In the end the new file system was just a marketing ploy,
Maybe, but here is what people keep skipping over. WinFS was NOT a File System in the traditional sense that everyone here keeps referencing it as. It as not a new FS, it was a 'file and data storage' mechanism using database constructs.
It still would sit on NTFS, and when you format your volume, it would still be an NTFS volume. What WinFS was, is just a database storage place that documents and file were placed into, instead of directly ON the NTFS file system.
Think of WinFS as a Database FS that sits on the 'real' drive FS. You could implment a similar concept in MYSQL as well, and direct your I/O for storage for certain folder locations to place the files and documents into a MySQL database instead of on the file system as well.
This is where WinFS was overblown by people outside the technology, and also why in the end, putting all your document and files for 'end users' in a Database Store was not a great solution as the reasons I stated above, but just think of the compatibility of disk tools trying to recover a file from inside a database store (file).
I'm sure MS could have pushed WinFS ahead, they have the money to do so, but if it doesn't garner any real benefits compared to what the indexing and relational searching team put in place for Vista already, it is a big waste for the consumer...
For the love of God, man, what do you think WinFS is? An indexing technology pasted on top of the existing file system. Jeeze. You even say so yourself.
Um... No I don't... WinFS is a Database STORE that keeps the files and file contents in a database structured format. It even is non-relational as the database store was designed to maintain NON-STRUCTURED data, in contrast to current database technologies.
The only thing they have in common would be the database postion that indexes and maintains relationships between data, but there is a vast different between dropping all of this in a Databse Store, and leaving the files and data in the NTFS file structure and indexing and linking it from there.
The later is what Vista, Apple, and XP already do, and the Vista version provided the funciton and performance that MS once only thought they could acheive by enclosing the files in the database store directly and not using NTFS as the 'mechanism' for holding the data.
If you still somehow think these things are the same, spend some time on database concepts,FS concepts and how the two have similarities and where they divide in modern database store technologies like MSSQL implements.
When the concepts of relational database FS were being thrown around back in the mid 90s, there was a need for this technology. WinFS was to be the next progression of this work, but in its new form a non-structure, non-relational database FS technology.
WinFS was designed to sit on NTFS, never to replace it. In fact none of the proposed MS FS technologies were ever to replace NTFS.
WinFS did develop several inroads in database technology to move past relational and object oriented database storage concepts; however, this was not enough for it to succeed, but rather for its technology to be used in database and data access technologies like MSSQL and the ADO models.
There are two big reasons WinFS was stopped before ever seeing the light of day.
1) Efficiency over functionality 2) Business & Networked File Systems
The first is probably the biggest nail in the coffin, but yet also the hardest one to get through to people.
In current computing environments, adding in a good indexing technology, you can provide 99.9% of the functionality of WinFS and the overhead in doing so turns out to be less than if a full WinFS was implemented.
For example, it is easier and more efficient to have a database indexing backend that references the standard FS and FS contents than it is to put the FS contents into a database. This can be witnessed in products like MS Desktop Search, the Vista Desktop Search, and Apple's Desktop Search as well. (Although the Apple incarnation at this point is a bit more poky than it should be.)
The second part of this is the added functionality. One of the promises of WinFS was the ability to tag and relationally add content to files and file listings. Again, this does not offer 'enough' of an edge compared to the current FS technologies. Most of these features are already supported in NTFS, so you can add tagging, and additional fields of information to the files stored on an NTFS volume, basically providing the same features as adding new fields as a database FS would offer.
The only portion that is somewhat left behind in current technology that WinFS would have provided is the 'relational' nature of items in the FS. But again, the database indexing engine that is used for searching can also provide a certain level of these relational aspects to the file and contents.
So when you look at just these basic issues, you can see why in the end MS pulled WinFS as it exists today, and instead has put the functionality of WinFS in the current technologies, as you find in Vista already. (Fast search, relations between files and file contents, tagging using NTFS, etc.)
It may not be the best PR move for Microsoft in the long run, as people here will have a field day with WinFS being abandoned in its current form as an add-on to NTFS. But if you were Microsoft and could provide 99% of the functionality of WinFS with the database indexing services in Vista (and XP) and do it faster than having to add on a new WinFS layer to NTFS, they why would you progress with a product that isn't going to offer what they can already offer with the current technologies.
If computing power was on par with 1995, then something like WinFS would have more viability as Hard Drives and Processors could more efficiently do all that Vista is doing in a Database structured storage. However today, the overhead of doing this outside a database store is fairly non-existent.
On to the second reason, which is business. Implementing localized database stores for files and documents and keeping these in sync with corporate stores is a rather big hurdle when you consider that businesses are not average Joe users and have tons of applications and infrastructure to coordinate Files spread across networks that are outside of existing MS technologies. WinFS would break many business tools and models rather badly.
As for WinFS and Database FS concepts being 'vaporware' or dead, simply is a myth for the MS haters
We have to stop being a desposable consumerist society. I.e. we have to live more simply. Now I'm not saying that we all need to be organic gardeners who tailor their own clothes and live directly off the land. I'm very much a metropolitan technologist, but I think that consumption purely for the sake of consumption is our biggest problem. The real question is if the market can correct this or if the market will dig such a deep hole that it doesn't react until the shit hits the fan.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but there are bigger issues at play.
I would put corporatism and its growing control of governments to be a bigger long term problem, especially in the United States. (This is even beginning to become a problem in the EU and European countries as well.)
Society has to be lead for the benefit of the individuals and stop this kowtowing to big business where one of the side effects is mass consumption pushed on to society.
I don't thin there is any way we will be living in space in the next 100 years.
Possibly, but just over a 100 years ago powered flight and the prospect of even going into outer space were outlandish as well.
It doesn't pay to underestimate the progression of technology. Technically we already 'have' the technology to live on the Moon or even Mars, the limit now is pure economic reasons.
Bill Gates could drop a small chunk of his money to create a space industry and create base stations on the moon or Mars, and never in history have we had the technology and a single person with the means to do this.
Beyond even base stations, we even have the technology to start terraforming Mars that would make it livable for humans within a 100 years without the need for atmospheric suits and housing.
