TV subscription for her phone since it can do 3G.
Mom then asked, so if it is lacking so many features, why do people love it? I again tried to explain the multi-touch, and UI is kind of cool, but my mom's response was, why would that be great, I don't even have to look at my phone to use it, so I don't care how cute the UI is.
This became a big discussion and myself and others ran out of 'why' it was so good that people went nuts for them, other than saying it was magical or Apple had good marketing, the argument was dead in the water.
(I should note my mom also syncs music to her phone all the time, and it is her MP3 player. She has two miniSD cards an older 1Gb and a new 4Gb card. The phone has stereo bluetooth support, and she uses a stereo bluetooth headset when listening to music, and a cheap motorola 850 bluetooth headset when she isn't using it for music.)
She would be the classic market for an iPhone or iPod, but the phone she has is better for her in many ways, and works easily for her. She touches the button on headset and says "Dial 555-1212" and it just works...
Read my post on this subject by other person from earlier. Apple's only Magic is in the manipulation that their marketing does and gets away with. (In the UK they don't get away with it as easily, and other marketing companies even frown on the 'techniques' used by Apple because it is very subversive and dangerous because it creates undue fanaticism.)
When people are asked why Apple is good, the reason of the 'favorable' impression of Apple starts with a general line of made up excuses to explain their 'unknown' love of the Company. Even you call what Apple does 'magic', because you might even have a hard time justifying your love of their products or the company.
This is how they work, they get you to love them and their products for reasons that are not logical, and when pressed creates a defensive dichotomy in people.
I have often criticized Microsoft for having a horrible marketing team and poor communication between their developers/researchers and the marketing team. You can witness this from Vista for example, instead of list 2000 new features in Vista and stuff that does matter to people, the marketing team is ignorant of technical features and then picks stupid features that are irrelevant to try to sell Vista. Trying to sell Vista by using Flip3D as a feature is insane and cheapens Vista in the context of the developers that worked on it.
The reason I even mention Microsoft, because if they ran ads like, "Hi, I'm a Mac,' the industry would slap them around for being dishonest. Most of these ads are cute, but are general or flat out lies. Take the Upgrade to Vista ad from them, generally saying that poor PC needs all upgraded hardware. However when Leopard 10.5 shipped it has the same hardware requirements that Vista does, 512mb minimum, 1gb to run as good as previous version, and 2gb to fly. Even video cards, Vista 'wants' a newer video card but scales back to a 1991 video card if needed. OS X 10.5 on the other hand 'demands' the video card be 3D accelerated and newer than the video cards that shipped in a lot of early OS X based Macs. OS X 10.5 will install and work on older video cards, but several 'features' flat out will not even run or display on the screen at all if you have an older Video Card. So here OS X 10.5 truly requires just as much of an upgrade as Vista, and for Video even more so, as it can't scale back to non 3D cards without losing features. (Time Machine fails on a Rage 128 card for example.)
So if you read my other post, you can see that I easily refuted the concept that Apple gets it to market 'first', so what is your next defensive based reasoning that Apple has Magic?
What is the Magic?
Here people will bring up the hardware and software work together, but with PCs made in the last 5 or 6 years, they also just work with the software, without a hardware software lock in.
Next you will hear Apple's UI is better, works better, is more consistent.. and this is a debateable fact, but there are some good arguments about UI where Apple fails, for example the ties to a Menu bar instead of moving to a new UI paradigm. Menu bars were a quick fix to early GUI development, as you could get all the features on the screen in a small amount of space, but Menus are nothing more than word lists, and this is very anti-GUI in concept.
Consistency is another area that could be argued against OS X, as there are the keystrokes that lived in the pre OS X era that don't work or don't always work in every application. And there are even simple things like the Apple key, or the Backspace/Delete keys not working consistently across all applications. This kind of inconsistency doesn't exist in Windows, and Windows is also more keyboard friendly even without menus, as you ca
Do a Google "Windows Multi-touch". There are tons of companies out there, is looking up information this hard for Mac users?
The other 'sick' part of the Apple multi-touch, is they applied for patents on almost everything that was presented at TED. So not only did they race home to put the technology in their devices, they filed for patents on technology that was demonstrated to them at a conference...
Apple even touts the 300 patents on the iPhone as a feature or example that it is more advanced. So they tout how they cripple the technology world by shoving patents in a product they didn't even invent and this makes people happy? Nice again...
And don't even go there with the freaking visual voicemail... A cool name, so it MUST BE NEW! People are retarded when it comes to crap like this.
There have been voicemail systems around for over 10 years that offer the exact same features as Visual Voicemail. In fact, many of these phone system even use voice recognition on the call to put the first line of text on the screen, so it looks like an Visual Inbox with the actual message in text. And this really is 'Visual Voicemail', not just a CallerID name on a list on the freaking screen.
There were plugins for the Inbox in Windows95/NT 4.0 MAPI mailbox that had these features back in 1995/1996, and now Apple somehow 'obviously' invented it? Are you high?
Go look at a service like UReach even, it is one I have partnered with since it was opened back in the 1990s. It has a visual voicemail system, that is accessible from your PHONE, Web Page, or Computer even. And this is OLD TECHNOLOGY...
And the best implementations are the ones that literally show the message in text (being voice recognition processed), and you can even access the whole message wihtout listening to anything, but read it 'Visually'... Hell go look up MS Phone Speech services, they have been providing features like this to phone software providers for almost 7 years themselves. So Microsoft was doing this for years and years, but they didn't freaking invent it either... These are OLD concepts.
So how in the f**k does Apple get people to believe they created this stuff, cause they haven't. And not only that, then idiots like you give them 'credit' for at least doing it first. WTF?
So I will repeat... "So which it, people hate it because it has legacy readability support or people hate it because the legacy readability features are not required or documented?"
To me, it sounds like your saying OOXML is necessary because it can interpret those formats. Then, you turn around and say it's not necessary to implement the very features that would interpret that legacy format. Which is it? You haven't really provided an answer.
Actually I did... These features exist in OOXML, are documented, but are not required for new applications to create content. So if the developer 'wants' to provide the ability to read 15 year old MS Word documetnts, they can, as MS has documented it fully and is providing the information for them, but NOT requiring it.
(People have yelled for MS to provide this information for YEARS, and now that they do, some people bitch because the information is 'there', and get on a rant thinking it is required for implementing the standard. Even Office 2007 itself doesn't transparently treat legacy document formats as OOXML, it converts them using the functions Microsoft documented.)
So like I said, people get pissed because MS didn't provide the information, and other idiots use it as an excuse to pretend OOXML is more complicated than it is and spread FUD about implementing converting 15 year old documents.
You are aware that Sony Ericsson tied up a few years ago around just this area and that Nokia have been selling these media features as a plus point for several years as well? Now if you are saying that Microsoft haven't done this then you are correct, but as they are a minor part of the smartphone market that really isn't significant. ... Nope, I think you should be marked down because you don't know anything about the mobile phone market and the fact that it is primarily driven from a consumer products perspective rather than as a technology innovation area. Mobile phones are a commodity item which means that the differentiation has ceased to be around tariffs and has shifted onto devices
Ok, you only repeating some of the same things I said, and then act like I never mentioned it? Are you responding to the correct post?
1) Microsoft Smartphones are a bit larger in the market than I think you realize, as they have been around for many years now, starting out as PocketPC phones.
2) Sure many cell phones have multimedia features, but the fact that it was not marketed to users, people didn't realize it existed, this was a failure on the part of the cell phone mfrs and cell providers, as they didn't realize it was a big of a feature as Apple 'made it to be'.
I know many people running around with Razrs and other phones that have MiniSD slots and full multimedia features and have no idea their phone has technically more features than an iPhone.
Even most smartphone users never considered their devices 'media' platforms, even though they technically are advanced media platforms, supporting tons of formats inherently and having tons of OSS codecs available for them to play everything from XVID to MPEG4.
So my argument was that it was failed marketing, by not making these features sexy. Which is the same freaking argument you make at the end of your post...
So explain to me if you agree with me, and see the technology vs 'fashion' application of the devices the same way I do, how or why would you say I know nothing about the cell market?
This is where I mention that one of parnering company's contracts is with Cricket dropping 3.5/4g service in Vegas, and this company has been in the cell business since 1995... Just last week we were going over product availability (cell phones) for the new AWS Vegas market.
