Is that safe from the hardware side of things? I think I'd be hesitant to pull a PCI card from a live motherboard whether my OS could cope with it or not.
Well, actually it isn't the 'saftest' thing to do, but does demonstrate the OSes ability to recover from fairly major hardware problems. The design is to recover from a driver/hardware malfunction and not leave the user stranded with no display if for some reason the Video driver or card goes wrong.
XP had some ability to recover from video driver failures, but due to the nature of the video driver model in XP, it usually resulted in a corrupt screen or a lockup. In Vista, even blowing your Video card with a failed fan could potentially recover and default to a VGA level mode if it can get the Video card to restart at a basic level.
The article notes that the IE7 "containment wall" protected mode will not be available on XP, but only to those who purchase Vista.
Why even mention this. XP is NOT capable of running a browser with 'lower than user' level of privledges. Which is what protected mode means.
I think the person writing this post has no idea what this means, or they would not of made a point of it.
IE7 still has a massive security model upgrade from IE6, even if it can't run as less than a normal user as it can on Vista.
Oh, and anything to get the mass public off of IE6, even if it moving them to IE7, it is worth it and a good thing. The faster MS can get this out to users, the better. (Even for webiste developers that can just say,"This site only works with IE7 or a browser that supports better CSS specifications, if you are running XP download IE7 or Firefox, and if you are running an older version of Windows, just go download Firefox now..."
Ok, here is some advice from someone in the know...
Vista will not be 100% perfect on every machine. It will have less driver support and optimization than XP at first. This is a known fact, since so much of the internal of the OS has been rewritten.
XP had an advantage with drivers, because the win98/win2k driver generation worked flawlessly on XP for the most part. Vista is is only 'partially' true, because if the drivers are poorly written or try to do unsecure things, Vista won't let them do it.
There is also the massive Video changes in Vista. I know a lot of people think it is just pretty stuff, but it is far deeper than this. Not only has most of the Video drivers been moved back to User mode with even hot plug capability, but they also are doing things that NO video drivers have ever even attempted in the history of consumer OSes. Things like multitasking GPU functions, virtualizing GPU RAM to system RAM, as well as the implementation of a true Vector layer acceleration and Compoer layer. (To put this into context, think of OSX, it is basically Windows GDI+ with a bitmap composer, Vista goes far deeper by not only being a Vector composer, but only adds in a new level of GPU and application interaction.)
Ok, so there are going to be some issues with 'unsecure' software and bad older drivers. Hardware vendors will eventually get their crap together and this will not be a long term problem.
Vista does gain in the areas of user productivity in many areas, areas that most GEEKS haven't even tested or realize is there.
Let's take the Video driver changes for a quick example. Since the WDDM driver model in Vista can virtualize GPU RAM, you can run several high end games and 3d Applications that would consume your GPUs RAM, and Vista will just swap out memory from the GPU that is not speed needed, so these applicaitons will run side by side without failing because your Video card doesn't have enough RAM. In a way, it is like giving your Video Card a RAM boost.
The second part of the WDDM that is more productive, is because of the Vector acceleration and Vector composer that sits between the applications and what you see on the screen, a lot of BUSINESS applications see a tremendous boost in performance. I could give ya the standard answers that obscured Windows don't have to repaint themselves which should be obvious, but there are also applicaitons like CorelDraw and AI, where the illustration drawing is 10-20x faster in Vista because of the vector acceleration along with the less frequent application redraw messages. (For example, not only will Corel draw the images on the screen faster, but it won't have to repaint the image if you open your Browser in front of it.)
So in the long run, just for people that are doing graphic design and Video editing Vista is SEVERAL times faster than XP and OSX, and worth the change over, even on current hardware.
Other business applications also get these speed improvements, but they are less noticeable since they are not all about drawing complex vector or bitmpa images.
The other myth is that you need to upgrade your system. If you want to have the Glass effects in Vista, you going to need a very basic Video card. A GeforceFX 5200 with 128mb of RAM will more than cover the needed requirements. I think you can even get by with a 64mb version of the card for the 'glass'. These are REALLY OLD Cards in the cycle of a computer.
The other thing you are going to want is 'extra' RAM for Vista, as it does a lot more prefetch caching and will run faster with more RAM, that is why you need a system with 512mb of RAM. (And again, this is NOT a major upgrade)
So you if your computer has an AGP Video card with PS2 that was produced 3 years ago and 512mb of RAM, you are going to have a great Vista experience.
If you computer is above these specifications, then you will have a 'better than XP' experience in almost everything you do.
There are a few rough edges in Vista, and I'm not here to say it i
Which would you rather have 100 monkeys programming on a project or 10 skilled programmers?
More programmers and more 'eyes' on a project does not mean it is going to be inherently more bug free. In fact with a group of bad programmers in the mix, it can cause severe harm to a project.
I'm not knocking Open Source, but for people to just expect it to be better because more people have access to work on it, have obviously not met as many programmers as I have.
There are a lot programmers that put time into project (and yes Open Source) that have no business developing a VB application for a 10yr old kiddie game, yet they are taking part in large scale coding projects that truly would be better off with them not working on it.
When working with XWindows years ago, I ran into a few people that scared the hell out of me and other people. They had no vision or scope past the specific things they were trying to do, and would often come up with modifications or 'features' that would break more than it added to the project.
In the Windows world of 3rd Party developers I have also found 100s of people I wouldn't want them to develop Hello World. As they had no concept or regard to security, Unicode or many other features that would fail when the applications would run on a non-English system with a user having administration privledges.
You can even find many commericial products in the 3rd party Windows world that also have these problems, but are yet produced by big companies are popular products.
I wish that all ideas would be welcomed into a project, but the people having the final say could trump crap programmers and crap ideas if they are detrimental to the project.
When you look at the Linux Kernel or BSD, you can quickly understand why Linus and others don't want to let the 'deciding' control into the masses, or both of these core OS would become crap in a matter of months of unregulated programmer additions.
So the requried hardware for Vista didn't really cost me anything extra because it was I was going to buy it anyway as part of my system upgrade cycle (I have a system upgrade cycle?!?), and Vista didn't cost me anything because it came "free" with the hardware.
Well it is more like this...
You need new hardware if your computer is so old it can't handle 512mb of RAM. So if you have a 1998 system, you probably would have to upgrade to run Vista effectively.
These articles are such FUD and pure crap.
It was only 5 years ago we had the SAME morons flooding the internet with the same estimates for WindowsXP.
Strange however is that our company still has systems around that are 200mhz Pentiums with 80mb of RAM running XP. I guess their 'estimates' then were also way off, as they stated machines like this would not run XP, let alone run faster with XP than they did when shipped new with Win98.
I am so tired of misreporting. Techs need to just take the time and do their own in depth testing.
It is just like this post above where the claimed 'expert' sold his client Win2k for their desktops. Not only is this really stupid, but considering the stability and performance increase in XP over Win2k (And yes there is an increase in performance) he totally screwed his clients and will screw himself when his clients come back to him wanting to run an applicaiton that Win2k does not support. For every tech out there still using Win2k and 'thinking' it is faster or more stable than XP, I have ocean-front property in Nevada I will sell them.
Call me the day when I can fork Internet Explorer and release my patched version as "Intarweb Implorer" without getting sued though.
Ring... Answer your phone...