However I personally believe it would be easier to just vote for a President in 2008 that believes that Global warming exists and is a concern, whether they believe it is manmade or a natural cycle we need to circumvent.
Microsoft has most of its costs subsidized by its near-guaranteed bundling with every PC sold by someone else's effort. Even at $50 a pop (the average bundled cost of XP to a vendor) the sheer volume makes it immensely profitable for them.
Apple doesn't have this kind of a business model, so it really isn't fair to critique them for not doing exactly the same thing when their distribution system is different.
Either you are mental or very bad at math and business...
Apple MAKES profits from the hardware and the OS installed on the hardware. If they had a 'larger' market share, their profits would be SIGNIFICANTLY greater than Microsoft's...
Geez, an open file format, why didn't we think of that
Um... They did think of that, except the MS proposed Open Document format supports things outside of basic text and fonts. Stuff for disabled people, ink, media, etc...
But in the end the Open Document Geeks win round one and the standard everyone gets is like RTF of 1993...
The Open Source World is SO brilliant sometimes. If they were jumping out of a plane they would take the towel labeled 'Open Source' parachute, just because the real parachute had a Microsoft logo on it.
Stuff like this makes me embarrassed for my friends in the Open Source world. The Open Document standard is a scam, and just because the people behind it slapped 'open source standard' on it, everyone here just blindly accepts it and assumes it is the best. Sad...
You are very much mistaken. XP runs about 5-8% faster on the same processor and RAM as Windows 2000 did. Windows Server 2003 is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows 2000 Server in every category, in some, such as IIS, and file serving, its nearly 4x (not percent) thats FOUR TIMES faster
Since your post is in line with what I was going to say, I decided to just add a couple of things and then add my other two cents directed at the others reading these posts.
To add to the facts you present, if a computer system has 64mb of RAM or greater (not unreasonable for the last 10 years) then WindowsXP is faster than Win95, Win98, and WinME.
This is significant as the Win9x models used assembly optimiation and also due to the nature of the OS architecture, there is a lot 'less' going on in the Win9X OSes. (i.e. Security, Object passing, way processess are handled, etc.)
Vista ALSO has a chance to best WindowsXP on performance on equivalent hardware, again RAM being a key. I would estimate that if you system has 256mb of RAM Vista will again out perform even WindowsXP. (In our internal testing, non-official, post Beta 2, many applications, and this includes games, applications on Vista run 10-25% faster than they do on WindowsXP.)
The Vista performance can be attributed to several sound differences, the new memory allocation system, how paging works, the new caching systems, the new network stacks, and even the GPU drawing offsets.
Just a quick example of Vista's jump in performance can be seen on identical systems running WinXp and Vista and doing even basic tasks as Web Browsing (even non-IE), Vista will display the page in 1/10th the time WindowsXP will. Also with the Vista Video model, scrolling and display of the page is smoother, especially when animations/flash in involved.
Vista could hit the market and not be faster than WinXP in 'every' regard, but I would not be surprised that the numbers we are seeing are accurate to the final version, with the possibility of the final version of Vista even surpassing WinXP in many areas.
Here are my thoughts on this topic that are not an addition to the post I am responding to...
As for the whole debate about OSX 'getting' faster, people really aren't using OSX on the same hardware that it was released on. 10.4 is a dog on a system that 10.2 runs rather well on. RAM upgrades often make a difference, but with the increasing complexity of OSes, this is becoming true of almost ALL OSes.
Also when you look at OSX, it is still a very immature OS when you get beyond the MACH/BSD core. This would leave room for a lot of improvement, but sadly unlike Microsoft where update and Service Packs for XP have been free for the past 6 years, Apple makes users drop out $99 bucks for even 'optimiation' and set of bug fixes.
I know people say that 'new' features are added in each 10.x release, but if you look at these 'features' you should notice that the SAME LEVEL of features, especially the applications bundled are nothing different than 'free' add-on Microsoft has been providing with WindowsXP. (WindowsXP has actually had new applicaiton level features available for free from Micorosft since its release than even OSX, yet MS hasn't charged a single user for these new 'features'.
I don't hate Apple, and I use OSX, but the mindset of many Mac users borderlines on a neurosis of protecting their 'beliefs' rather than 'exposing' themselves to the truth.
One area this manifest is that people make fun of XP for not releasing a new version since 2001, yet this is far from the truth. With SP1, SP2 and the free application downloads like photostory or the new movie maker, etc Microsoft has continued to provide VERY COMPERABLE upgrades and new features for XP over the years waiting for Vista.
The difference between Microsoft and Apple here, the XP updates, features, and security fixes are and always have been free. Microsoft doesn't slap a new name on XP and try to scam $99 out of their users every year. This is
"Supporting two different driver model means more complexity and less things added to DX10 in the same timeframe."
Yes but, I don't really consider time frame a "technical reason" as far as this goes. Thats more of an economical reason, wouldn't you agree?
Ok, both of you are a bit wrong on this...
For MS to support DirectX 10 in WindowsXP, the driver model of XP would have to change, there WOULD BE NO WAY TO IMPLEMENT the DirectX 10 technology on the XP Driver model.
Some of the very basic reasons go from the Driver model Ring change to higher end differences like GPU multi-tasking and GPU Memory virtualization. All of which XP has no clue how to do. In fact, Vista is the only OS Driver model that I know of that support these concepts.
So this isn't about creating a separate version of DirectX 10 for XP, it would be about redesigning the XP driver model, which would be a nightmare of compatibility problems.
Vista's biggest problem so far has been pulling the WDDM driver technology together and offering XP performance and stability. Vista (Past Beta2) is succeeding at this, but considering the mass amount of OS level changes this has taken, implementing this on XP is impossible, not just infeasible.
Well, the Divx HD profile is 1280x720 and only 5.1 audio at best
Ok, not everything is Divx (The bastard offspring of the Microsoft MPEG4 codec from 1998.)
VC-1 has been doing full 1080p and fitting on a standard DVD for years now, including support for 7.1 surround without artifacts (Even when viewed on a native 1080p rear DLP projector with a 20' screen size.)
The problem is that studios had initially planned on using this format for the next generation DVD content, but the DRM promises of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray made them wait for the new medium.