So, Umm... Ya, whatever, I know nothing about 'cell phones/markets'...
This is what Apple does a lot - take something reasonably old and obvious, make it look spiffy and actually usable for someone without a CS degree, then sell (and market) it as the Hot New Thing.
This is giving Apple too much credit even.
The Multi-Touch implementation that Apple has used on the iPhone and iPod and Macbook, are EXACT UI multi-touch concepts 're-introduced' at the TED conference a couple of years back. (I think the demonstration may even be online now for people that didn't attend.)
The TED demonstration put together some cool new ways of using multi-touch ideas for working with photos, zooming in/out etc. And in the TED presentation, the presenters gave the presentation as a spark to get people involved in using the technology, but some of the UI gestures they came up with were off the top of their heads as the admitted and needed to be refined or possibly done better.
Sadly, Apple even copied these multi-touch gestures, not even expanding on the ideas presented as was expected by the presenters at the TED conference. (So not only did Apple copy the ideas, they copied them exactly, not even expanding the features that were made up for the conference to try to inspire better gestures and usage.)
Microsoft also had a few multi-touch demonstrations several years back, along 2002/2003 timeframe when the TabletPC was the new cool thing.
The TED conference presentation was a blend of new ideas, old ideas, and a few MS ideas, etc.
Microsoft's surface also borrows from the TED presentation, although MS has polished some of the gestures and UI concepts, building on their work from earlier and adding in some TED concepts, and actually refining some of the rough ideas that Apple copied from TED. The surface computer is more than multi-touch though, as it can 'see' through the display, and is not limited to tactical input, so it can recognize objects, barcodes, even paintbrushes, etc.
So, ya, you are being way to generous with Apple, the only thing they have done that is new or cool is the marketing that gets people like the parent poster to think Apple created this stuff and gets their loyal fans to look down on other people implementing 'Apple's Technologies'. Geesh...
but you neglect that if they did not enter into these contracts, Windows would be more expensive and give their competition who did sign the agreements an advantage.
No, I addressed this issue specifically. Note where I say the incentives of the exclusive contracts ONLY saved the OEMs about $5 per copy at the most for Windows, and gave them NOTHING else.
The OEM connection and partner channels were the same, no matter if you were a mom and pop OEM, a medium size OEM, large OEM or someone like Dell that signed Exclusivity contracts. All companies had the SAME relationship channels, and having the 'exclusive' contract gave OEMs NO MORE access to MS or anything every other OEM in the world could not obtain. The exclusive contracts only allowed them to save money and later produce the media themselves, etc.
So, as a TINY company you would pay $5 more, and still had the same level of MS offering and support. PERIOD.
And all it took to become an OEM partner was to buy a SKU of Windows OEM (These were 5 Packs), and sign up as an OEM through MS or the distributor.
In my recollection, I think it was evident around the time that IBM AT came out. When the 386 came out, it was clear that no other ISV could compete, with profitability, against Microsoft's anti-competitive actions.
You need to go back and take another look at the dates here. Windows/386 was NOT successful at all, and Windows 3.x was successful in home markets. Windows didn't get business class adoption until Windows 3.1/3.11, as the Novel client software was still DOS based, and by the time it loaded and Windows 3.0, there wasn't much room left in the 1024K area, since Windows 3.0 was 16bit. Windows 3.1 had 'Windows' netware clients available, and Windows 3.11 had native networking built in. (Windows 3.1 was also 16bit, except for the 32bit HD access modes that would bypass DOS and BIOS completely for better Paging and Caching performance.)
The 386 had NOTHING to do with MS in either context, or timeframe, or in the ISV world. NT was and (is) Microsoft's 32bit OS, and it didn't gain real competitive success until NT 4.0 in 1996/1997.
The Microsoft 'activities' you talk about that were testified to by Netscape, etc all played out in the Windows 95 timeframe for the most part, as it wasn't until the 1994 timeline that Windows 3.x became highly dominent.
So I'm not sure why you are questioning my 'memory' of the MS monopoly case, but you are the one that has this off by MANY YEARS.
The only governemnt pressure against prior to this was the WP/Novell inquires started by Orin Hatch, also from Utah, and was a direct response to the loss of marketshare WP and Novell had taken, and they were NOT desktop OS vendors.
They also screwed themselves, as MS tried to work with both companies, and Lotus when Windows was gaining some home market popularity. MS begged WP to create a Windows version of their product, as they did Lotus, even going as far to offer developers from MS to work with directly with WP or Lotus for FREE to assist in the process at any capacity they thought would be useful. WP and Lotus had the market, and told MS to go pound sand.
It wasn't until this point that MS even went back to Word and Excel, as they originally didn't run on Windows 3.0 (being Windows/286 applications). The original ports were going to be basic, which they were, and didn't work any better. After WP and Lotus flipped off MS, they put money into Word and Excel as they knew Windows was going to need basic office tools if it was ever going to be successful. Hence the building of the complete 'Office Team' at Microsoft.
Sadly when WP did create a Windows version (late after losing and screwing over customers), they wrote their own 'printer driver' stack, and bypassed all the standard OS APIs for printing, and even by passed many of the OS Memory allocation APIs, etc. Then when their product crashed and worked horribly, they got Orin Hatch to bitch slap MS around in Washington.
Up here, it's illegal to make it impossible for a person to access their own data. Therefore, while they are allowed to prevent you from making new documents, spreadsheets, etc., they cannot disable the "read-only" features of the software.
Free read-only versions already exist for Office, why do you think Microsoft would penalize someone that had subscribed by denying them access to these features everyone else in the world gets for free?
Classic MS paranoia... (PS Do you think all the companies that are already doing subscription models with Microsoft for the last several years haven't tested the extent of the subscription rights and don't you think you would have heard someone screaming in Business if MS was screwing customers that dropped their subscription services? And yes this includes countries outside the US, as one of our partners is EDS Europe and they deal with customers that have MS based software subscriptions all the time.)
BTW The rights to information created via software and licensing is more dodgey than you realize. Look at OS upgrades and products from companies that require new versions to access pre-existing data. Even Apple has done this several times on 'licensed' software that creates content, with no recourse available legally to their users, even in Canada if I am not mistaken.
Additionally, software subscription services are NOT as abnormal as people seem to think they are. This is just industry progression, but using an old paradigm in a modern context.
For example: TiVo is virually the SAME THING, as you are paying the software service, and lose the rights to play your own recorded content if you cancel the subscription. (Older TiVo models allowed content to play after subscriptions were terminated, new models don't.)
Again, you are not saying *what* is different, I see no appreciable difference in the table paradigms. Sure, 15 years is going to show some improvement, but "Go Computer" was functional 15 years ago while "Pen Windows" never worked.
1) Do your own freaking research, I'm not your professor, I have enough people that I teach and have to worry about 'getting it'.
2) Go Computer was less function than Grid, and that was less functional than Pen Windows. The fatal flaw in all of them was Ink was non-existent except as a 'drawn' image. Recognition attempts were horrid, and on-screen keyboards were the only real interaction. (Here is a hint for your research on #1 - Today, on-screen keyboards are hardly ever used.)
As anyone knows, it is hard to find details and references on this sort of thing, but it is well known, and a SOP or Microsoft to to use the carrot vs stick approach to threatening OEMs especially back then before the DOJ.
This is NOT well known or even accurate. I have owned and worked with several OEM providers, one being a very large early Mail Order company that placed slightly behind Gateway and Dell. Our company that worked with pen computing in the early 90s was 'never' even approached by Microsoft, except when they would offer free demonstrations, ask for input on technology, or provide deployment tools.
Even the 'great' monopoly of Microsoft 'pressuring' OEMs is a HUGE freaking myth. Companies like Dell and Gateway, etc. all took advantage of 'excusivity' contracts to get OEM copies of Windows Cheaper. This started happening around the Windows 95 timeframe, and it was their decision to sign the contracts or NOT. IBM offered almost the SAME EXACT contracts for OS/2 at this time, as it was COMMON and still is COMMON to an extent to shove exclusive deals at better pricing.
This is also why you saw TONS of WordPerfect Office bundles in the Mid 90s, as they signed 'cheap' exclusive offers with Novell/Corel. However, MS never had 'exclusive' Office deals, and yet Office won the freaking war during this time frame as WP Office was crap, that could barely run 5 minutes without crashing or losing information.