Not to burst your rant bubble, but IE has allowed for using its engine and being named anything people want, several of the 3rd party browsers even do sound a lot like Internet Explorer. MS has to date never sued any of these companies. I have seen many names that sounded like or reflected IE, like "IE Plus", etc.
recall hearing about Microsoft incorporating a POSIX subsystem, quite a long time ago. I also recall that no one took it seriously, because it was not compatible with most of the win32 api, which meant that you could only run it as a standalone unix machine (essentially), or turn off posix features. This made it effectively useless.
What year did you have to go back to in order to dig up this old of information? Are SlashDot Trolls really this out of step with the mainstream and don't truly know this stuff - and if so, how in the hell can you accurately advise people or even yourself?
Here is a bit from the official MS documentation, notice this is not something that COULD even fight with Win32 as it is a separate subsystem - which I don't think you understand.
Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications provides an operating system for POSIX processes. SUA (containing subsystem, shells, etc), along with its web download package (also called as Utilities and Software Development Kit or SDK) provides a complete UNIX environment. The download package includes a comprehensive set of scripting utilities and a software development kit (SDK) designed to fully support the development capabilities of SUA while providing a complete UNIX-based application development experience.
SUA also supports case-sensitive file names (along with UNIX like path handling), job control, compilation tools, debugging facilities (example: gdb), libraries (for pthreads, libm etc) and the use of over 300 UNIX commands, utilities (like lex, yacc, sed), and shell scripts.
Since the subsystem installs separately on top of Windows kernel just like the Windows subsystem, it offers true UNIX functionality without any emulation. To reiterate, we are architecturally not on top of Windows subsystem, but are subsystem in our own right. Thus, we are not emulating APIs, but implementing it on top of Windows kernel.
Ok, the wordperfect argument is NOT the best one to use, even though I do understand your concerns. If Microsoft was not under the federal microscope, then I would more easily buy into a new conspiracy theory about them not fully disclosing all security APIs...
However, if you recall, part of the requirements for Microsoft is that they even have to provide source to US and EU courts, so if there was any 'hidden' APIs, these would easily be able to found in simple discovery on a basic claim litigated by a company like Symantec.
Microsoft would be foolish to have hidden APIs that only benefited them.
As for the Wordperfect case, it truly is a bad example, because I was a part of a group taht worked with MS during the timeframe that all this took place. In attempts to make Windows successful, when MS released Version 3.0 in 1990 they had been in contact with and continual contact with all leading application companies like Wordperfect, Lotus, Novell, Aldus, etc...
MS wanted these companies to work on producing a Windows version of their 'popular' applications. MS even went as far to offer free development tools, support and even assist in writing the applications if the companies requested.
In their arrogance, two major companies of the time WordPerfect and Lotus declined any assistance from MS, as they both had vested interests in Windows NOT succeeding.
If you look at the timeline, these companies did not even move internally to produce a Windows version of their software until AFTER MS Word 2.0 and Excel was released for Windows 3.0 and their market share spiked considerably, becoming a serious threat to WP and Lotus.
As for the hidden API claims, these were NEVER proven to have been purposely withheld, nor detrimental to the operation of WP. Windows had several internal APIs that bypassed 'upper' level APIs, but they provide no benefit, even though Word used the lower level APIs.
If you look at other products from the time, like AmiPro, it worked nearly flawlessly and was in fact a better Wordprocessor than Word. However WP for Windows was a disaster of unstability that carried on until even the late 1990s. How was the AMIPro team able to produce such a bug free and powerful product and the WP team was not, as the AMIPro team did NOT have any additional information on the lower level APIs that it was found Word was using.
WP tried to screw MS because they did not want to update their product, even at the cost of their users. As WP had almost NO plans to update 5.1 for something like six years, a long time in the industry, but a timeframe WP thought they could continue to control the Wordprocessing market. Something they soon found to not be the case and so they reluctantly went on to produce WP for Windows.
WP was so set in NOT conforming to even the 'provided' Windows APIs that WP for Windows even used their own Print Engine and drivers, bypassing the GDI Printer APIs built into Windows. Maybe WP would have not crashed when hitting the backspace key if they had not tried to bypass the Windows Print APIs, as well as MANY other Windows APIs, even including Memory Management, which WP tried to handle themselves.
This is a quite insane concept to produce a product for an OS, and yet bypass essential API and features the OS and then years later claim their failure was because they didn't have access to even more APIs. Maybe if they didn't ignore most of the Win16 API, they would have produced a product that worked better in the first place.
WordPerfect was late to the game and when they did enter the Windows market they chose not to use the OSes fundamental features causing their product to not only be late, but highly unstable. Again, I will reference AmiPro, as it was a solid Wordprocessor from the same timeframe and they didn't have access to anything more than the WP team did.
So the whole 'hidden' API and Wordperfect argument is a bad example. Even the so called 'hidden' APIs were found to not be beneficial, and something the
What they are complaining about is that MS has made it impossible for any program to run at a low enough level (except MS programs of course) to be able to work effectively as an antivirus/antimalware application. They've made is so that it's impossible for anybody but MS to make a proper virus scanner.
I think you should truly fact check yourself.
I know that this is the perception McAfee and Symantec want people to believe, but there are many technical details that simply don't support their facts.
MS put in place API equivalent access to the OS for ANY anti-virus application so the 3rd parties DON'T have to write their own kernel level access modules anymore. This actually makes it EASIER for anti-virus companies to produce quality products and it ALSO ensure the integrity of the OS as a poorly developed 3rd party anti-virus solution will not cause stability problems.
If you look back at products like McAfee and Symantec they have went from being basic Anti-Virus solutions to integrating so deeply into the Windows kernel that they are the result of MANY stability and incompatibility problems. You are also incorrect about asserting that only MS can write an effective antivirus application. Even the MS anti-virus programs like OneCare and Defender have to go through the EXACT same APIs that McAfee and Symantec are being forced to use.
MS is not playing favorites even with their own anti-spy/virus programs, as they do not want even their own applications to dig into the OS and cause stability or compatibility problems, because the Vista developers know the OS and the kernel far better than the people writing the Scanning software.
This is actually a good thing for users and for MS as well, giving users a consistent and more secure experience without having programs screw with system stability, compatibility, and performance.
In a weird way, this is ALSO good for McAfee and Symantec, as they no longer have to the extensive kernel level filtering development and can write their applications to the Vista APIs saving them a lot of work.
There is nothing wrong with an OS having a 'consistent' security interface that 3rd parties are not allowed to screw with. How do you think people would react to a vendor at the post distribution level crying that they can't modify standard features of the Linux or BSD kernel that could cause incompatibility and security issues and circumvent the inherent protections these OS offer?
MS allowing 3rd parties to screw with 'core' features of the OS have been the main problem they have had with Windows, and it time for this to stop. Vista is the point that MS is no longer caring about compatibility if it means lowered security. This can be seen throughout the OS with the removal of a root level account, surpassing even *nix concepts, and simple things like the protected mode IE runs in and the reduced ability to run even MS's own ActiveX technologies.
NT has always has a lot of security, but MS didn't FORCE it for the sake of compatibility. Now that MS IS FORCING it, companies like Symantec and McAfee are crying foul because they can't circumvent the Security in Vista like they could in XP and previous versions of Windows.
I do agree that Vista is not 'so secure' it doesn't need anti-virus or spyware, as I don't believe any OS could ever be with social engineering viruses. Even MS is smart enough to understand that nothing is fool proof, and exactly why MS designed the security center and created APIs for anti-virus and anti-spyware to integrate into the OS.
So i think that Vista will be more insecure than ever, because MS will be the only ones able to provide security tools.