There have been a few movies released in the VC-1 format in HD on standard DVDs, but not many. Go buy T2 Extreme at Walmart for an example of a movie in this format that is 3 years old now. (You can also download sample movies and clips in this format from: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musi candvideo/hdvideo/hdvideo.aspx
Just an FYI to everyone, VC-1 is one of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray codecs, but it is also known formally as Windows Media 9 Format (WMV9), VC-1 is the name adopted after it was approved as a standard format.
The technology IS different; however, to use this as a justification against duality players is not so accurate. Past incorporating dual lasers and a few specifications differences, the 'expense' of the units beyond the lasers is where the differences end.
Meaning, beyond the the laser technology, the real expense in these units is in the decoding hardware needed (a fairly powerful computer). And since these are 'the same' in terms of needed processing power, down to even the codecs both uniformly support, I can foresee dual units making an impact on the market quite easily.
I personal think the Blu-Ray specifications as Sony has them now will go the way of the dinosaur, but 'blue-laser' technology will eventually have some use or impact in later years possibly. The problem with blue laser technology now is that is DOES NOT jump red laser technology 'enough' to warrant the costs at this point. If the Blu-Ray was putting a terrabyte on a Disc, as Blue Laser SHOULD be capable of doing in theory, then we would see an easy migration; however, in current form it is too low end for a practical jump in technology.
Sony has also screwed the Blu-Ray market with their licensing, relunctant to meet DRM standards requests and many other things that will cause them to not be the major player after the initial war is over. Sony Pictures is their Ace in the hole, but it is not big enough to fill the void of the hole Sony itself has created with thumbing their noses to cooperate with the rest of the industry.
IE is the HTML rendering DLLs of Windows. AFAIK, it's just a thin wrapper around them. I suspect that most of the effort that goes into writing IE goes into writing those DLLs
Yes, but if I write an application that is NOTHING but a FONT preview application, it does not mean it has DEEP HOOKS into Windows because it uses the Font or RTF DLLS.
And if we take this sample to an equivalent level to IE and its Engine, so lets say I write my own FONT Rendering DLLs, and other applications in Windows can also use them, and I write my FONT Preview application to use my Font Rendering DLLs, this STILL does not mean my application has HOOKS into Windows...
There is a big divide of difference here. IE and its use of HTML is 'separate' from Windows and separate from even other HTML applications that use the same DLLs. (But would break these applications if this engine was removed)
However, it is not like IE is running in the same process as Explorer or some other part of Windows, it is NOT. It is also not like IE is somehow tapping into the core of Windows, the Windows Win32 Kernel or even the NT Kernel, which it also is not. (In Win98 IE by default ran in the same process as Explorer, and THAT was a big mistake.)
You are very correct that IE's HTML DLLs rendering Engine is the 'shared' Windows HTML rendering Engine. But this DOES NOT grant even it any inherent advantage or hooks anywhere. IE still has as much to load as Firefox for example on load, unless by chance you are running another application that is calling the IE HTML core, and then your only advantage is if the HTML Engine Hard Drive files are in the System Memory Cache, as each application spins off a new process of this engine.
IE's Security issues of the past have nothing to do with the HTML rendering integration in Windows, but more the ActiveX controls and other methods of accessing the user's computer from inside IE. This is why the IE UI wrapper that everyone sees IE as, has taken on a new role of advancing security beyond even the HTML rendering engine, in IE7 and Vista creating a lower privelege process for the UI and its 'incarnation' of the IE HTML Engine.
current native code which has hooks deep into the OS.
Ok, a lot of people keep saying this, and I think there is some big misconception here.
IE taps into the HTML rendering DLLs of Windows. However EVERY application that runs on Windows taps into the FONT rending DLLs or the BITMAP rendering DLLs, but no one makes this claim about them. Nor other applications that use features from the HTML rendeing functions of Windows.
So to keep asserting that IE is somehow 'hooked' into Windows on a level above a NORMAL application is not entirely correct. It would be like saying FireFox also has deep hooks into Windows because it uses the Windows DLLs for FONTS and IMAGES...
When it comes to robotics, Microsoft need to understand that they are not electromechnical engineers.
Um, well most of Microsoft is not, but some are...
But that aside, last time I checked most robotic technology was 'SOFTWARE' driven, and MS does have some experience in this area.
Besides the product is using 3D modeling for the robotics (even the AEGIS physics technology) and is gearing to work with small scale servo technology in products like LEGO. We are not talking about MS actually producing a 'robot'. Did you even read the article or is this the average SlashDot knee-jerk reaction?
I keep thinking this and for some reason feel the need to finally say it.
Why does 99% of Open Source software look like bad Win95 applications?
I know geeks don't like 'eye candy' but this is getting to the point where even geeks need to embrace images, high color icons and colorful design.
Geeks also need to embrace 'usability' as most products are written as us 'techie' types would be comfortable with, but that is NOT the mass of people using computers. And I don't mean 'copying' MS's usability from 1997 either, I mean real world current usability expectations.
The open source world CAN do so much better than this...
(I know this may not seem like a positive post, but hopefully someone will find it constructive and we will start to see applications that look like they were made in this century.)
There are many parts of the world where reverse-engineering is legal. Even if Jeremy's post is indeed an admission that the SAMBA team has reverse-engineered CIFS, it is most definitely not an admission of any illegal activity.
I think the point I was hoping he would admit is that it was NOT CIFS where reverse engineering was needed, as it seems to be 'fully' documented as I stated, and the need to reverse engineer it specifically would be unnecessary.
Also I was expecting if I am wrong about the CIFS, that he would further explain what the SAMBA team has reverse engineered specifically with regard to CIFS and what portions of the MS source and documentation on CIFS has not been provided to them, as our company has not found anything lacking in the CIFS information provided by MS.
If there are things truly missing from the disclosed and free usage source license from Microsoft on CIFS, this would be the time for him to step forward and let us know so people like myself could make specific requests from MS to provide this information.
I truly think that he may have over spoke and their reverse engineering was not specifically on CIFS but in other functions that their product provides like Security and Active Directory Emulation, which for security reasons alone are not fully documented, even though all of the interface mechanisms for them are.