So these companies picked up a 'good' deal from Microsoft, and they also were able to 'standardize' their technical support as they didn't have to worry about support OS/2 users, etc. It was a win/win for the OEMs, but screwed the consumers.
So who is to blame? The freaking greedy OEMs. Especially considering the OEM exclusivity deals with Microsoft for Windows only saved about $5 per copy of OEM Windows. Sure that adds up, but at what cost of screwing their customers and limiting their options? And again it made their driver and technical support much easier as they had a base platform to work with. (You know how Apple does now, and everyone loves them for it?)
Our OEM companies were forbidden by myself and active managers from doing exclusivity deals with Microsoft because we still offered consumer choice. Although 99.9% of all our systems were still Windows, based on consumer demand, we did have a few early *nix systems, DOS systems even, and of course OS/2 in the general consumer product lines. It cost our companies about $5 more per copy of Windows, but it was still worth it in the end, as we weren't ever tied or held hostage to Microsoft.
Microsoft also didn't try to force the exclusive deal down our throat, in fact it was only offered in general terms in a couple of meetings and in some OEM documentation, other than that our Microsoft connection people treated our companies like gold even without the exclusive deals, and even one of our smaller companies that bought OEM product from Merisel and Ingram Micro.
We had the same OEM relationship that Dell or any other OEM had, and could call on Microsoft at any time.
So I am tired of the fairy tale that MS forced exclusive contracts, or did anything outside the NORM. If it was bundling practices that made their success, then WordPerfect would be the sta
I fail to see how killing OOXML will send people back to the 90s when, as of 2008, there aren't any implementations of it. Scientists and engineers will be quite happy to continue using TeX whether or not OOXML lives or dies.
Maybe the researchers and engineers I know are just more 'hip' than the average, as they like having a TabletPC they can jot down notations on instead of hacking together cryptic syntax to create the same formulas and expressions.
And this isn't 2008 technology, Vista has native Ink support going back to 2006, and TabletPCs (XP Based) have been around for five or six years...
How is it different? How is "TabletPC" "innovation" different than Go Computing's Tablet?
Go search for TabletPC on YouTube, you have no freaking idea how different it is, how the application paradigm changed with the concepts of TabletPCs or how it is used in Vista by anyone with a Wacom tablet.
There is a big difference in the platforms based on the computing power available alone, like instant and background recognition and seamless text/ink integration concepts (invented by the Word team around 1998) just to begin an explanation.
Go look at the surface computing and multi-touch technologies previed at TED a couple of years ago, these are concepts that also radically are and will change computing and user interaction and the TabletPC technologies and MS Ink were as big of a shift as well. (BTW -Yes the iPhone copied the multi-touch UI from the TED presentation almost exactly.)
When Go Computing was making headway, microsoft announce "PenWindows" and threatened toshiba, and toshiba had to drop support for Go.
This is made up crap. Give me a reference. because I remember the Toshiba support decisions a LOT differently.
Windows 3.x was picking up tremendous market share during this time, that no one predicted, and SEVERAL Manufactuers dropped Go because they didn't want to be locked into a non-standard OS like PinPoint when they could bring to market a better user product that ran all the current DOS and Windows applications in existence along with new Pen applications.
Pen Windows didn't die as soon as you think it did either. We were supporting Pen Windows users at GM and EDS up until 1996/1997.
This was almost taken seriously until I saw this point... OOXML is a zip file too. Do your homework better, astroturfer.
ODF allows for extensions as well, you know.
There is a difference between compressing the entire document to minimize its footprint and creating references to tons of 'separate' zip content to try and provide a hack level of extensibility like ODF does.
I don't care if they RAR the freaking content, OOXML is one document structure that 'internally' stores even binary and extraneous data, it doesn't have to resort to packaging up what is not understood like ODF does into ZIP files and leaving it up to the developers to handle or even properly retain this information.
ODF and adding non-standard content via ZIP files is a hack at best, and goes HORRIBLY wrong when you try to create content in the ZIP files that tie back to the structure or text of the main document.
For example, imagine a Sound file that links to the text of the document, and if you play the sound file, you can reference the word spoken with the text in the document or INK. Now imagine this with ODF and you throw this into a crap developer's application that isn't bright enough to even consider this, and any modifications break the document completely.
This EXISTS and is used by tons of users everyday in the Windows and TabletPC world, yet it is 'magic' or outside the 'norm' for people here? WTH? If would be different if these were theories or conceptual uses, but this is stuff that people store and use in documents and have for five years or so now.
Contextual linking not only would apply to Sound, or Ink, but even simple things like revisions and markup, which is something that is even more widely used than freaking Ink.
If ODF is going to be a document standard, then they better become a freaking document standard and support what is in use today, including linked non-textual content.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "throughout the OS". In Leopard, almost all the libraries come in 32-bit and 64-bit forms; it's just the kernel and a lot of executables that come with the OS that are 32-bit only. 64-bit userland code can talk to 32-bit kernel code just fine.
Leopard's idea of 64bit is providing a 64bit version of Cocoa for applicaiton development. Like Tiger there are a few OS level 64bit pieces for addressing more RAM than 32bit, but the majority of the OS kernel itself is 32bit still. (Carbon was supposed to be moved to 64bit as well, but Apple gave up on it.)
So this is why you only get 32bit drivers with OS X, because that is what the OS is. Apple tries to use this as a marketing tool, from their own web site:
"Leopard is the first universal operating system to seamlessly support both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. There's no need to upgrade drivers, and you can even stick with your existing printers, storage devices, and PCI Express cards." http://www.apple.com/macpro/technology/leopard.html
However, because you there are areas where 64bits at the OS level DOES help that Apple is not using, it a hybrid at best and a 32bit OS with 64bit application support and a few kernel level *nix 64bit flags to be more generic.
For example, one area where Apple would benefit from full 64bits would be in Video Drivers, as shoving data to GPUs in 64bit chunks is much more efficient and faster. (There are other areas, that can be seen if you contrast Vista x64 vs Vista x32, as Vistax64 with 2GB of RAM runs even 32bit applications 5-15% faster, especially gaming applications because of the 64bit driver support.)
Unlike a lot of fanbois would like people to believe 64bit is not slower, even if it is allocating or shoving twice the bits around, as the other benefits of the 64bit CPUs of today more than make up for it, just like the process scheduler in the 386 was worth the 16-32bit jump, in addition to additional registers less internal tracking and paging, etc.
Ok, I'm not a developer, and haven't studied GUI design to any degree of expertise - but what is the problem with menus?
Menus were implemented because there was no 'good' graphical UI concept at the time to provide a large amount of features in the screen real estate available. Some ideas were thrown around, but Apple and others came back to Menus as they were 'easy' even though they break the GRAPHICAL UI concepts.
Just like icons, it is easier for the human mind to remember a small picture than the text associated with it.
Toolbars were a first step in assiting with the problems of menus, by providing some of the features and associating graphical representations for these features. Toolbars were a good step forward as screen real estate and computing power allowed for them.
The ideal metaphor though is to remove as much of the 'word lists/menus' as you can from an application. An application should be 'intelligent' enough to know more of what you are doing and not rely on you to click through a series of words to 'speak to it' as one might put it.
Microsoft has worked a long time on replacement concepts for Menus, from their first toolbar implementations to finally moving up the 'audience' so to speak by ripping out as many menus as they can from Vista and Office 2007. There are still menus in Vista, but they are hidden by default (although hitting the ALT key makes them magically appear), and there are very few features in the Menus that are not available in the graphical representation of the application or the UI in Vista.
Vista's successor will even be smarter and require fewer menus as contextual toolbar concepts we have now will move to being more intelligently assistive and the OS or applications will start helping and knowing instead of waiting for specific commands. It will also move more of the UI concepts developed from the Office 2007 research and even the other GUI research teams at Microsoft. (Look at the XBox 360 Blade interface, it is quite good and simplistic for what it offers, and is from another area of Microsoft Research.)
One day you will look back at Menu based GUIs and go, OMG that is so outdated, just like looking at a Command Line/DOS application in comparison to usability of modern applications.
In the near future the OS and applications will be smarter and KNOW what you are doing and assist instead of having to be guided through a series of commands. The computing power is here to do this, and it is time for the GUI metaphor to move forward.