Again even the MS products have to use the same OS APIs and Hooks that McAfee and Symantec have to, they have no advantage.
Vista in theory should be far more secure, because if even the anti-virus applications can't circumvent or alter how the OS works, chances are it will be pretty hard for a virus to do this
NT's POSIX compliance has always been (except SFU which isn't really part of the OS, SUA and whatever Vista Enterprise will have) the bare minimum for POSIX compliance as of 1992. SFU was an addon for 32-bit Windows only and SUA is Win2k3 and Vista Enterprise (unless they've changed that) only. Oddly enough, Windows XP x64, which is based on the Windows 2003 Server x64 codebase, does not have either SFU or SUA. Here's hoping they'll throw us poor bastards who adopted their red headed stepchild OS a bone and give us SUA in XP x64 SP2.
I just wanted to let you know that the new Unix subsystem for Windows is available for the x64bit version of Windows and they still plan on supporting the I64 version, although it is not yet available.
They also have went as far to add thunking to the x64 version of the Unix subsystem so that 32 and 64bit binaries can run side by side in the x64 Unix subsystem for Windows.
Apparently MS is hearing the x64bit support requests and are hitting it hard for the Unix subsystem.
As an additional note to my original post, I just noticed that the more recent documentation from MS is trying to get the point across that the UNIX subsystem is not an emulation and is a true OS subsystem. Maybe people like me and you won't have to point this out to people all the time if they keep making a point of getting this information out.
From the MS Documentation:
"Since the subsystem installs separately on top of Windows kernel just like the Windows subsystem, it offers true UNIX functionality without any emulation. To reiterate, we are architecturally not on top of Windows subsystem, but are subsystem in our own right. Thus, we are not emulating APIs, but implementing it on top of Windows kernel."
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago and what range of error do these readings fall within?
For 'millions' of years ago, temperature information has to be taken from geological data.
For Thousands of years ago, which I think is what this studying is identifying with, they can go back several hundred thousand years by looking at Ice cores from Antarctica. It involves analyzing the oxygen isotopes of the ice along with other factors. Using these techniques they can track climate changes and atmospheric conditions including temperature going back a long time. (This data can also be compared to geological data to ensure the methods accurately match.)
This stuff is a good scientific read for anyone interested in how scientists do determine past climatic events on earth.
(As a side note, this information also correlates to numerous other publishings on the drastic temperature changes we are witnessing. Al Gore's presentation also is in line with these findings and maybe we should start to take this threat seriously, and stop looking at this from any political or economic bias.)
I know this is SlashDot, but seriously, I can't believe people still repeat stuff like this...
In reference to your point, I agree that we should never limit our thoughts to anything ever being enough when it comes to technology, especially regarding repeating cycles of hitting the ceiling of a technology that the industry has witnessed many many times.
For people that argue we are abusing the power in computing already available to us, I suggest they look at an MMO and realize the UI and GUI potential that worlds like these could lead to with increased computing power for AI and graphics.
Vista is like XP but with even more pointless visual effects to turn off, not to meantion it runs alot slower.
Ok, I think you should at least try it. You are the target audience MS is trying to hit.
I think you will find yourself surprised. Vista is faster than WindowsXP if you have 512mb of RAM. (Yes a step jump from the 128mb XP threshold)
The other thing you will find as you use Vista is the OS doesn't look 'extremely' different, but you find yourself using many of the new features.
Right now going back to XP from Vista (after only running it on my personal system full time for a couple of weeks) is already painful. I am forever missing the quick find abilities, saved searches, and tons of 'little' things that are just more polished and just work for you in Vista.
And going back to speed, when editing large graphics, or even working in CorelDraw or AI on a massive drawing, the speed difference is 10x the difference between Vista and XP or OSX.
The Vista Video Composer is truly top notch and not only will you find your 3D applications flying, but even your older 2D GDI+ applications will perform at amazing levels, as MS is even accelerating basic vector and GDI+ calls through the GPU. This along with the the true Vector level composer in Vista, you will find everything from CorelDraw to AutoCad and even stuff like Photoshop run so much faster on the same hardware, it is a bit surprising at times.
The biggest change for users in usability is the integrated search and the more consistent use of the folder placement and how it operates within the OS, and yes it is more *nix like, but I think that is a good thing.
The search features is not only a search service, but it is a part of the OS at every level. You will find yourself hitting the start button and typing "Donkey" and in 1 second getting a list of every file and every email you have ever used the word "Donkey" in. The search is fast, and integrated throughout to every UI Dialog or folder window. (Once you use Vista, you will see why WinFS is not needed at this point, as they have pulled off the speed and you can already add 'relational' attributes and Tags to all your files, folder and documents.
I would move to Vista for the Video and application performance alone, as I do a lot of graphic design work, and watching CorelDraw repaint a multi-layered drawing and take 5-10secs under XP and paint instantly in Vista is enough of a reason to move to a new OS. (And like I said, this is also true of almost any application that does a lot of drawing to the screen.)
Also if you have a Video Card made in the last 3 years, you won't have to turn off the 'visual' effects, unless they annoy you. There is no performance hit that our techs can even measure between running with Glass on or off.
As for your claim that vista server will ship with a full BSD subsystem, I would really like to see some evidence to back this up. I've never heard this, and a few searches with google didn't turn anything up. Not only is it an unsubstantiated claim, but it makes no sense. What purpose would it serve, why would they do that?
Ok, you really went off on a rant... Calm down, this really isn't this important, even if it bends what you thought was reality.
First to answer your questions, you could actually look this up several places on MS Sites, as they have been giving the *nix subystem away for a couple of years now, and the new features is what is going into Vista and Longhorn.
Here is another way you can tell it is included with Vista. Install Vista, open the (Control Panel) and go to (Programs and Features), Click (Turn Windows Features On or Off) and look for the Option called: (Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications). Click to turn it on, and bingo, you have a full Unix subsystem running on Vista - magical uh?
Ok, back to POSIX - Yes I think most of us understand basic POSIX compliance difference and the differences between POSIX and *nix.
WindowsNT 3.1 did ship with a basic POSIX subsystem, and it was kept in for several version, up to at WinNT4 (Fact check that for me.:) )
In order to further the *nix subsystem in Windows acquired a company that was already providing a fuller featured *nix subsystem called INTERIX. It was more than just POSIX compliant, as it is a full *nix OS.
The link I provided (which I hope was correct) was to the subsystem download site for Windows2k/WindowsXP. You can already run the newer MS *nix subsystem on both OSes for free, and they are fairly full *nix OSes, except they do not provide an XServer out of the box.
So the MS *nix subsystems are a BSD style *nix, a full *nix OS that runs on the NT Kernel and also side by side with other NT subsystem OSes like Win32, etc. (You see NT has an cool kernel in that it is designed to run multiple OS subsystems on top of the NT kernel and have then all interact through the NT kernel.) So yes, you can have your *nix terminal open and be poking around all day, and Alt-Tab to MS Word to write your next SlashDot Rant...
I am so surprised that so few people in the Slashdot world realize that not only has this *nix subsystem been available and free for Win2k/WinXP users for a while now, but that MS has taken great steps to expand it and the interoperability tools for *nix in Windows, and that these all will ship with the newest version of Windows.
One of our tech loves to port crap over to the MS *nix subsytem and run his favorite little *nix utilties on Vista or WinXP, and be able to use them concurrently with Win32/Win64 or whatever other OS Subsystem is running on the NT core.