However there truly may be legal reasons why he would not want to disclose their work in these areas as some of it is intellectual property, and it could be in violation of their free usage licenses they already have with MS - Which they do have. (Also, this is illustrating my original post where GPL and intellectual licenses don't mix, which is what MS's contention is with most Open Source licensing schemes.)
I also found his response quite rude to deem my post as a Troll and call me a liar, for which I am not nor trying to be. If I am wrong about my CIFS example, he could have responded in a more professional manner and actually provided the information any of us would need to see where MS has not fully disclosed everything about CIFS.
Instead of being deemed a troll by him, I could possibly be an ally or an additional voice to get MS to open up whatever they have not about CIFS, in turn helping the SAMBA project.
1) SMB was IBM, but the FS implementation that is being used by MS is an extended version of SMB, and it is called CIFS.
2) I find it hard to believe that people would take time to reverse engineer the MS CIFS protocol considering full specification, documentation, packet information, code samples, and even a free usage license is available from Microsoft directly. (Again an example of 'exactly' what I was talking about, as it is 'open' but not wrapped in a GPL or other standard open source license, but a free usage license instead). - And actually more 'open' than most open source in its source disclosure and usage allowances.
As you will notice EVERY BIT of information and the license to utilize the CIFS technologies is fully available for free from Microsoft, no reverse engineering required. This information has been available for years and years, and running this technology on non-MS OSes was considered a bit doggy as the original MS Source usage license was for MS only OSes. This is also why MS updated their policy and created a usage license 'specifially' to ensure the usage license also extended to people using this technology on non-MS OSes and non-MS environments.
MS very much supports CIFS technologies in use by projects like SAMBA, or MS would not give a rats butt about Vista potentially breaking them by defaulting to Fast Query.
In the latest bit of news we once again find our villain, Microsoft, but this time they are not trying to destroy the world, but instead are joining the fight alongside many on the good side of Open Source.
Ok, drama aside, there is a fundamental issue here that should be revisited, and that is the restrictions of some of the rules of what we call Open Source and the definitions we abide by.
The GPL has flaws, and as much as we would all like to protest, these flaws may be the undoing of Open Source, or at least be a limit of its success.
I won't dive into the GPL for my post, but rather encourage everyone that has not fully read what the GPL requires 'fully' or understand about the GPL beyond the hype of what we 'think' Open Source should be. And I am using GPL as an example, pick one of the other Open Source licensing schemes and you will find a lot of the same 'restrictions'.
Microsoft's opposition of Open Source has NOT been in the grand 'ideals' of Open Source, but instead of the 'strict' licensing that Open Source is weaved around.
Even Linus and other leaders in the Open Source community have voiced their concerns about license restrictions being 'tied' to Open Source and how it will in the end 'curtail' the widespread adoption by 'binding' contributors into Licensing issues that should be 'abstracted' from what we define and know Open Source to be about.
Microsoft is a company for profit, but also because of the things like the GPL, Microsoft WILL NEVER turn over source to a licensing scheme like the GPL. That is why you do see Microsoft have many 'Open Source' publications of a lot of their software, but yet NONE are released under the standard Open Source licensing, like the GPL.
Open Source should be defined as truly 'Open' and not something that is bound to these types of licensing and restrictions. They are a guise to 'protect' the originators of the code, but in the end 'limit' the code from EVER being used by many people and companies.
Maybe what MS is saying is not so wrong at this point, but more of an awakening that needs to hit the Open Source world and 'redefine' what Open Source really is without the ties to GPL and other license restrictions.
We look at companies like Microsoft and are angry that they implement their 'own' technologies instead of using GPLed code that other people are using. However for them to use the GPLed code, they would have to give up source and technology that is not necessarily something that should be public domain. This is where GPL and Intellectual property don't mix well.
So the next time we complain about 'kerbos' or another technology not using the common 'Open Source' version and instead a MS implemented version, we need to ask ourselves, how is the GPL really helping us? If the GPLed versions were 'easier' to use, companies like MS would not have to reinvent compatible technologies.
Here is another example, SAMBA FS techniques are created from MS code and technology, that is something anyone can implement because MS DOES provide the 'source' and mechanisms in use, yet nobody sees this as Open Source, even though it actually is. MS even works to ensure SAMBA compatibility, Vista's Fast Query problems are good example of where MS is concerned and working to resolve any SAMBA FS issues.
MS took a bold Step with Windows 2003 Server Clustering technologies to implement a GPLed portion for interoperability and compatibility with the current communication technologies already in place. It was a very 'fine' and hard line for them to use this GPL code (which does benefit the Open Source world and consumer as it offers compatibility and interoperability that we all expect), but at the same time the trouble to add this GPLed technology on to Windows 2003 Server was a licensing nightmare for Microsoft and had to be 'kept' independent of all 'intellectual' development at Microsoft not to 'risk' violating the GPL.
There are a million arguments to be made for mistakes MS has made with the XBOX. My personal favorite is that they should have released a Windows OS for the XBOX.
I think the 'funny' part of people requesting this is that the XBox and XBox 360 BOTH run Windows. The Version on the XBox is the Win2K core, and the 360 sports the XP/2003 64bit core.
I guess most people don't realize that an XBox is just a core version of Windows running a version of DirectX.
It's also why Mac's cost more but are rock solid: Apple actually spends a lot of time and effort with the vendors making sure things follow the specifications and play nicely with others before they put a "Mac compatible" logo on it.
But sadly they are not more solid. A nice Kernel Panic is as frequent as a BSD on Windows, yet Windows is running on an infinite amount of hardware configurations.
When OS quality hits a point that errors are 99% more apt to general hardware 'failures' there is no easy way to even easily distiguish 'reliability' as the hardware plays a role. And the hardware in a Mac is just as apt to fail as the hardware in a PC, no matter what level of quality control anyone has over the hardware. Drives fails, RAM fails, Video fails, etc...
When errors are in hardware and the architecture of the OS is doing a lot to ensure only hardware could be a point of failure, the whole stability argument is lost.
The only thing you could use at this point is how well the OS handles hardware failure, and what mechanisms of the architecture of the OS prevent errors.