So far Microsoft is on the right track, and they for the last several years have been the ones pushing the GUI and UI forward. You don't see Microsoft imitating OS X or KDE, it is more them imitating Microsoft. (Even iTunes' interface is based off of a Longhorn Preview of Windows Media Player that became WMP11 - including the integrated search, library features, etc.) MS does spend more on testing and UI research than any company out there by several factors, and there are several competing research teams so they don't get stuck in one conceptual rut. There is even a team that is focusing on removing the concept of Windowed applications and the pros and cons, even if nothing from it ever sees the light of day.
So, ya, menus are not a GUI element, but became one. They are command word list concept used in GUIs because of the lack of other solutions that fit the hardware of the time, as well as the thinking of the time.
So UI change is a product of technology and conversion of thinking. The last one being the hardest.
Even early versions of Finder and Windows FileManager worked like a visual command line folder tree, and today you can still see these trees in OS X and Vista on the left hand pane if you turn it on. But it is there for people that haven't moved on to the newer way of thinking, it is not there because it is a good method or even efficient.
And Ironically, OS X back stepped and implemented an 'explorer' type view for Finder, when they shou
No concept of what .NET really is, misleading users.
.NET/WPF is easy, transparent and has clear and easy paths for migration. (Let alone OS X is still a hybrid 64bit OS, using 32bit code throughout the OS, unlike Vista x64)
No mention or acknowledgement of WPF/WCF or the new APIs that are and 'set' to replace Win32/Win64
Completely misleads users about API concepts and features of OS X compared to Windows, for example XAML/XPS concepts compared to Display Postscript is a massive difference in display technologies that are part of the new Windows API sets, that Carbon or Cocoa cannot provide to developers. (Go to Channel 10 and watch videos on why XAML/XPS was created and how it trumps every aspect of other display/print technologies. - Let alone how it is an integrated aspect of the video API system in Vista, making programming freaky simple for advanced features and new UI platforms like 3D.)
The author then jumps into UI consistency with dialog wording, and doesn't mention OS Xs lack of keyboard support, consistency of delete/backspace or 100 other things more important than dialog wording which is also NOT PART of Win32 inherently.
Author doesn't realize Microsoft and IBM wrote most of the GUI and UI guidelines that OS X even uses today.
Office 2007 is a new direction in GUI paradigms, and is WELL accepted in the business world. Not something to make fun of when OS X is still using old MENU (textual word lists) concepts. Menus were a hack to make features available in a GUI context, but are a draw back to non-graphical UIs. Vista and Office 2007 moving away from word lists (MENUS) is the right direction, too bad Apple isn't innovating on UI and just keeps throwing the same UI slop at users and telling them it is good. (And don't even mention multi-touch UI, go watch the freaking TED conferences Apple ripped the ideas off from several years ago, let alone the MS multi-touch work that also preceded the TED conference. MS Research has and is doing more with UI than any other think tank in the world.)
Author also totally ignores Adobe not providing any 64bit support for OS X because Apple dropped the ball on Carbon x64bit support that has been promised forever from Apple. In contrast 64bit development on Windows in both Win32/Win64 and
So for 'real developers' like Adobe (OS X) is a failure, and has failed paths. Which means if you want a 64bit version of Adobe products, you will have to move to Windows for the peformance and benefits. Oh, how brilliant Apple and OS X is...
This brings up the horrid Carbon/Cocoa platforms and migration paths, and even then not even touching on the development tool constrast between the two platforms.
I challenge Mr. Bright to a real debate on the topics covered, maybe he can try to justify some of his misleading and outrageous claims.
SO you are arguing the *linux* innovation is an Apple rip off. Fine, I'll go with that too, but this still holds my freaking point, it is NOT NEW!!!
GOT IT, Ass-masticator?
PS Comparing the kernel shufflings of a monitored process of GS/OS to something hotpatching portions of a kernel like NT is like comparing your Green Machine you had when you were three to your Hummer and claiming the technology is the same and fits the example.
It's still going to be than the real thing. Show me how fast Vista runs Crysis on a fast 256MB/512MB card compared to a fast 1GB card at high res with AA on.
Of course more VRAM gives games more room and Vista more room, who said it didn't? AA isn't always the best example though, as most implementations use selective AA, instead of full image sub rendering that requires large chunks of RAM.
(PS Crysis isn't a full DX10 game. When the game says DX10 only, then you will see the performance benefits of DX10, for things like 16X Full Image AA at resolutions higher than 1920x1200.)
And that virtual video RAM seems to mean that if you have 2GB of real RAM, Vista takes 1GB for the O/S, and 512-1GB for the vidcard and that leaves you with nothing much left over for the game.
Vista takes 1GB for the OS? Are you high or just painfully misinformed? Vista manages RAM between the OS/Applications/VRAM very well, and if the game is requesting more system RAM, Vista gives it up, no questions asked. You act like Vista is choking applications to do what it does. Wrong.
Also Vista don't chunk 1GB for the OS, and when running games virtually anything non-essential is paged out if necessary as the game/application requests RAM. Go read up on NT memory management, then read the Vista kernel additions on memory prioritization and additional scheduling.
As long as the O/S is still 32bit you'll also have the problem of only 4GB of easily addressable space. So no point installing 4GB of system RAM on your board. You might as well stick to 2 or 3GB system RAM and spend the extra money on a video card with real video RAM.
Again, who SAID not to buy a video card with the most VRAM you can? This is NOT THE POINT, and NOT THE SUBJECT HERE. Vista's ability to virtualize VRAM, is like OSes virtualizing System RAM to a pagefile. It is nice to have if needed, as the applications don't fail with a lack of memory. The only difference here is Vista's VRAM virtualization performance (if used) is very tiny, as it writes directly to the GPU via AGP/PCI Express concepts.
So it's a good idea to ignore that crap till 64 bit O/Ses become mainstream.
Um, most everyone I know runs Vista x64. It has more driver support than Windows XP 32bit, and is a virtual carbon copy of x32 Vista unlike x64 XP where several features were never added to the x64 version.
And this list of people includes everyone from large clients deploying Vista x64 on desktops to any serious gamer or 'tech minded' home user.
Do you not realize that there are more copies of Vista x64 running than all versions of Linux and OS X combined? (This isn't even touching x32 Vista.) So I would make a good argument that x64 Vista is a mainstream OS. Also unlike OS X that still has hybrid 32bit aspects, Vista x64 is a ground up 64bit OS, with all aspects of the WinXX subsystem being 64bit as well.
Also if you happen to google Vista x64, it outperforms even XP 32bit easily, and is the OS of choise for gamers, even running 32bit applications on the OS, as the 64bit OS, that can use the 64bit registers, address space, and driver memory transfers does out perform the x32bit version of Vista, even with 32bit applications.
Lastly, I don't seem to have problems running multiple 3D apps at the same time on Win2K. So what's the big deal?
Really? Ok, open 2, 3, or even 5 3D applications in a Window, so they are running side by side concurrently. Make sure a couple are hard hitting games, heck even Crysis. How well does that work for you? And use your choice of 3D technology, DirectX or OpenGL... Heck even set 2 of the 3D applications to 50% transparency using the GDI+ layers introduced in Win2K. How is performance now?
On any OS prior to Vista, 3D applications will starve for GPU time and GPU RAM. PERIOD. OpenGL TRIES to cooperative multi-task, but it all up to the applications to yield RAM and resources. DirectX also tries to yeild in a cooperat
CPU based GPU will not work as good as long as they have to use the main system ram also heat will limit there power. NVIDIA should start working HTX video card so you can the video card on the cpu bus but it is on a card so you put ram and big heat sinks on it.
I agree that GPU/CPU will need to be integrated at a lower level than current technologies, but not in the near future as PCI Expres 2.0 doesn't even benefit yet.
However, don't discount System and VRAM becoming a unified concept. This has already happened with Vista, and is one of the things that gave NVidia and ATI such trouble with the WDDM, as OS handled VRAM virtualization was not something either company was use to coding for in high performance instances. (Also the preemptive multitasking GPU nature of Vista is another shiney new bell they had to hurdle.)
Vista (now with current drivers) shows that the WDDM and using memory prioritization even for Gaming and System/VRAM virtualization works, and works well. This allows users with low VRAM amounts to crank up texture sizes that exceed the Video card's RAM, without performance loss.
Additionally as multi-3D application concepts become more standard, system RAM virtualization will be as necessary as HD or other virtualization/paging techniques are in other aspects of computing.