There are also 3rd Parties that provide XServers for the MS NT UNIX subsystem, letting you go as far as your imagination and latest version of KDE will allow you to go. (And still be running all this on an NT core side by side with Windows).
MS was OS Subsystem virtualizing OSes before companies line VMWare ever existed. Go look up the NT Kernel design and why and how it operates in a client/server relationship with the base NT kernel and OS subsystem running on top of the NT kernel like Windows/Win32 does.
People seem to confuse the 'Glass' eye candy and the actual specifications behind the WDDM driver model that 'Glass' requires.
Here is the thing, sure Glass could potentially run on a lot lower hardware, as the effects are not hard to do; however, this is NOT what the specifications or the WDDM are about.
The Glass is the pretty 'examples' of the new graphical engine in Vista, but there is a whole new paradigm in play that offers things no other OS technology currently even comes close to addressing.
A quick reference is things like the WDDM model allow GPU multi-tasking, GPU Memory virtualization, and several other concepts that will even push the next generation of what ATI and NVIDIA are doing.
WDDM and the 'pretty glass' are very much a part of each other in Vista, but also when you see Halo running with great FPS, in a window beside Star Wars Galaxies and in a window beside a new CAD or WPF 3D applicaiton, you realize that moving the 3D model from a 'single' applicaiton concept is more of what vista is about.
Also think about the applications I just mentioned and hit Flip3D, and watch all these games and applications run with full FPS in a slanted window side by side all other applications. This is what WDDM gives the users and developers and Glass is just a pretty example of WDDM being in use. If you want just animation and eye candy, people wrote utilities that did this under WindwosXP using GDI+, that is not what is special about the WDDM changes in Vista, truly.
MS has started posting more on these technologies and what they are and why they are. A good place to read up on the WDDM and some of the graphical changes in the whole Vista OS for semi-laymen can be found at:
There are more 'techie' articles on this for people interested, and even just a bit of reading you will see why the WDDM is different and how it can drop several 3D application on a desktop that all want or assume 'exclusive' GPU access and GPU memory and yet run in parallel and not starve for GPU RAM. So 3D tech nerds, some of this is pretty impressive and is a good indication where ATI and NVIdia will be going forward in terms of new ways of offering GPU abilities.
That's what I don't get about XAML and such: it's really just the Microsoft alternative to XUL and SVG+SMIL. Both of which have an excellent implementation that by most current estimates is used by about 10% of the surfers out there (I mean, of course, Firefox).
Well, a lot of people go this route in thinking, but if you take the time to look at XAML and its capabilities, you will easily find that 80% of things it is doing or can do are not supported with the technologies you mention.
XAML is not only presentation, but handles every thing from events and hit testing to virtually every type of media. It bridges what you see and and what you can do.
One simple example is some of the graphic abilities of XAML is that can display very complex vector based images that surpass GDI+ or OSX's Display Acrobat. In fact, some of the image presentation abilities built in are on par with something you would normally see in Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw. (Blends, transparency, effects, etc.. - And they are all extensible as well, so they are not even a locked set.)
I know WPF/E in the first release is not going to target 3D, but in response to your view of the other technologies, WPF/XAML does some really impressive things again with its ability to simply display 3D scenes, that are not only nice looking, but fully interactive UI controls as well. (Imagine a RichTextBox on the side of a Cube Spinning with Buttons on each side of the cube that are clickable.)
Not only is this beyond the 'display' capabilities of the technologies you mention, but also surpasses anything out there short of writing an OpenGL or DirectX application. Yet, a begining programmer can write a 'few' lines of XAML that does all of this that is actually easier than making a VB 2.0 Form and throwing controls on it.
This ease of programming is where it is as easy as early VB, and yet will do things that are beyond what many developers are even seeing as possible ways to create applications.
I consider myself half-way versed in WPF stuff, but everytime I look at aspects of it, I find numerous new ways of thinking in creating applications that JUST ARE NOT possible on any other platform and it also reinforces why MS could not just take SVG or other standards and bastardize them in order to achieve what they are with XAML.
In early previews of XAML concepts I was a lot like you and thought, why not just use SVG, but after seeing how much MS would of had to chop up and turn SVG into what XAML does, I'm actually glad they left SVG alone.
I predict if the WPF/E team pulls off what they are doing to bring WPF 2D applications to all browsers and platforms it could be the next generation of Rich Web Applications.
Unlike ActiveX and other things from MS in the past, WPF/E is very secure, easy to deploy, and brings a new level of functionality that surpasses JAVA/Flash/AJAX.
It will be a few years off, but it has potential to bring an XML based applicaiton model to the web where others have failed.
(Part of the reason behind this prediction is that WPF/E is far easier to develop applications for than JAVA/Flash/AJAX... So in a weird way, it will be like the VB of the early 90s and less 'technical' people will be able to write rather rich web applications easily.)
I forgot to add that many of the tech calls have been about 'helping' the Mac user find the document they were working on, because it was just there and they can't find it and want help finding it...
(And AutoSave in Word is a Godsend, but also re-enforces the concept that the computer didn't Crash, it just wanted to restart, because with autosave, they CAN find the document usually.)
And you actually think that a user wouldn't realize that the Word document that they were working on for the last hour, without saving, is now gone and be pissed off? Seriously?
I don't 'think', I KNOW...
From dealing with my techs and 1000s of Mac users over the past years, this tends to be a PREDOMINATE concept that most of the casual users DO NOT GET. And it goes hand in hand with the concept that they TRULY think their Macs NEVER crash or lockup, even though they have seen this SCREEN numerous times...
My words were from my and my tech's experience, not something I just pulled out of a box...
Instead of writing it, how about using an existing kernel, such as BSD?
I actually have a lot of respect for BSD...
However your suggestion shows you know very little about the NT Kernel. If MS wanted a BSD style kernel, that is what NT would have been back in 1992. A lot of what NT is is lost on the majority of users; however, it does have some advantages over most other kernel technologies. It does some hybrid concepts, and quite well, which is one reason even the main layer Win32 runs in a subsystem sitting on NT and abstracted.
Just like when you run the Unix subsystem on NT, it sits on the NT kernel and is separate from Win32 and other subsystems as well. In fact, if you notice the NT Unix subsystem in WindowsXP/Vista, it is a BSD Unix subsystem, all running side by side Win32 and sitting on NT.
Ok, just to be clear, you and everyone else realizes that 'by default' since at least WindowsXP (2001), Windows just restarts and puts this information in a dmp file and the system log if it can.
The end user doesn't have to look at ANY BSoD or geek speak...
Just clarifying, cause it seems like people think Windows locks at the BSoD and scares stupid people - it doesn't.
You also realize how many Mac users I have encountered talk about HOW THEIR MAC NEVER CRASHES, but it does ask them to RESTART IT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. (Apple hides the kernel panic/crash screens so well, most Mac users never realize their system has crashed. VERY MISLEADING, as most of them don't even realize they lost data on what they were working on if it wasn't saved.)
Slashdot Mirror
Is that safe from the hardware side of things? I think I'd be hesitant to pull a PCI card from a live motherboard whether my OS could cope with it or not.
Well, actually it isn't the 'saftest' thing to do, but does demonstrate the OSes ability to recover from fairly major hardware problems. The design is to recover from a driver/hardware malfunction and not leave the user stranded with no display if for some reason the Video driver or card goes wrong.
XP had some ability to recover from video driver failures, but due to the nature of the video driver model in XP, it usually resulted in a corrupt screen or a lockup. In Vista, even blowing your Video card with a failed fan could potentially recover and default to a VGA level mode if it can get the Video card to restart at a basic level.