So if you used that as your guideline, then Windows is potentially more stable than OSX, and Vista is even a leap ahead of both with the ability to monitor many things other OSes couldn't handle an error in as well as new technologies for handling failing RAM and even the ability to not crash if you yanked the Video card out of the computer while it is running. There is a lot in Vista in this regard that doesn't even exist in another OS at this point.
As for the assertion that it would be cheaper to circumvent the driver processing in Windows is quite a big leap and shows a complete lack of understanding how the driver model in Vista works. (BTW People made simular comments about XP's protection of system DLLs, saying vendors would just find ways around it, in the end this never happened either...)
Um, Microsoft Licensed the technology from Dragon. OS/2 Warp 4 had it before windows. Please provide links for proof of Microsoft using this in 1992.
As I already stated, go look up 'MS Sound System'.
It was a sound card technology to push the industry (like creative) to release CD quality level sound for PCs with the introduction of the multimedia driver support in Windows 3.1. (I actually owned one of these when released and would play solitaire with only my voice. It included the sound card, microphone, and software.)
It included 'command' based speech recognition. To get 'dictation' level recognition at this time required a separate sound processor (which IBM was one company that produced such a product).
The current 'Vista' version of MS Speech recognition technologies are the result of Microsoft R&D work over the past 10 years.
MS's first 'dictation' level 'released' speech recognition software was a part of OfficeXP. This has been revised in several new directions, some of them quite novel and came from Microsoft R&D.
I would suggest anyone that is truly interested in this stuff to check out the Speech technologies at microsoft.com or research.microsoft.com or even do a few searches on the internet. This is not hard information to fact check.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end the new file system was just a marketing ploy,
Maybe, but here is what people keep skipping over. WinFS was NOT a File System in the traditional sense that everyone here keeps referencing it as. It as not a new FS, it was a 'file and data storage' mechanism using database constructs.
It still would sit on NTFS, and when you format your volume, it would still be an NTFS volume. What WinFS was, is just a database storage place that documents and file were placed into, instead of directly ON the NTFS file system.
Think of WinFS as a Database FS that sits on the 'real' drive FS. You could implment a similar concept in MYSQL as well, and direct your I/O for storage for certain folder locations to place the files and documents into a MySQL database instead of on the file system as well.
This is where WinFS was overblown by people outside the technology, and also why in the end, putting all your document and files for 'end users' in a Database Store was not a great solution as the reasons I stated above, but just think of the compatibility of disk tools trying to recover a file from inside a database store (file).
I'm sure MS could have pushed WinFS ahead, they have the money to do so, but if it doesn't garner any real benefits compared to what the indexing and relational searching team put in place for Vista already, it is a big waste for the consumer...
For the love of God, man, what do you think WinFS is? An indexing technology pasted on top of the existing file system. Jeeze. You even say so yourself.
Um... No I don't... WinFS is a Database STORE that keeps the files and file contents in a database structured format. It even is non-relational as the database store was designed to maintain NON-STRUCTURED data, in contrast to current database technologies.
The only thing they have in common would be the database postion that indexes and maintains relationships between data, but there is a vast different between dropping all of this in a Databse Store, and leaving the files and data in the NTFS file structure and indexing and linking it from there.
The later is what Vista, Apple, and XP already do, and the Vista version provided the funciton and performance that MS once only thought they could acheive by enclosing the files in the database store directly and not using NTFS as the 'mechanism' for holding the data.
If you still somehow think these things are the same, spend some time on database concepts,FS concepts and how the two have similarities and where they divide in modern database store technologies like MSSQL implements.
Why WinFS failed to deliver...
When the concepts of relational database FS were being thrown around back in the mid 90s, there was a need for this technology. WinFS was to be the next progression of this work, but in its new form a non-structure, non-relational database FS technology.
WinFS was designed to sit on NTFS, never to replace it. In fact none of the proposed MS FS technologies were ever to replace NTFS.
WinFS did develop several inroads in database technology to move past relational and object oriented database storage concepts; however, this was not enough for it to succeed, but rather for its technology to be used in database and data access technologies like MSSQL and the ADO models.
There are two big reasons WinFS was stopped before ever seeing the light of day.
1) Efficiency over functionality
2) Business & Networked File Systems
The first is probably the biggest nail in the coffin, but yet also the hardest one to get through to people.
In current computing environments, adding in a good indexing technology, you can provide 99.9% of the functionality of WinFS and the overhead in doing so turns out to be less than if a full WinFS was implemented.
For example, it is easier and more efficient to have a database indexing backend that references the standard FS and FS contents than it is to put the FS contents into a database. This can be witnessed in products like MS Desktop Search, the Vista Desktop Search, and Apple's Desktop Search as well. (Although the Apple incarnation at this point is a bit more poky than it should be.)
The second part of this is the added functionality. One of the promises of WinFS was the ability to tag and relationally add content to files and file listings. Again, this does not offer 'enough' of an edge compared to the current FS technologies. Most of these features are already supported in NTFS, so you can add tagging, and additional fields of information to the files stored on an NTFS volume, basically providing the same features as adding new fields as a database FS would offer.
The only portion that is somewhat left behind in current technology that WinFS would have provided is the 'relational' nature of items in the FS. But again, the database indexing engine that is used for searching can also provide a certain level of these relational aspects to the file and contents.
So when you look at just these basic issues, you can see why in the end MS pulled WinFS as it exists today, and instead has put the functionality of WinFS in the current technologies, as you find in Vista already. (Fast search, relations between files and file contents, tagging using NTFS, etc.)
It may not be the best PR move for Microsoft in the long run, as people here will have a field day with WinFS being abandoned in its current form as an add-on to NTFS. But if you were Microsoft and could provide 99% of the functionality of WinFS with the database indexing services in Vista (and XP) and do it faster than having to add on a new WinFS layer to NTFS, they why would you progress with a product that isn't going to offer what they can already offer with the current technologies.
If computing power was on par with 1995, then something like WinFS would have more viability as Hard Drives and Processors could more efficiently do all that Vista is doing in a Database structured storage. However today, the overhead of doing this outside a database store is fairly non-existent.
On to the second reason, which is business. Implementing localized database stores for files and documents and keeping these in sync with corporate stores is a rather big hurdle when you consider that businesses are not average Joe users and have tons of applications and infrastructure to coordinate Files spread across networks that are outside of existing MS technologies. WinFS would break many business tools and models rather badly.