Not a lot of users run more than one game on the screen at once, but with new application UI concepts like WPF.NET in Vista that inherently doest 3D, this will become common in all Oses. Even running a game in a Window on Vista while Aero is active, is using the multi-3D paradigm, and with the shared texture nature of the Vista composer it can do this with no FPS loss, even with more than one 3D game on screen active at a time (and even Exposed or Flip3D'd on the screen, something that would bring other composers or VIdeo subystem/driver models to a crawl in other consumer OSes.
Microsoft somehow realized this (actually the XBOX team realized this, and shoved to get these features to be a core of WDDM in Vista.)
I'm surprised others don't get this, and don't realize that besides the media/SlashDot Vista slam, Vista has done this right, and does it well. Putting it several years ahead of OS X, Linux, etc.
If people think NVidia or ATI are looking to the OS model of *nix, or OSX for future directions, they are fooling themselves. Microsoft with Vista and especially Microsoft's XBox graphic researchers are mapping the road of the future. The XBox 360 team already has done this with Vista, and the VRAM virtualization concepts, and the unified shader push, and the next big thing will be an extention of this and from them.
truthfully only real application for the gpu/cpu hybrid would be in laptop use where they can get away with using lower end gpu chips
These kind of comments scare me, is everyone new, or just not paying attention.
The PCI Express 16x has amazing overhead even on the most hardcore gaming today, expecially when utilizing SLI/Crossfire configurations.
As for this ONLY BEING for LOW END? Did you ever read the PCI/AGP/PCI Express specifications?
Just because RAM sharing was ONLY used in low end on board GPUs doesn't mean that if system RAM is fast enough (or managed properly) that it can't be use in gaming.
This is where a normal Vista plug would come in, as people don't realize this is ONE OF THE GOOD things of the Vista WDDM (besides being the first OS driver model providing GPU preemptive multitasking). Vista also intelligently manages and virtualizes VRAM to system RAM, and uses AGP/PCI Express techniques so that the memory space is seen by all applications as available VRAM.
Vista then uses the new memory prioritizers for VRAM operations as well and will swap low performance needs textures between system and VRAM transparently. This not only works, but with the AGP/PCI Express concepts is fast enough that it gives games more VRAM room for better texture quality at the same performance.
This is EXACTLY how Vista can take a HIGH PERFORMANCE DEDICATED Video Card with 128mb or 256mb of VRAM and allow applications to use textures that exceed the VRAM of the card transparently with no performance loss. In addition, because of the multi-core/multi-GPU tasking nature of Vista, SEVERAL 3D applications can run at once expecting full control the Video card and VRAM at the same time, and not even realize Vista is making this happen.
The old 'shared system' RAM concepts were SLOW, but mainly because the low end GPUs paired with the mainboards providing this were SLOW.
Vista does this even with new NVidia 9800s and gives it higher texture quality and performance over XP, so this is NO LONGER a low end concept.
So I ask again, does anyone even pay attention to what is being done in the GPU/OS realm, or do you just ignore crap because MS created it? If so, no wonder the Linux composers and even the OS X composer and driver technologies are half a decade behind Vista, and people don't even 'get it' until the market notices this and Linux and OS X are screwed and trying to catch up... (This is such a sad pattern, as Linux could have been a 'leader' instead of copy follower of OS X and NT technologies, which is all that seems to happen beyond basic kernel optimizations.)
Everyone that use to slap XP around are now among the group of anti-Vista people that are making XP into a legendary OS.
The weird part, this is a win/win for Microsoft. (Ever hear of Classic Coke?)
So do you really think MS cares? If they cared, the WPF/desktop search and other 'user' level aspects of Vista would never have been back ported to XP. The only things not available on XP from Vista is the architectural changes that includes the WDDM that handles GPU virtualization and GPU multi-tasking at the OS level that DirectX 10 requires, because future games will expect the OS to handle this for them when they release a TRUE DirectX10 only incarnation.
I personally think from an OS Engineer viewpoint, that Vista is a Superior OS in virtually every measure, but hey if the world wants to rally around XP, to the point even the anti-MS OSS world rallys around XP (like I see today on Slashdot again), then so be it, maybe some of the anti-MS crowd will give XP a second look and realize it is nothing like Win9x when they left the Windows world and moved to a *nix.
Slashdot news - making money for Microsoft by hating Microsoft. This is so freaking weird that I wonder if this side effect is shocking to even Apple's marketing con artists, as they have been a part of making this happen by accident as well.
Brilliant...
Let all of us go through the MS patents, and write an article or tech paper on it pertaining to Linux so we can pretend we invented the concept.
Hell, most Linux users ignore Microsoft, so they would buy it 99% of the time, until they do it and MS knocks on the door and goes, "Nope..."
If we are going to apply this stuff to Linux, we need to at least give Microsoft credit or pretend it is not our 'brainchild', and maybe Micorsoft will continue to leave us alone.
Geesh...
Exactly, SMB comes from IBM; however, MS has added features to it over the years. This was my point, as SMB information has been available forever, not sure why you assumed I was stating something different.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I would say all of these "features" l
Ok, I'll correct ya, well I'll go for a couple cause you and I are on different tracks of communication and I don't think you or I are disputing the same things...
First you act like you are arguing a patent dispute, this isn't.
Secondly this is not about a 'comcept' but the SPECIFIC implementation. So even though ACLs or other aspects have been around in various forms for a while, does not mean that the way they are implemented on Windows Server is not unique.
So ACL - this is implemented in a unique way on NT. NT uses an token/object system for security, both at the FS level and even at the communication level of the kernel. These are MS owned, as the way NT implements this is unique, and SAMBA always just reverse engineered it in the past to provide the basic functionality at the network server level. If they have licensed this ability from MS, they can implement the FS security as Windows Server does on NTFS, and additionally, use MS security protocols internally. A big step forward instead of 'emulating' the Microsoft Security model.
One reason SAMBA could perform well against Windows Server is that it 'faked' the security, as it only needed to provide security context to clients, and internally did not have to operate in a secure fashion, as it only had to operate in the UNIX construct of security concepts. So when you see performance of SAMBA vs Windows Server, and they are close, remember that for each request and response Windows Server is going through a much longer process than SAMBA always has had to, which makes the Windows Server often besting SAMBA quite impressive for people that understand technology at this level.
Additionally, we could take each item from my quick and 'generic' list and say the same things, as the specific way they implemented or handled at the Server level is specific to NT technology and how Microsoft designed these operations/features. It doesn't matter who invented the 'concepts', and sadly I am not sure why this is important to people, especially in the OSS world where building on the past is a key component of technology advancement.
So NT uses specific methods to implement the policies and how the protocol deals with the policies, the roaming profiles, and how they are stored and transfered between the server and client OSes, and also there are more advanced concepts introduced with Vista and Windows 2008 server that would be 'hard' for SAMBA to reverse engineer as it deals with encrypted data over SMB and block/bit compression and remote differential copying, so only the bits changed get transmitted.
Again, I'm not saying MS invented any of this, although the specific method or unique code they use is novel in that it works well, is more efficent than many of these concepts in past solutions, and are all integrated to work seamlessly so that encryption and roaming and RDC all work transparently to the client OS and the main functions of the File Server of the NT Server.
Why hasn't MS come out and listed their patent concerns instead of spreading Linux FUD?
If they did, they would lose their leverage, as Linux would get combed through to remove as much of these patents as possible. So why show the competition your cards unless you intend to play them? I would be happy they don't seem to intend to play them, and so far only use them to protect themselves from gold diggers, instead of being like Apple or Sun and suing everyone and their dog for patent violations. (Apple and Sun are good company why again?)
The problem is MS holds patents for very basic GUI concepts that all OSes today use throughout the UI. OS X is also guilty of smacking into tons of MS patents.
People don't seem to remember some of the
Which stuns me therefore that you know so little about the global position of Windows Mobile. If you prefixed your statements by saying "US market" then you'd be slight more accurate, but on a global scale (especially Japan and Europe) you are extremely wide of the mark on the multi-media marketing of phones and on the position of Windows Mobile.
I do know the US Markets better, but I also know that EDS Europe uses the hell out of Windows Mobile cell phones. Just being able to do remote desktop from their phone is a big seller for IT people helping customers or administrating servers. An EDS is just an example, as a lot of tech oriented people in Europe use the hell out of Windows Mobile.
So it isn't the red-headed step child that you keep suggesting.