The article notes that the IE7 "containment wall" protected mode will not be available on XP, but only to those who purchase Vista.
Why even mention this. XP is NOT capable of running a browser with 'lower than user' level of privledges. Which is what protected mode means.
I think the person writing this post has no idea what this means, or they would not of made a point of it.
IE7 still has a massive security model upgrade from IE6, even if it can't run as less than a normal user as it can on Vista.
Oh, and anything to get the mass public off of IE6, even if it moving them to IE7, it is worth it and a good thing. The faster MS can get this out to users, the better. (Even for webiste developers that can just say,"This site only works with IE7 or a browser that supports better CSS specifications, if you are running XP download IE7 or Firefox, and if you are running an older version of Windows, just go download Firefox now..."
Ok, here is some advice from someone in the know...
Vista will not be 100% perfect on every machine. It will have less driver support and optimization than XP at first. This is a known fact, since so much of the internal of the OS has been rewritten.
XP had an advantage with drivers, because the win98/win2k driver generation worked flawlessly on XP for the most part. Vista is is only 'partially' true, because if the drivers are poorly written or try to do unsecure things, Vista won't let them do it.
There is also the massive Video changes in Vista. I know a lot of people think it is just pretty stuff, but it is far deeper than this. Not only has most of the Video drivers been moved back to User mode with even hot plug capability, but they also are doing things that NO video drivers have ever even attempted in the history of consumer OSes. Things like multitasking GPU functions, virtualizing GPU RAM to system RAM, as well as the implementation of a true Vector layer acceleration and Compoer layer. (To put this into context, think of OSX, it is basically Windows GDI+ with a bitmap composer, Vista goes far deeper by not only being a Vector composer, but only adds in a new level of GPU and application interaction.)
Ok, so there are going to be some issues with 'unsecure' software and bad older drivers. Hardware vendors will eventually get their crap together and this will not be a long term problem.
Vista does gain in the areas of user productivity in many areas, areas that most GEEKS haven't even tested or realize is there.
Let's take the Video driver changes for a quick example. Since the WDDM driver model in Vista can virtualize GPU RAM, you can run several high end games and 3d Applications that would consume your GPUs RAM, and Vista will just swap out memory from the GPU that is not speed needed, so these applicaitons will run side by side without failing because your Video card doesn't have enough RAM. In a way, it is like giving your Video Card a RAM boost.
The second part of the WDDM that is more productive, is because of the Vector acceleration and Vector composer that sits between the applications and what you see on the screen, a lot of BUSINESS applications see a tremendous boost in performance. I could give ya the standard answers that obscured Windows don't have to repaint themselves which should be obvious, but there are also applicaitons like CorelDraw and AI, where the illustration drawing is 10-20x faster in Vista because of the vector acceleration along with the less frequent application redraw messages. (For example, not only will Corel draw the images on the screen faster, but it won't have to repaint the image if you open your Browser in front of it.)
So in the long run, just for people that are doing graphic design and Video editing Vista is SEVERAL times faster than XP and OSX, and worth the change over, even on current hardware.
Other business applications also get these speed improvements, but they are less noticeable since they are not all about drawing complex vector or bitmpa images.
The other myth is that you need to upgrade your system. If you want to have the Glass effects in Vista, you going to need a very basic Video card. A GeforceFX 5200 with 128mb of RAM will more than cover the needed requirements. I think you can even get by with a 64mb version of the card for the 'glass'. These are REALLY OLD Cards in the cycle of a computer.
The other thing you are going to want is 'extra' RAM for Vista, as it does a lot more prefetch caching and will run faster with more RAM, that is why you need a system with 512mb of RAM. (And again, this is NOT a major upgrade)
So you if your computer has an AGP Video card with PS2 that was produced 3 years ago and 512mb of RAM, you are going to have a great Vista experience.
If you computer is above these specifications, then you will have a 'better than XP' experience in almost everything you do.
There are a few rough edges in Vista, and I'm not here to say it i
Quality of Programmers is critical...
Which would you rather have 100 monkeys programming on a project or 10 skilled programmers?
More programmers and more 'eyes' on a project does not mean it is going to be inherently more bug free. In fact with a group of bad programmers in the mix, it can cause severe harm to a project.
I'm not knocking Open Source, but for people to just expect it to be better because more people have access to work on it, have obviously not met as many programmers as I have.
There are a lot programmers that put time into project (and yes Open Source) that have no business developing a VB application for a 10yr old kiddie game, yet they are taking part in large scale coding projects that truly would be better off with them not working on it.
When working with XWindows years ago, I ran into a few people that scared the hell out of me and other people. They had no vision or scope past the specific things they were trying to do, and would often come up with modifications or 'features' that would break more than it added to the project.
In the Windows world of 3rd Party developers I have also found 100s of people I wouldn't want them to develop Hello World. As they had no concept or regard to security, Unicode or many other features that would fail when the applications would run on a non-English system with a user having administration privledges.
You can even find many commericial products in the 3rd party Windows world that also have these problems, but are yet produced by big companies are popular products.
I wish that all ideas would be welcomed into a project, but the people having the final say could trump crap programmers and crap ideas if they are detrimental to the project.
When you look at the Linux Kernel or BSD, you can quickly understand why Linus and others don't want to let the 'deciding' control into the masses, or both of these core OS would become crap in a matter of months of unregulated programmer additions.
So the requried hardware for Vista didn't really cost me anything extra because it was I was going to buy it anyway as part of my system upgrade cycle (I have a system upgrade cycle?!?), and Vista didn't cost me anything because it came "free" with the hardware.
Well it is more like this...
You need new hardware if your computer is so old it can't handle 512mb of RAM. So if you have a 1998 system, you probably would have to upgrade to run Vista effectively.
These articles are such FUD and pure crap.
It was only 5 years ago we had the SAME morons flooding the internet with the same estimates for WindowsXP.
Strange however is that our company still has systems around that are 200mhz Pentiums with 80mb of RAM running XP. I guess their 'estimates' then were also way off, as they stated machines like this would not run XP, let alone run faster with XP than they did when shipped new with Win98.
I am so tired of misreporting. Techs need to just take the time and do their own in depth testing.
It is just like this post above where the claimed 'expert' sold his client Win2k for their desktops. Not only is this really stupid, but considering the stability and performance increase in XP over Win2k (And yes there is an increase in performance) he totally screwed his clients and will screw himself when his clients come back to him wanting to run an applicaiton that Win2k does not support. For every tech out there still using Win2k and 'thinking' it is faster or more stable than XP, I have ocean-front property in Nevada I will sell them.
And foolish me, I thought your point was how it was ok for them to Sue for name usage and then use MS as an example, even though MS never has.
What game were you playing? Pin the tail on yourself?
You're dismissed...
Call me the day when I can fork Internet Explorer and release my patched version as "Intarweb Implorer" without getting sued though.
Ring... Answer your phone...
Not to burst your rant bubble, but IE has allowed for using its engine and being named anything people want, several of the 3rd party browsers even do sound a lot like Internet Explorer. MS has to date never sued any of these companies. I have seen many names that sounded like or reflected IE, like "IE Plus", etc.
recall hearing about Microsoft incorporating a POSIX subsystem, quite a long time ago. I also recall that no one took it seriously, because it was not compatible with most of the win32 api, which meant that you could only run it as a standalone unix machine (essentially), or turn off posix features. This made it effectively useless.