As for WinFS and Database FS concepts being 'vaporware' or dead, simply is a myth for the MS haters
We have to stop being a desposable consumerist society. I.e. we have to live more simply. Now I'm not saying that we all need to be organic gardeners who tailor their own clothes and live directly off the land. I'm very much a metropolitan technologist, but I think that consumption purely for the sake of consumption is our biggest problem. The real question is if the market can correct this or if the market will dig such a deep hole that it doesn't react until the shit hits the fan.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but there are bigger issues at play.
I would put corporatism and its growing control of governments to be a bigger long term problem, especially in the United States. (This is even beginning to become a problem in the EU and European countries as well.)
Society has to be lead for the benefit of the individuals and stop this kowtowing to big business where one of the side effects is mass consumption pushed on to society.
I don't thin there is any way we will be living in space in the next 100 years.
Possibly, but just over a 100 years ago powered flight and the prospect of even going into outer space were outlandish as well.
It doesn't pay to underestimate the progression of technology. Technically we already 'have' the technology to live on the Moon or even Mars, the limit now is pure economic reasons.
Bill Gates could drop a small chunk of his money to create a space industry and create base stations on the moon or Mars, and never in history have we had the technology and a single person with the means to do this.
Beyond even base stations, we even have the technology to start terraforming Mars that would make it livable for humans within a 100 years without the need for atmospheric suits and housing.
However I personally believe it would be easier to just vote for a President in 2008 that believes that Global warming exists and is a concern, whether they believe it is manmade or a natural cycle we need to circumvent.
Microsoft has most of its costs subsidized by its near-guaranteed bundling with every PC sold by someone else's effort. Even at $50 a pop (the average bundled cost of XP to a vendor) the sheer volume makes it immensely profitable for them.
Apple doesn't have this kind of a business model, so it really isn't fair to critique them for not doing exactly the same thing when their distribution system is different.
Either you are mental or very bad at math and business...
Apple MAKES profits from the hardware and the OS installed on the hardware. If they had a 'larger' market share, their profits would be SIGNIFICANTLY greater than Microsoft's...
Geez, an open file format, why didn't we think of that
Um... They did think of that, except the MS proposed Open Document format supports things outside of basic text and fonts. Stuff for disabled people, ink, media, etc...
But in the end the Open Document Geeks win round one and the standard everyone gets is like RTF of 1993...
The Open Source World is SO brilliant sometimes. If they were jumping out of a plane they would take the towel labeled 'Open Source' parachute, just because the real parachute had a Microsoft logo on it.
Stuff like this makes me embarrassed for my friends in the Open Source world. The Open Document standard is a scam, and just because the people behind it slapped 'open source standard' on it, everyone here just blindly accepts it and assumes it is the best. Sad...
You are very much mistaken. XP runs about 5-8% faster on the same processor and RAM as Windows 2000 did. Windows Server 2003 is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows 2000 Server in every category, in some, such as IIS, and file serving, its nearly 4x (not percent) thats FOUR TIMES faster
Since your post is in line with what I was going to say, I decided to just add a couple of things and then add my other two cents directed at the others reading these posts.
To add to the facts you present, if a computer system has 64mb of RAM or greater (not unreasonable for the last 10 years) then WindowsXP is faster than Win95, Win98, and WinME.
This is significant as the Win9x models used assembly optimiation and also due to the nature of the OS architecture, there is a lot 'less' going on in the Win9X OSes. (i.e. Security, Object passing, way processess are handled, etc.)
Vista ALSO has a chance to best WindowsXP on performance on equivalent hardware, again RAM being a key. I would estimate that if you system has 256mb of RAM Vista will again out perform even WindowsXP. (In our internal testing, non-official, post Beta 2, many applications, and this includes games, applications on Vista run 10-25% faster than they do on WindowsXP.)
The Vista performance can be attributed to several sound differences, the new memory allocation system, how paging works, the new caching systems, the new network stacks, and even the GPU drawing offsets.
Just a quick example of Vista's jump in performance can be seen on identical systems running WinXp and Vista and doing even basic tasks as Web Browsing (even non-IE), Vista will display the page in 1/10th the time WindowsXP will. Also with the Vista Video model, scrolling and display of the page is smoother, especially when animations/flash in involved.
Vista could hit the market and not be faster than WinXP in 'every' regard, but I would not be surprised that the numbers we are seeing are accurate to the final version, with the possibility of the final version of Vista even surpassing WinXP in many areas.
Here are my thoughts on this topic that are not an addition to the post I am responding to...
As for the whole debate about OSX 'getting' faster, people really aren't using OSX on the same hardware that it was released on. 10.4 is a dog on a system that 10.2 runs rather well on. RAM upgrades often make a difference, but with the increasing complexity of OSes, this is becoming true of almost ALL OSes.
Also when you look at OSX, it is still a very immature OS when you get beyond the MACH/BSD core. This would leave room for a lot of improvement, but sadly unlike Microsoft where update and Service Packs for XP have been free for the past 6 years, Apple makes users drop out $99 bucks for even 'optimiation' and set of bug fixes.
I know people say that 'new' features are added in each 10.x release, but if you look at these 'features' you should notice that the SAME LEVEL of features, especially the applications bundled are nothing different than 'free' add-on Microsoft has been providing with WindowsXP. (WindowsXP has actually had new applicaiton level features available for free from Micorosft since its release than even OSX, yet MS hasn't charged a single user for these new 'features'.
I don't hate Apple, and I use OSX, but the mindset of many Mac users borderlines on a neurosis of protecting their 'beliefs' rather than 'exposing' themselves to the truth.
One area this manifest is that people make fun of XP for not releasing a new version since 2001, yet this is far from the truth. With SP1, SP2 and the free application downloads like photostory or the new movie maker, etc Microsoft has continued to provide VERY COMPERABLE upgrades and new features for XP over the years waiting for Vista.
The difference between Microsoft and Apple here, the XP updates, features, and security fixes are and always have been free. Microsoft doesn't slap a new name on XP and try to scam $99 out of their users every year. This is
"Supporting two different driver model means more complexity and less things added to DX10 in the same timeframe."