In the consumer markets you are right, it isn't as popular in the European markets, but for 'high' end phones, it is the MAIN choice by offering a full OS experience on a handheld device. It is just most cell user's don't give a flip about features, like we talked about before. However, the people that 'do' care, do pick Windows Mobile phones, and would pick one over an iPhone in a second, as smart people/geeks don't give a crap about marketing cons and prefer functionality.
The 'Protocols' have ALWAYS been fairly open for MS Server products.
The part that SAMBA is licensing and NEEDS to license is when they are implementing features normally found in Windows Server that are not open.
Off top of my head I would guess these would be:
ACL & Security
Group Policy Features
Domain Features
Roaming Profiles, etc.
FS Search Network Queries ala Vista/Windows Desktop Search
etc etc etc...
The freaking communications and protocols are never been a big MS secret, as they are just evolutionary methods, it is the guts that SAMBA also tries to provide that has always been 'reverse engineered' and is now 'licensed' instead.
Geesh...
but without acceleration
Maybe it is a Vista/XP thing, as GPU rotated displays have been around for a while (TabletPC for example), and they are still fully accelerated no matter if portrait or landscape.
Nvidia introduced NVRotate in the FX series, their first generation PS 2.0 cards. ATI also has provided accelerated rotated display drivers for as long as NVidia has.
Even Intel TabletPCs provide acceleration, and they are bottom of the rung GPU technology.
There was an early beta driver of NVidia drivers for Vista, before Vista shipped that didn't do Aero when rotated, but this was a bug and fixed in the NVidia drivers before Vista shipped.
What OS drivers at this day and age still turn off Acceleration, and why?
PS...
Just a semi-funny side note.
I was at my mothers house last week and 'Dirt' was on and we were all partially watching it. There was a moment in the episode where 'Lucy' was complaining to her photographer about getting a new Cell Phone since his was junk.
My mom, who is not a technical person at all, said, "Why don't she get a new phone, is she cheap or is this an old show?"
I asked mom what she meant, and she went on a little rant about how 'Lucy' is bitching about the guys cell phone, while she is dialing her phone by hand and using a corded headset. Mom asked what kind of crap is she using, and I responded an 'iPhone', and my mother literally gasped.
I explained to her, that iPhones support bluetooth headsets, like my mom has, but you can't dial from them as it doesn't have voice recognition dialing.
My mom was literally shocked that the phone she had heard so many people talking about couldn't do a basic thing her 4 year old phone could, like do voice recognition.
I actually tried to defend the iPhone for a bit, then started thinking, I don't care. My mom's sense of 'oh my gawd that is so stupid', was justified, since she uses her headset 24/7 and couldn't dream of having to go back to looking at a cellphone to dial it.
My spouse then added, it also don't have GPS, which mom uses on her phone for turn by turn instructions, and it doesn't have 3G(high speed) so it can't be used it to watch videos or TV away from a WiFi hotspot, which my mom does all the time because she has the TV subscription for her phone since it can do 3G.
Mom then asked, so if it is lacking so many features, why do people love it? I again tried to explain the multi-touch, and UI is kind of cool, but my mom's response was, why would that be great, I don't even have to look at my phone to use it, so I don't care how cute the UI is.
This became a big discussion and myself and others ran out of 'why' it was so good that people went nuts for them, other than saying it was magical or Apple had good marketing, the argument was dead in the water.
(I should note my mom also syncs music to her phone all the time, and it is her MP3 player. She has two miniSD cards an older 1Gb and a new 4Gb card. The phone has stereo bluetooth support, and she uses a stereo bluetooth headset when listening to music, and a cheap motorola 850 bluetooth headset when she isn't using it for music.)
She would be the classic market for an iPhone or iPod, but the phone she has is better for her in many ways, and works easily for her. She touches the button on headset and says "Dial 555-1212" and it just works...
Actually No...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=527884&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=23128070#23129306
Read my post on this subject by other person from earlier. Apple's only Magic is in the manipulation that their marketing does and gets away with. (In the UK they don't get away with it as easily, and other marketing companies even frown on the 'techniques' used by Apple because it is very subversive and dangerous because it creates undue fanaticism.)
When people are asked why Apple is good, the reason of the 'favorable' impression of Apple starts with a general line of made up excuses to explain their 'unknown' love of the Company. Even you call what Apple does 'magic', because you might even have a hard time justifying your love of their products or the company.
This is how they work, they get you to love them and their products for reasons that are not logical, and when pressed creates a defensive dichotomy in people.
I have often criticized Microsoft for having a horrible marketing team and poor communication between their developers/researchers and the marketing team. You can witness this from Vista for example, instead of list 2000 new features in Vista and stuff that does matter to people, the marketing team is ignorant of technical features and then picks stupid features that are irrelevant to try to sell Vista. Trying to sell Vista by using Flip3D as a feature is insane and cheapens Vista in the context of the developers that worked on it.
The reason I even mention Microsoft, because if they ran ads like, "Hi, I'm a Mac,' the industry would slap them around for being dishonest. Most of these ads are cute, but are general or flat out lies. Take the Upgrade to Vista ad from them, generally saying that poor PC needs all upgraded hardware. However when Leopard 10.5 shipped it has the same hardware requirements that Vista does, 512mb minimum, 1gb to run as good as previous version, and 2gb to fly. Even video cards, Vista 'wants' a newer video card but scales back to a 1991 video card if needed. OS X 10.5 on the other hand 'demands' the video card be 3D accelerated and newer than the video cards that shipped in a lot of early OS X based Macs. OS X 10.5 will install and work on older video cards, but several 'features' flat out will not even run or display on the screen at all if you have an older Video Card. So here OS X 10.5 truly requires just as much of an upgrade as Vista, and for Video even more so, as it can't scale back to non 3D cards without losing features. (Time Machine fails on a Rage 128 card for example.)
So if you read my other post, you can see that I easily refuted the concept that Apple gets it to market 'first', so what is your next defensive based reasoning that Apple has Magic?
What is the Magic?
Here people will bring up the hardware and software work together, but with PCs made in the last 5 or 6 years, they also just work with the software, without a hardware software lock in.
Next you will hear Apple's UI is better, works better, is more consistent.. and this is a debateable fact, but there are some good arguments about UI where Apple fails, for example the ties to a Menu bar instead of moving to a new UI paradigm. Menu bars were a quick fix to early GUI development, as you could get all the features on the screen in a small amount of space, but Menus are nothing more than word lists, and this is very anti-GUI in concept.
Consistency is another area that could be argued against OS X, as there are the keystrokes that lived in the pre OS X era that don't work or don't always work in every application. And there are even simple things like the Apple key, or the Backspace/Delete keys not working consistently across all applications. This kind of inconsistency doesn't exist in Windows, and Windows is also more keyboard friendly even without menus, as you ca
MOST IMPORTANT THING
Really, so coming to market is the most important thing? Then Apple loses in every context then...
First, you need to thank and give kudos to Creative and iRiver as they had MP3 products on the market 5 or 6 years before the iPod.
You also don't get that there are tons of multi-touch devices out there, even trackpads on existing Windows Laptops.
This is where this article is WRONG, as it may support multi-touch, but it is NOT THE FIRST ONE, in fact multi-touch drivers with the CURRENT gesturing concepts go back to freaking Windows XP and TabletPC designs from 2005/2006. Here: http://www.gottabemobile.com/LenovoThinkPadX60TabletPCMultiTouchAndUltrabase.aspx
Still think Apple brought it to market first?
Do a Google "Windows Multi-touch". There are tons of companies out there, is looking up information this hard for Mac users?
The other 'sick' part of the Apple multi-touch, is they applied for patents on almost everything that was presented at TED. So not only did they race home to put the technology in their devices, they filed for patents on technology that was demonstrated to them at a conference...
http://www.multitouchtechnology.com/mac/apple-patents-for-multi-touch-gestures-in-mac-os-x/
Nice uh?
Apple even touts the 300 patents on the iPhone as a feature or example that it is more advanced. So they tout how they cripple the technology world by shoving patents in a product they didn't even invent and this makes people happy? Nice again...
And don't even go there with the freaking visual voicemail... A cool name, so it MUST BE NEW! People are retarded when it comes to crap like this.
There have been voicemail systems around for over 10 years that offer the exact same features as Visual Voicemail. In fact, many of these phone system even use voice recognition on the call to put the first line of text on the screen, so it looks like an Visual Inbox with the actual message in text. And this really is 'Visual Voicemail', not just a CallerID name on a list on the freaking screen.