What year did you have to go back to in order to dig up this old of information? Are SlashDot Trolls really this out of step with the mainstream and don't truly know this stuff - and if so, how in the hell can you accurately advise people or even yourself?
Here is a bit from the official MS documentation, notice this is not something that COULD even fight with Win32 as it is a separate subsystem - which I don't think you understand.
Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications provides an operating system for POSIX processes. SUA (containing subsystem, shells, etc), along with its web download package (also called as Utilities and Software Development Kit or SDK) provides a complete UNIX environment. The download package includes a comprehensive set of scripting utilities and a software development kit (SDK) designed to fully support the development capabilities of SUA while providing a complete UNIX-based application development experience.
SUA also supports case-sensitive file names (along with UNIX like path handling), job control, compilation tools, debugging facilities (example: gdb), libraries (for pthreads, libm etc) and the use of over 300 UNIX commands, utilities (like lex, yacc, sed), and shell scripts.
Since the subsystem installs separately on top of Windows kernel just like the Windows subsystem, it offers true UNIX functionality without any emulation. To reiterate, we are architecturally not on top of Windows subsystem, but are subsystem in our own right. Thus, we are not emulating APIs, but implementing it on top of Windows kernel.
Windows Vista doesn't even ship with telnet.exe
Um,
Control Panel - Programs and Features - Turn Windows features on or off...
Click "Telnet Client"
Click "Telnet Server"
Click - Ok
(If you find this complex or couldn't find it yourself, I suggest you unplug your computer and walk away from it.)
Ok, the wordperfect argument is NOT the best one to use, even though I do understand your concerns. If Microsoft was not under the federal microscope, then I would more easily buy into a new conspiracy theory about them not fully disclosing all security APIs...
However, if you recall, part of the requirements for Microsoft is that they even have to provide source to US and EU courts, so if there was any 'hidden' APIs, these would easily be able to found in simple discovery on a basic claim litigated by a company like Symantec.
Microsoft would be foolish to have hidden APIs that only benefited them.
As for the Wordperfect case, it truly is a bad example, because I was a part of a group taht worked with MS during the timeframe that all this took place. In attempts to make Windows successful, when MS released Version 3.0 in 1990 they had been in contact with and continual contact with all leading application companies like Wordperfect, Lotus, Novell, Aldus, etc...
MS wanted these companies to work on producing a Windows version of their 'popular' applications. MS even went as far to offer free development tools, support and even assist in writing the applications if the companies requested.
In their arrogance, two major companies of the time WordPerfect and Lotus declined any assistance from MS, as they both had vested interests in Windows NOT succeeding.
If you look at the timeline, these companies did not even move internally to produce a Windows version of their software until AFTER MS Word 2.0 and Excel was released for Windows 3.0 and their market share spiked considerably, becoming a serious threat to WP and Lotus.
As for the hidden API claims, these were NEVER proven to have been purposely withheld, nor detrimental to the operation of WP. Windows had several internal APIs that bypassed 'upper' level APIs, but they provide no benefit, even though Word used the lower level APIs.
If you look at other products from the time, like AmiPro, it worked nearly flawlessly and was in fact a better Wordprocessor than Word. However WP for Windows was a disaster of unstability that carried on until even the late 1990s. How was the AMIPro team able to produce such a bug free and powerful product and the WP team was not, as the AMIPro team did NOT have any additional information on the lower level APIs that it was found Word was using.
WP tried to screw MS because they did not want to update their product, even at the cost of their users. As WP had almost NO plans to update 5.1 for something like six years, a long time in the industry, but a timeframe WP thought they could continue to control the Wordprocessing market. Something they soon found to not be the case and so they reluctantly went on to produce WP for Windows.
WP was so set in NOT conforming to even the 'provided' Windows APIs that WP for Windows even used their own Print Engine and drivers, bypassing the GDI Printer APIs built into Windows. Maybe WP would have not crashed when hitting the backspace key if they had not tried to bypass the Windows Print APIs, as well as MANY other Windows APIs, even including Memory Management, which WP tried to handle themselves.
This is a quite insane concept to produce a product for an OS, and yet bypass essential API and features the OS and then years later claim their failure was because they didn't have access to even more APIs. Maybe if they didn't ignore most of the Win16 API, they would have produced a product that worked better in the first place.
WordPerfect was late to the game and when they did enter the Windows market they chose not to use the OSes fundamental features causing their product to not only be late, but highly unstable. Again, I will reference AmiPro, as it was a solid Wordprocessor from the same timeframe and they didn't have access to anything more than the WP team did.
So the whole 'hidden' API and Wordperfect argument is a bad example. Even the so called 'hidden' APIs were found to not be beneficial, and something the
What they are complaining about is that MS has made it impossible for any program to run at a low enough level (except MS programs of course) to be able to work effectively as an antivirus/antimalware application. They've made is so that it's impossible for anybody but MS to make a proper virus scanner.
I think you should truly fact check yourself.
I know that this is the perception McAfee and Symantec want people to believe, but there are many technical details that simply don't support their facts.
MS put in place API equivalent access to the OS for ANY anti-virus application so the 3rd parties DON'T have to write their own kernel level access modules anymore. This actually makes it EASIER for anti-virus companies to produce quality products and it ALSO ensure the integrity of the OS as a poorly developed 3rd party anti-virus solution will not cause stability problems.
If you look back at products like McAfee and Symantec they have went from being basic Anti-Virus solutions to integrating so deeply into the Windows kernel that they are the result of MANY stability and incompatibility problems.
You are also incorrect about asserting that only MS can write an effective antivirus application. Even the MS anti-virus programs like OneCare and Defender have to go through the EXACT same APIs that McAfee and Symantec are being forced to use.
MS is not playing favorites even with their own anti-spy/virus programs, as they do not want even their own applications to dig into the OS and cause stability or compatibility problems, because the Vista developers know the OS and the kernel far better than the people writing the Scanning software.
This is actually a good thing for users and for MS as well, giving users a consistent and more secure experience without having programs screw with system stability, compatibility, and performance.
In a weird way, this is ALSO good for McAfee and Symantec, as they no longer have to the extensive kernel level filtering development and can write their applications to the Vista APIs saving them a lot of work.
There is nothing wrong with an OS having a 'consistent' security interface that 3rd parties are not allowed to screw with. How do you think people would react to a vendor at the post distribution level crying that they can't modify standard features of the Linux or BSD kernel that could cause incompatibility and security issues and circumvent the inherent protections these OS offer?
MS allowing 3rd parties to screw with 'core' features of the OS have been the main problem they have had with Windows, and it time for this to stop. Vista is the point that MS is no longer caring about compatibility if it means lowered security. This can be seen throughout the OS with the removal of a root level account, surpassing even *nix concepts, and simple things like the protected mode IE runs in and the reduced ability to run even MS's own ActiveX technologies.
NT has always has a lot of security, but MS didn't FORCE it for the sake of compatibility. Now that MS IS FORCING it, companies like Symantec and McAfee are crying foul because they can't circumvent the Security in Vista like they could in XP and previous versions of Windows.
I do agree that Vista is not 'so secure' it doesn't need anti-virus or spyware, as I don't believe any OS could ever be with social engineering viruses. Even MS is smart enough to understand that nothing is fool proof, and exactly why MS designed the security center and created APIs for anti-virus and anti-spyware to integrate into the OS.
So i think that Vista will be more insecure than ever, because MS will be the only ones able to provide security tools.
Again even the MS products have to use the same OS APIs and Hooks that McAfee and Symantec have to, they have no advantage.