Yes but, I don't really consider time frame a "technical reason" as far as this goes. Thats more of an economical reason, wouldn't you agree?
Ok, both of you are a bit wrong on this...
For MS to support DirectX 10 in WindowsXP, the driver model of XP would have to change, there WOULD BE NO WAY TO IMPLEMENT the DirectX 10 technology on the XP Driver model.
Some of the very basic reasons go from the Driver model Ring change to higher end differences like GPU multi-tasking and GPU Memory virtualization. All of which XP has no clue how to do. In fact, Vista is the only OS Driver model that I know of that support these concepts.
So this isn't about creating a separate version of DirectX 10 for XP, it would be about redesigning the XP driver model, which would be a nightmare of compatibility problems.
Vista's biggest problem so far has been pulling the WDDM driver technology together and offering XP performance and stability. Vista (Past Beta2) is succeeding at this, but considering the mass amount of OS level changes this has taken, implementing this on XP is impossible, not just infeasible.
Well, the Divx HD profile is 1280x720 and only 5.1 audio at best
i candvideo/hdvideo/hdvideo.aspx
Ok, not everything is Divx (The bastard offspring of the Microsoft MPEG4 codec from 1998.)
VC-1 has been doing full 1080p and fitting on a standard DVD for years now, including support for 7.1 surround without artifacts (Even when viewed on a native 1080p rear DLP projector with a 20' screen size.)
The problem is that studios had initially planned on using this format for the next generation DVD content, but the DRM promises of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray made them wait for the new medium.
There have been a few movies released in the VC-1 format in HD on standard DVDs, but not many. Go buy T2 Extreme at Walmart for an example of a movie in this format that is 3 years old now. (You can also download sample movies and clips in this format from: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/mus
Just an FYI to everyone, VC-1 is one of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray codecs, but it is also known formally as Windows Media 9 Format (WMV9), VC-1 is the name adopted after it was approved as a standard format.
Leading off the list is a Slashdot favorite, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer..."
Even though the list says "In NO particular order"
But hey, I think Ballmer is a tool even though I'm not a big MS hater...
The technology IS different; however, to use this as a justification against duality players is not so accurate. Past incorporating dual lasers and a few specifications differences, the 'expense' of the units beyond the lasers is where the differences end.
Meaning, beyond the the laser technology, the real expense in these units is in the decoding hardware needed (a fairly powerful computer). And since these are 'the same' in terms of needed processing power, down to even the codecs both uniformly support, I can foresee dual units making an impact on the market quite easily.
I personal think the Blu-Ray specifications as Sony has them now will go the way of the dinosaur, but 'blue-laser' technology will eventually have some use or impact in later years possibly. The problem with blue laser technology now is that is DOES NOT jump red laser technology 'enough' to warrant the costs at this point. If the Blu-Ray was putting a terrabyte on a Disc, as Blue Laser SHOULD be capable of doing in theory, then we would see an easy migration; however, in current form it is too low end for a practical jump in technology.
Sony has also screwed the Blu-Ray market with their licensing, relunctant to meet DRM standards requests and many other things that will cause them to not be the major player after the initial war is over. Sony Pictures is their Ace in the hole, but it is not big enough to fill the void of the hole Sony itself has created with thumbing their noses to cooperate with the rest of the industry.
I got a big blue "F" button and an all white page (no text) when I accessed it in FF. I have flash blocker, though
Wow, you have a flash blocker but couldn't see the flash content. This is a mystery beyond comprehension...
IE is the HTML rendering DLLs of Windows. AFAIK, it's just a thin wrapper around them. I suspect that most of the effort that goes into writing IE goes into writing those DLLs
Yes, but if I write an application that is NOTHING but a FONT preview application, it does not mean it has DEEP HOOKS into Windows because it uses the Font or RTF DLLS.
And if we take this sample to an equivalent level to IE and its Engine, so lets say I write my own FONT Rendering DLLs, and other applications in Windows can also use them, and I write my FONT Preview application to use my Font Rendering DLLs, this STILL does not mean my application has HOOKS into Windows...
There is a big divide of difference here. IE and its use of HTML is 'separate' from Windows and separate from even other HTML applications that use the same DLLs. (But would break these applications if this engine was removed)
However, it is not like IE is running in the same process as Explorer or some other part of Windows, it is NOT. It is also not like IE is somehow tapping into the core of Windows, the Windows Win32 Kernel or even the NT Kernel, which it also is not. (In Win98 IE by default ran in the same process as Explorer, and THAT was a big mistake.)
You are very correct that IE's HTML DLLs rendering Engine is the 'shared' Windows HTML rendering Engine. But this DOES NOT grant even it any inherent advantage or hooks anywhere. IE still has as much to load as Firefox for example on load, unless by chance you are running another application that is calling the IE HTML core, and then your only advantage is if the HTML Engine Hard Drive files are in the System Memory Cache, as each application spins off a new process of this engine.
IE's Security issues of the past have nothing to do with the HTML rendering integration in Windows, but more the ActiveX controls and other methods of accessing the user's computer from inside IE. This is why the IE UI wrapper that everyone sees IE as, has taken on a new role of advancing security beyond even the HTML rendering engine, in IE7 and Vista creating a lower privelege process for the UI and its 'incarnation' of the IE HTML Engine.
current native code which has hooks deep into the OS.
Ok, a lot of people keep saying this, and I think there is some big misconception here.
IE taps into the HTML rendering DLLs of Windows. However EVERY application that runs on Windows taps into the FONT rending DLLs or the BITMAP rendering DLLs, but no one makes this claim about them. Nor other applications that use features from the HTML rendeing functions of Windows.
So to keep asserting that IE is somehow 'hooked' into Windows on a level above a NORMAL application is not entirely correct. It would be like saying FireFox also has deep hooks into Windows because it uses the Windows DLLs for FONTS and IMAGES...
When it comes to robotics, Microsoft need to understand that they are not electromechnical engineers.
Um, well most of Microsoft is not, but some are...
But that aside, last time I checked most robotic technology was 'SOFTWARE' driven, and MS does have some experience in this area.