There were plugins for the Inbox in Windows95/NT 4.0 MAPI mailbox that had these features back in 1995/1996, and now Apple somehow 'obviously' invented it? Are you high?
Go look at a service like UReach even, it is one I have partnered with since it was opened back in the 1990s. It has a visual voicemail system, that is accessible from your PHONE, Web Page, or Computer even. And this is OLD TECHNOLOGY...
And the best implementations are the ones that literally show the message in text (being voice recognition processed), and you can even access the whole message wihtout listening to anything, but read it 'Visually'... Hell go look up MS Phone Speech services, they have been providing features like this to phone software providers for almost 7 years themselves. So Microsoft was doing this for years and years, but they didn't freaking invent it either... These are OLD concepts.
So how in the f**k does Apple get people to believe they created this stuff, cause they haven't. And not only that, then idiots like you give them 'credit' for at least doing it first. WTF?
GEEEEESSSSSHHHHH...............
So I will repeat...
"So which it, people hate it because it has legacy readability support or people hate it because the legacy readability features are not required or documented?"
To me, it sounds like your saying OOXML is necessary because it can interpret those formats. Then, you turn around and say it's not necessary to implement the very features that would interpret that legacy format. Which is it? You haven't really provided an answer.
Actually I did... These features exist in OOXML, are documented, but are not required for new applications to create content. So if the developer 'wants' to provide the ability to read 15 year old MS Word documetnts, they can, as MS has documented it fully and is providing the information for them, but NOT requiring it.
(People have yelled for MS to provide this information for YEARS, and now that they do, some people bitch because the information is 'there', and get on a rant thinking it is required for implementing the standard. Even Office 2007 itself doesn't transparently treat legacy document formats as OOXML, it converts them using the functions Microsoft documented.)
So like I said, people get pissed because MS didn't provide the information, and other idiots use it as an excuse to pretend OOXML is more complicated than it is and spread FUD about implementing converting 15 year old documents.
You are aware that Sony Ericsson tied up a few years ago around just this area and that Nokia have been selling these media features as a plus point for several years as well? Now if you are saying that Microsoft haven't done this then you are correct, but as they are a minor part of the smartphone market that really isn't significant.
...
Nope, I think you should be marked down because you don't know anything about the mobile phone market and the fact that it is primarily driven from a consumer products perspective rather than as a technology innovation area. Mobile phones are a commodity item which means that the differentiation has ceased to be around tariffs and has shifted onto devices
Ok, you only repeating some of the same things I said, and then act like I never mentioned it? Are you responding to the correct post?
1) Microsoft Smartphones are a bit larger in the market than I think you realize, as they have been around for many years now, starting out as PocketPC phones.
2) Sure many cell phones have multimedia features, but the fact that it was not marketed to users, people didn't realize it existed, this was a failure on the part of the cell phone mfrs and cell providers, as they didn't realize it was a big of a feature as Apple 'made it to be'.
I know many people running around with Razrs and other phones that have MiniSD slots and full multimedia features and have no idea their phone has technically more features than an iPhone.
Even most smartphone users never considered their devices 'media' platforms, even though they technically are advanced media platforms, supporting tons of formats inherently and having tons of OSS codecs available for them to play everything from XVID to MPEG4.
So my argument was that it was failed marketing, by not making these features sexy. Which is the same freaking argument you make at the end of your post...
So explain to me if you agree with me, and see the technology vs 'fashion' application of the devices the same way I do, how or why would you say I know nothing about the cell market?
This is where I mention that one of parnering company's contracts is with Cricket dropping 3.5/4g service in Vegas, and this company has been in the cell business since 1995... Just last week we were going over product availability (cell phones) for the new AWS Vegas market.
So, Umm... Ya, whatever, I know nothing about 'cell phones/markets'...
This is what Apple does a lot - take something reasonably old and obvious, make it look spiffy and actually usable for someone without a CS degree, then sell (and market) it as the Hot New Thing.
This is giving Apple too much credit even.
The Multi-Touch implementation that Apple has used on the iPhone and iPod and Macbook, are EXACT UI multi-touch concepts 're-introduced' at the TED conference a couple of years back. (I think the demonstration may even be online now for people that didn't attend.)
The TED demonstration put together some cool new ways of using multi-touch ideas for working with photos, zooming in/out etc. And in the TED presentation, the presenters gave the presentation as a spark to get people involved in using the technology, but some of the UI gestures they came up with were off the top of their heads as the admitted and needed to be refined or possibly done better.
Sadly, Apple even copied these multi-touch gestures, not even expanding on the ideas presented as was expected by the presenters at the TED conference. (So not only did Apple copy the ideas, they copied them exactly, not even expanding the features that were made up for the conference to try to inspire better gestures and usage.)
Microsoft also had a few multi-touch demonstrations several years back, along 2002/2003 timeframe when the TabletPC was the new cool thing.
The TED conference presentation was a blend of new ideas, old ideas, and a few MS ideas, etc.
Microsoft's surface also borrows from the TED presentation, although MS has polished some of the gestures and UI concepts, building on their work from earlier and adding in some TED concepts, and actually refining some of the rough ideas that Apple copied from TED. The surface computer is more than multi-touch though, as it can 'see' through the display, and is not limited to tactical input, so it can recognize objects, barcodes, even paintbrushes, etc.
So, ya, you are being way to generous with Apple, the only thing they have done that is new or cool is the marketing that gets people like the parent poster to think Apple created this stuff and gets their loyal fans to look down on other people implementing 'Apple's Technologies'. Geesh...
but you neglect that if they did not enter into these contracts, Windows would be more expensive and give their competition who did sign the agreements an advantage.
No, I addressed this issue specifically. Note where I say the incentives of the exclusive contracts ONLY saved the OEMs about $5 per copy at the most for Windows, and gave them NOTHING else.
The OEM connection and partner channels were the same, no matter if you were a mom and pop OEM, a medium size OEM, large OEM or someone like Dell that signed Exclusivity contracts. All companies had the SAME relationship channels, and having the 'exclusive' contract gave OEMs NO MORE access to MS or anything every other OEM in the world could not obtain. The exclusive contracts only allowed them to save money and later produce the media themselves, etc.
So, as a TINY company you would pay $5 more, and still had the same level of MS offering and support. PERIOD.
And all it took to become an OEM partner was to buy a SKU of Windows OEM (These were 5 Packs), and sign up as an OEM through MS or the distributor.
In my recollection, I think it was evident around the time that IBM AT came out. When the 386 came out, it was clear that no other ISV could compete, with profitability, against Microsoft's anti-competitive actions.
You need to go back and take another look at the dates here. Windows/386 was NOT successful at all, and Windows 3.x was successful in home markets. Windows didn't get business class adoption until Windows 3.1/3.11, as the Novel client software was still DOS based, and by the time it loaded and Windows 3.0, there wasn't much room left in the 1024K area, since Windows 3.0 was 16bit. Windows 3.1 had 'Windows' netware clients available, and Windows 3.11 had native networking built in. (Windows 3.1 was also 16bit, except for the 32bit HD access modes that would bypass DOS and BIOS completely for better Paging and Caching performance.)
The 386 had NOTHING to do with MS in either context, or timeframe, or in the ISV world. NT was and (is) Microsoft's 32bit OS, and it didn't gain real competitive success until NT 4.0 in 1996/1997.
The Microsoft 'activities' you talk about that were testified to by Netscape, etc all played out in the Windows 95 timeframe for the most part, as it wasn't until the 1994 timeline that Windows 3.x became highly dominent.
So I'm not sure why you are questioning my 'memory' of the MS monopoly case, but you are the one that has this off by MANY YEARS.
The only governemnt pressure against prior to this was the WP/Novell inquires started by Orin Hatch, also from Utah, and was a direct response to the loss of marketshare WP and Novell had taken, and they were NOT desktop OS vendors.
They also screwed themselves, as MS tried to work with both companies, and Lotus when Windows was gaining some home market popularity. MS begged WP to create a Windows version of their product, as they did Lotus, even going as far to offer developers from MS to work with directly with WP or Lotus for FREE to assist in the process at any capacity they thought would be useful. WP and Lotus had the market, and told MS to go pound sand.