Vista in theory should be far more secure, because if even the anti-virus applications can't circumvent or alter how the OS works, chances are it will be pretty hard for a virus to do this
NT's POSIX compliance has always been (except SFU which isn't really part of the OS, SUA and whatever Vista Enterprise will have) the bare minimum for POSIX compliance as of 1992. SFU was an addon for 32-bit Windows only and SUA is Win2k3 and Vista Enterprise (unless they've changed that) only. Oddly enough, Windows XP x64, which is based on the Windows 2003 Server x64 codebase, does not have either SFU or SUA. Here's hoping they'll throw us poor bastards who adopted their red headed stepchild OS a bone and give us SUA in XP x64 SP2.
I just wanted to let you know that the new Unix subsystem for Windows is available for the x64bit version of Windows and they still plan on supporting the I64 version, although it is not yet available.
They also have went as far to add thunking to the x64 version of the Unix subsystem so that 32 and 64bit binaries can run side by side in the x64 Unix subsystem for Windows.
Apparently MS is hearing the x64bit support requests and are hitting it hard for the Unix subsystem.
As an additional note to my original post, I just noticed that the more recent documentation from MS is trying to get the point across that the UNIX subsystem is not an emulation and is a true OS subsystem. Maybe people like me and you won't have to point this out to people all the time if they keep making a point of getting this information out.
From the MS Documentation:
"Since the subsystem installs separately on top of Windows kernel just like the Windows subsystem, it offers true UNIX functionality without any emulation. To reiterate, we are architecturally not on top of Windows subsystem, but are subsystem in our own right. Thus, we are not emulating APIs, but implementing it on top of Windows kernel."
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago and what range of error do these readings fall within?
For 'millions' of years ago, temperature information has to be taken from geological data.
For Thousands of years ago, which I think is what this studying is identifying with, they can go back several hundred thousand years by looking at Ice cores from Antarctica. It involves analyzing the oxygen isotopes of the ice along with other factors. Using these techniques they can track climate changes and atmospheric conditions including temperature going back a long time. (This data can also be compared to geological data to ensure the methods accurately match.)
This stuff is a good scientific read for anyone interested in how scientists do determine past climatic events on earth.
(As a side note, this information also correlates to numerous other publishings on the drastic temperature changes we are witnessing. Al Gore's presentation also is in line with these findings and maybe we should start to take this threat seriously, and stop looking at this from any political or economic bias.)
Just as Gates couldn't imagine what anyone would want with more memory than 640KB
m ory.html
Ok, just for the record, this is an urban Myth, Gates never said this...
http://tafkac.org/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_me
I know this is SlashDot, but seriously, I can't believe people still repeat stuff like this...
In reference to your point, I agree that we should never limit our thoughts to anything ever being enough when it comes to technology, especially regarding repeating cycles of hitting the ceiling of a technology that the industry has witnessed many many times.
For people that argue we are abusing the power in computing already available to us, I suggest they look at an MMO and realize the UI and GUI potential that worlds like these could lead to with increased computing power for AI and graphics.
I'm afraid to ask why you're searching for DONKEY
What? Doesn't everyone search for Donkey several times a day?
Besides what good is an OS if you can't find your 'ass' without using both hands?
*smile*
Vista is like XP but with even more pointless visual effects to turn off, not to meantion it runs alot slower.
Ok, I think you should at least try it. You are the target audience MS is trying to hit.
I think you will find yourself surprised. Vista is faster than WindowsXP if you have 512mb of RAM. (Yes a step jump from the 128mb XP threshold)
The other thing you will find as you use Vista is the OS doesn't look 'extremely' different, but you find yourself using many of the new features.
Right now going back to XP from Vista (after only running it on my personal system full time for a couple of weeks) is already painful. I am forever missing the quick find abilities, saved searches, and tons of 'little' things that are just more polished and just work for you in Vista.
And going back to speed, when editing large graphics, or even working in CorelDraw or AI on a massive drawing, the speed difference is 10x the difference between Vista and XP or OSX.
The Vista Video Composer is truly top notch and not only will you find your 3D applications flying, but even your older 2D GDI+ applications will perform at amazing levels, as MS is even accelerating basic vector and GDI+ calls through the GPU. This along with the the true Vector level composer in Vista, you will find everything from CorelDraw to AutoCad and even stuff like Photoshop run so much faster on the same hardware, it is a bit surprising at times.
The biggest change for users in usability is the integrated search and the more consistent use of the folder placement and how it operates within the OS, and yes it is more *nix like, but I think that is a good thing.
The search features is not only a search service, but it is a part of the OS at every level. You will find yourself hitting the start button and typing "Donkey" and in 1 second getting a list of every file and every email you have ever used the word "Donkey" in. The search is fast, and integrated throughout to every UI Dialog or folder window. (Once you use Vista, you will see why WinFS is not needed at this point, as they have pulled off the speed and you can already add 'relational' attributes and Tags to all your files, folder and documents.
I would move to Vista for the Video and application performance alone, as I do a lot of graphic design work, and watching CorelDraw repaint a multi-layered drawing and take 5-10secs under XP and paint instantly in Vista is enough of a reason to move to a new OS. (And like I said, this is also true of almost any application that does a lot of drawing to the screen.)
Also if you have a Video Card made in the last 3 years, you won't have to turn off the 'visual' effects, unless they annoy you. There is no performance hit that our techs can even measure between running with Glass on or off.
As for your claim that vista server will ship with a full BSD subsystem, I would really like to see some evidence to back this up. I've never heard this, and a few searches with google didn't turn anything up. Not only is it an unsubstantiated claim, but it makes no sense. What purpose would it serve, why would they do that?
:) )
Ok, you really went off on a rant... Calm down, this really isn't this important, even if it bends what you thought was reality.
First to answer your questions, you could actually look this up several places on MS Sites, as they have been giving the *nix subystem away for a couple of years now, and the new features is what is going into Vista and Longhorn.
Here is another way you can tell it is included with Vista. Install Vista, open the (Control Panel) and go to (Programs and Features), Click (Turn Windows Features On or Off) and look for the Option called: (Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications). Click to turn it on, and bingo, you have a full Unix subsystem running on Vista - magical uh?
Ok, back to POSIX - Yes I think most of us understand basic POSIX compliance difference and the differences between POSIX and *nix.
WindowsNT 3.1 did ship with a basic POSIX subsystem, and it was kept in for several version, up to at WinNT4 (Fact check that for me.
In order to further the *nix subsystem in Windows acquired a company that was already providing a fuller featured *nix subsystem called INTERIX. It was more than just POSIX compliant, as it is a full *nix OS.
The link I provided (which I hope was correct) was to the subsystem download site for Windows2k/WindowsXP. You can already run the newer MS *nix subsystem on both OSes for free, and they are fairly full *nix OSes, except they do not provide an XServer out of the box.
So the MS *nix subsystems are a BSD style *nix, a full *nix OS that runs on the NT Kernel and also side by side with other NT subsystem OSes like Win32, etc. (You see NT has an cool kernel in that it is designed to run multiple OS subsystems on top of the NT kernel and have then all interact through the NT kernel.) So yes, you can have your *nix terminal open and be poking around all day, and Alt-Tab to MS Word to write your next SlashDot Rant...
I am so surprised that so few people in the Slashdot world realize that not only has this *nix subsystem been available and free for Win2k/WinXP users for a while now, but that MS has taken great steps to expand it and the interoperability tools for *nix in Windows, and that these all will ship with the newest version of Windows.