It wasn't until this point that MS even went back to Word and Excel, as they originally didn't run on Windows 3.0 (being Windows/286 applications). The original ports were going to be basic, which they were, and didn't work any better. After WP and Lotus flipped off MS, they put money into Word and Excel as they knew Windows was going to need basic office tools if it was ever going to be successful. Hence the building of the complete 'Office Team' at Microsoft.
Sadly when WP did create a Windows version (late after losing and screwing over customers), they wrote their own 'printer driver' stack, and bypassed all the standard OS APIs for printing, and even by passed many of the OS Memory allocation APIs, etc. Then when their product crashed and worked horribly, they got Orin Hatch to bitch slap MS around in Washington.
So
Up here, it's illegal to make it impossible for a person to access their own data. Therefore, while they are allowed to prevent you from making new documents, spreadsheets, etc., they cannot disable the "read-only" features of the software.
Free read-only versions already exist for Office, why do you think Microsoft would penalize someone that had subscribed by denying them access to these features everyone else in the world gets for free?
Classic MS paranoia... (PS Do you think all the companies that are already doing subscription models with Microsoft for the last several years haven't tested the extent of the subscription rights and don't you think you would have heard someone screaming in Business if MS was screwing customers that dropped their subscription services? And yes this includes countries outside the US, as one of our partners is EDS Europe and they deal with customers that have MS based software subscriptions all the time.)
BTW The rights to information created via software and licensing is more dodgey than you realize. Look at OS upgrades and products from companies that require new versions to access pre-existing data. Even Apple has done this several times on 'licensed' software that creates content, with no recourse available legally to their users, even in Canada if I am not mistaken.
Additionally, software subscription services are NOT as abnormal as people seem to think they are. This is just industry progression, but using an old paradigm in a modern context.
For example: TiVo is virually the SAME THING, as you are paying the software service, and lose the rights to play your own recorded content if you cancel the subscription. (Older TiVo models allowed content to play after subscriptions were terminated, new models don't.)
Again, you are not saying *what* is different, I see no appreciable difference in the table paradigms. Sure, 15 years is going to show some improvement, but "Go Computer" was functional 15 years ago while "Pen Windows" never worked.
1) Do your own freaking research, I'm not your professor, I have enough people that I teach and have to worry about 'getting it'.
2) Go Computer was less function than Grid, and that was less functional than Pen Windows. The fatal flaw in all of them was Ink was non-existent except as a 'drawn' image. Recognition attempts were horrid, and on-screen keyboards were the only real interaction. (Here is a hint for your research on #1 - Today, on-screen keyboards are hardly ever used.)
As anyone knows, it is hard to find details and references on this sort of thing, but it is well known, and a SOP or Microsoft to to use the carrot vs stick approach to threatening OEMs especially back then before the DOJ.
This is NOT well known or even accurate. I have owned and worked with several OEM providers, one being a very large early Mail Order company that placed slightly behind Gateway and Dell. Our company that worked with pen computing in the early 90s was 'never' even approached by Microsoft, except when they would offer free demonstrations, ask for input on technology, or provide deployment tools.
Even the 'great' monopoly of Microsoft 'pressuring' OEMs is a HUGE freaking myth. Companies like Dell and Gateway, etc. all took advantage of 'excusivity' contracts to get OEM copies of Windows Cheaper. This started happening around the Windows 95 timeframe, and it was their decision to sign the contracts or NOT. IBM offered almost the SAME EXACT contracts for OS/2 at this time, as it was COMMON and still is COMMON to an extent to shove exclusive deals at better pricing.
This is also why you saw TONS of WordPerfect Office bundles in the Mid 90s, as they signed 'cheap' exclusive offers with Novell/Corel. However, MS never had 'exclusive' Office deals, and yet Office won the freaking war during this time frame as WP Office was crap, that could barely run 5 minutes without crashing or losing information.
So these companies picked up a 'good' deal from Microsoft, and they also were able to 'standardize' their technical support as they didn't have to worry about support OS/2 users, etc. It was a win/win for the OEMs, but screwed the consumers.
So who is to blame? The freaking greedy OEMs. Especially considering the OEM exclusivity deals with Microsoft for Windows only saved about $5 per copy of OEM Windows. Sure that adds up, but at what cost of screwing their customers and limiting their options? And again it made their driver and technical support much easier as they had a base platform to work with. (You know how Apple does now, and everyone loves them for it?)
Our OEM companies were forbidden by myself and active managers from doing exclusivity deals with Microsoft because we still offered consumer choice. Although 99.9% of all our systems were still Windows, based on consumer demand, we did have a few early *nix systems, DOS systems even, and of course OS/2 in the general consumer product lines. It cost our companies about $5 more per copy of Windows, but it was still worth it in the end, as we weren't ever tied or held hostage to Microsoft.
Microsoft also didn't try to force the exclusive deal down our throat, in fact it was only offered in general terms in a couple of meetings and in some OEM documentation, other than that our Microsoft connection people treated our companies like gold even without the exclusive deals, and even one of our smaller companies that bought OEM product from Merisel and Ingram Micro.
We had the same OEM relationship that Dell or any other OEM had, and could call on Microsoft at any time.
So I am tired of the fairy tale that MS forced exclusive contracts, or did anything outside the NORM. If it was bundling practices that made their success, then WordPerfect would be the sta
I fail to see how killing OOXML will send people back to the 90s when, as of 2008, there aren't any implementations of it. Scientists and engineers will be quite happy to continue using TeX whether or not OOXML lives or dies.
Maybe the researchers and engineers I know are just more 'hip' than the average, as they like having a TabletPC they can jot down notations on instead of hacking together cryptic syntax to create the same formulas and expressions.
And this isn't 2008 technology, Vista has native Ink support going back to 2006, and TabletPCs (XP Based) have been around for five or six years...
How is it different? How is "TabletPC" "innovation" different than Go Computing's Tablet?
Go search for TabletPC on YouTube, you have no freaking idea how different it is, how the application paradigm changed with the concepts of TabletPCs or how it is used in Vista by anyone with a Wacom tablet.
There is a big difference in the platforms based on the computing power available alone, like instant and background recognition and seamless text/ink integration concepts (invented by the Word team around 1998) just to begin an explanation.
Go look at the surface computing and multi-touch technologies previed at TED a couple of years ago, these are concepts that also radically are and will change computing and user interaction and the TabletPC technologies and MS Ink were as big of a shift as well. (BTW -Yes the iPhone copied the multi-touch UI from the TED presentation almost exactly.)
When Go Computing was making headway, microsoft announce "PenWindows" and threatened toshiba, and toshiba had to drop support for Go.
This is made up crap. Give me a reference. because I remember the Toshiba support decisions a LOT differently.
Windows 3.x was picking up tremendous market share during this time, that no one predicted, and SEVERAL Manufactuers dropped Go because they didn't want to be locked into a non-standard OS like PinPoint when they could bring to market a better user product that ran all the current DOS and Windows applications in existence along with new Pen applications.
Pen Windows didn't die as soon as you think it did either. We were supporting Pen Windows users at GM and EDS up until 1996/1997.
This was almost taken seriously until I saw this point... OOXML is a zip file too. Do your homework better, astroturfer.
ODF allows for extensions as well, you know.
There is a difference between compressing the entire document to minimize its footprint and creating references to tons of 'separate' zip content to try and provide a hack level of extensibility like ODF does.
I don't care if they RAR the freaking content, OOXML is one document structure that 'internally' stores even binary and extraneous data, it doesn't have to resort to packaging up what is not understood like ODF does into ZIP files and leaving it up to the developers to handle or even properly retain this information.
ODF and adding non-standard content via ZIP files is a hack at best, and goes HORRIBLY wrong when you try to create content in the ZIP files that tie back to the structure or text of the main document.
For example, imagine a Sound file that links to the text of the document, and if you play the sound file, you can reference the word spoken with the text in the document or INK. Now imagine this with ODF and you throw this into a crap developer's application that isn't bright enough to even consider this, and any modifications break the document completely.
This EXISTS and is used by tons of users everyday in the Windows and TabletPC world, yet it is 'magic' or outside the 'norm' for people here? WTH? If would be different if these were theories or conceptual uses, but this is stuff that people store and use in documents and have for five years or so now.
Contextual linking not only would apply to Sound, or Ink, but even simple things like revisions and markup, which is something that is even more widely used than freaking Ink.
If ODF is going to be a document standard, then they better become a freaking document standard and support what is in use today, including linked non-textual content.