One of our tech loves to port crap over to the MS *nix subsytem and run his favorite little *nix utilties on Vista or WinXP, and be able to use them concurrently with Win32/Win64 or whatever other OS Subsystem is running on the NT core.
There are also 3rd Parties that provide XServers for the MS NT UNIX subsystem, letting you go as far as your imagination and latest version of KDE will allow you to go. (And still be running all this on an NT core side by side with Windows).
MS was OS Subsystem virtualizing OSes before companies line VMWare ever existed. Go look up the NT Kernel design and why and how it operates in a client/server relationship with the base NT kernel and OS subsystem running on top of the NT kernel like Windows/Win32 does.
Probably a bit too late to ask for POSIX interoperability, eh?
a milyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&Displa yLang=en
Ya, considering they have been POSIX compliant since NT was built in 1992...
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
BTW Vista and Longhorn Server ship with a full BSD *nix subsystem (minus an XServer.)
Nothing new to see here, move along...
People seem to confuse the 'Glass' eye candy and the actual specifications behind the WDDM driver model that 'Glass' requires.
Here is the thing, sure Glass could potentially run on a lot lower hardware, as the effects are not hard to do; however, this is NOT what the specifications or the WDDM are about.
The Glass is the pretty 'examples' of the new graphical engine in Vista, but there is a whole new paradigm in play that offers things no other OS technology currently even comes close to addressing.
A quick reference is things like the WDDM model allow GPU multi-tasking, GPU Memory virtualization, and several other concepts that will even push the next generation of what ATI and NVIDIA are doing.
WDDM and the 'pretty glass' are very much a part of each other in Vista, but also when you see Halo running with great FPS, in a window beside Star Wars Galaxies and in a window beside a new CAD or WPF 3D applicaiton, you realize that moving the 3D model from a 'single' applicaiton concept is more of what vista is about.
Also think about the applications I just mentioned and hit Flip3D, and watch all these games and applications run with full FPS in a slanted window side by side all other applications. This is what WDDM gives the users and developers and Glass is just a pretty example of WDDM being in use. If you want just animation and eye candy, people wrote utilities that did this under WindwosXP using GDI+, that is not what is special about the WDDM changes in Vista, truly.
MS has started posting more on these technologies and what they are and why they are. A good place to read up on the WDDM and some of the graphical changes in the whole Vista OS for semi-laymen can be found at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/
There are more 'techie' articles on this for people interested, and even just a bit of reading you will see why the WDDM is different and how it can drop several 3D application on a desktop that all want or assume 'exclusive' GPU access and GPU memory and yet run in parallel and not starve for GPU RAM. So 3D tech nerds, some of this is pretty impressive and is a good indication where ATI and NVIdia will be going forward in terms of new ways of offering GPU abilities.
That's what I don't get about XAML and such: it's really just the Microsoft alternative to XUL and SVG+SMIL. Both of which have an excellent implementation that by most current estimates is used by about 10% of the surfers out there (I mean, of course, Firefox).
Well, a lot of people go this route in thinking, but if you take the time to look at XAML and its capabilities, you will easily find that 80% of things it is doing or can do are not supported with the technologies you mention.
XAML is not only presentation, but handles every thing from events and hit testing to virtually every type of media. It bridges what you see and and what you can do.
One simple example is some of the graphic abilities of XAML is that can display very complex vector based images that surpass GDI+ or OSX's Display Acrobat. In fact, some of the image presentation abilities built in are on par with something you would normally see in Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw. (Blends, transparency, effects, etc.. - And they are all extensible as well, so they are not even a locked set.)
I know WPF/E in the first release is not going to target 3D, but in response to your view of the other technologies, WPF/XAML does some really impressive things again with its ability to simply display 3D scenes, that are not only nice looking, but fully interactive UI controls as well. (Imagine a RichTextBox on the side of a Cube Spinning with Buttons on each side of the cube that are clickable.)
Not only is this beyond the 'display' capabilities of the technologies you mention, but also surpasses anything out there short of writing an OpenGL or DirectX application. Yet, a begining programmer can write a 'few' lines of XAML that does all of this that is actually easier than making a VB 2.0 Form and throwing controls on it.
This ease of programming is where it is as easy as early VB, and yet will do things that are beyond what many developers are even seeing as possible ways to create applications.
I consider myself half-way versed in WPF stuff, but everytime I look at aspects of it, I find numerous new ways of thinking in creating applications that JUST ARE NOT possible on any other platform and it also reinforces why MS could not just take SVG or other standards and bastardize them in order to achieve what they are with XAML.
In early previews of XAML concepts I was a lot like you and thought, why not just use SVG, but after seeing how much MS would of had to chop up and turn SVG into what XAML does, I'm actually glad they left SVG alone.
I predict if the WPF/E team pulls off what they are doing to bring WPF 2D applications to all browsers and platforms it could be the next generation of Rich Web Applications.
Unlike ActiveX and other things from MS in the past, WPF/E is very secure, easy to deploy, and brings a new level of functionality that surpasses JAVA/Flash/AJAX.
It will be a few years off, but it has potential to bring an XML based applicaiton model to the web where others have failed.
(Part of the reason behind this prediction is that WPF/E is far easier to develop applications for than JAVA/Flash/AJAX... So in a weird way, it will be like the VB of the early 90s and less 'technical' people will be able to write rather rich web applications easily.)
I forgot to add that many of the tech calls have been about 'helping' the Mac user find the document they were working on, because it was just there and they can't find it and want help finding it...
(And AutoSave in Word is a Godsend, but also re-enforces the concept that the computer didn't Crash, it just wanted to restart, because with autosave, they CAN find the document usually.)
And you actually think that a user wouldn't realize that the Word document that they were working on for the last hour, without saving, is now gone and be pissed off? Seriously?
I don't 'think', I KNOW...
From dealing with my techs and 1000s of Mac users over the past years, this tends to be a PREDOMINATE concept that most of the casual users DO NOT GET. And it goes hand in hand with the concept that they TRULY think their Macs NEVER crash or lockup, even though they have seen this SCREEN numerous times...
My words were from my and my tech's experience, not something I just pulled out of a box...
Instead of writing it, how about using an existing kernel, such as BSD?
I actually have a lot of respect for BSD...
However your suggestion shows you know very little about the NT Kernel. If MS wanted a BSD style kernel, that is what NT would have been back in 1992. A lot of what NT is is lost on the majority of users; however, it does have some advantages over most other kernel technologies. It does some hybrid concepts, and quite well, which is one reason even the main layer Win32 runs in a subsystem sitting on NT and abstracted.
Just like when you run the Unix subsystem on NT, it sits on the NT kernel and is separate from Win32 and other subsystems as well. In fact, if you notice the NT Unix subsystem in WindowsXP/Vista, it is a BSD Unix subsystem, all running side by side Win32 and sitting on NT.
Ok, just to be clear, you and everyone else realizes that 'by default' since at least WindowsXP (2001), Windows just restarts and puts this information in a dmp file and the system log if it can.
The end user doesn't have to look at ANY BSoD or geek speak...
Just clarifying, cause it seems like people think Windows locks at the BSoD and scares stupid people - it doesn't.
You also realize how many Mac users I have encountered talk about HOW THEIR MAC NEVER CRASHES, but it does ask them to RESTART IT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
(Apple hides the kernel panic/crash screens so well, most Mac users never realize their system has crashed. VERY MISLEADING, as most of them don't even realize they lost data on what they were working on if it wasn't saved.)
Ok, carry on...