Besides the product is using 3D modeling for the robotics (even the AEGIS physics technology) and is gearing to work with small scale servo technology in products like LEGO. We are not talking about MS actually producing a 'robot'. Did you even read the article or is this the average SlashDot knee-jerk reaction?
And your contribution is...?
:)
If I told ya, I would have to send penguins to your house to eat your goldfish...
I am going to be a bit blunt...
I keep thinking this and for some reason feel the need to finally say it.
Why does 99% of Open Source software look like bad Win95 applications?
I know geeks don't like 'eye candy' but this is getting to the point where even geeks need to embrace images, high color icons and colorful design.
Geeks also need to embrace 'usability' as most products are written as us 'techie' types would be comfortable with, but that is NOT the mass of people using computers. And I don't mean 'copying' MS's usability from 1997 either, I mean real world current usability expectations.
The open source world CAN do so much better than this...
(I know this may not seem like a positive post, but hopefully someone will find it constructive and we will start to see applications that look like they were made in this century.)
There are many parts of the world where reverse-engineering is legal. Even if Jeremy's post is indeed an admission that the SAMBA team has reverse-engineered CIFS, it is most definitely not an admission of any illegal activity.
I think the point I was hoping he would admit is that it was NOT CIFS where reverse engineering was needed, as it seems to be 'fully' documented as I stated, and the need to reverse engineer it specifically would be unnecessary.
Also I was expecting if I am wrong about the CIFS, that he would further explain what the SAMBA team has reverse engineered specifically with regard to CIFS and what portions of the MS source and documentation on CIFS has not been provided to them, as our company has not found anything lacking in the CIFS information provided by MS.
If there are things truly missing from the disclosed and free usage source license from Microsoft on CIFS, this would be the time for him to step forward and let us know so people like myself could make specific requests from MS to provide this information.
I truly think that he may have over spoke and their reverse engineering was not specifically on CIFS but in other functions that their product provides like Security and Active Directory Emulation, which for security reasons alone are not fully documented, even though all of the interface mechanisms for them are.
However there truly may be legal reasons why he would not want to disclose their work in these areas as some of it is intellectual property, and it could be in violation of their free usage licenses they already have with MS - Which they do have. (Also, this is illustrating my original post where GPL and intellectual licenses don't mix, which is what MS's contention is with most Open Source licensing schemes.)
I also found his response quite rude to deem my post as a Troll and call me a liar, for which I am not nor trying to be. If I am wrong about my CIFS example, he could have responded in a more professional manner and actually provided the information any of us would need to see where MS has not fully disclosed everything about CIFS.
Instead of being deemed a troll by him, I could possibly be an ally or an additional voice to get MS to open up whatever they have not about CIFS, in turn helping the SAMBA project.
So you are publically admitting your team has illegally reverse engineered CIFS technology?
Thanks for the post...
1) SMB was IBM, but the FS implementation that is being used by MS is an extended version of SMB, and it is called CIFS.
= /library/en-us/cifs/protocol/smb_header.asp
2) I find it hard to believe that people would take time to reverse engineer the MS CIFS protocol considering full specification, documentation, packet information, code samples, and even a free usage license is available from Microsoft directly. (Again an example of 'exactly' what I was talking about, as it is 'open' but not wrapped in a GPL or other standard open source license, but a free usage license instead). - And actually more 'open' than most open source in its source disclosure and usage allowances.
If you still think people had to reverse engineer 'anything' of the CIFS technologies from Microsoft just go here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
As you will notice EVERY BIT of information and the license to utilize the CIFS technologies is fully available for free from Microsoft, no reverse engineering required. This information has been available for years and years, and running this technology on non-MS OSes was considered a bit doggy as the original MS Source usage license was for MS only OSes. This is also why MS updated their policy and created a usage license 'specifially' to ensure the usage license also extended to people using this technology on non-MS OSes and non-MS environments.
MS very much supports CIFS technologies in use by projects like SAMBA, or MS would not give a rats butt about Vista potentially breaking them by defaulting to Fast Query.
Evil Microsoft agrees with many others though...
In the latest bit of news we once again find our villain, Microsoft, but this time they are not trying to destroy the world, but instead are joining the fight alongside many on the good side of Open Source.
Ok, drama aside, there is a fundamental issue here that should be revisited, and that is the restrictions of some of the rules of what we call Open Source and the definitions we abide by.
The GPL has flaws, and as much as we would all like to protest, these flaws may be the undoing of Open Source, or at least be a limit of its success.
I won't dive into the GPL for my post, but rather encourage everyone that has not fully read what the GPL requires 'fully' or understand about the GPL beyond the hype of what we 'think' Open Source should be. And I am using GPL as an example, pick one of the other Open Source licensing schemes and you will find a lot of the same 'restrictions'.
Microsoft's opposition of Open Source has NOT been in the grand 'ideals' of Open Source, but instead of the 'strict' licensing that Open Source is weaved around.
Even Linus and other leaders in the Open Source community have voiced their concerns about license restrictions being 'tied' to Open Source and how it will in the end 'curtail' the widespread adoption by 'binding' contributors into Licensing issues that should be 'abstracted' from what we define and know Open Source to be about.
Microsoft is a company for profit, but also because of the things like the GPL, Microsoft WILL NEVER turn over source to a licensing scheme like the GPL. That is why you do see Microsoft have many 'Open Source' publications of a lot of their software, but yet NONE are released under the standard Open Source licensing, like the GPL.
Open Source should be defined as truly 'Open' and not something that is bound to these types of licensing and restrictions. They are a guise to 'protect' the originators of the code, but in the end 'limit' the code from EVER being used by many people and companies.
Maybe what MS is saying is not so wrong at this point, but more of an awakening that needs to hit the Open Source world and 'redefine' what Open Source really is without the ties to GPL and other license restrictions.
We look at companies like Microsoft and are angry that they implement their 'own' technologies instead of using GPLed code that other people are using. However for them to use the GPLed code, they would have to give up source and technology that is not necessarily something that should be public domain. This is where GPL and Intellectual property don't mix well.
So the next time we complain about 'kerbos' or another technology not using the common 'Open Source' version and instead a MS implemented version, we need to ask ourselves, how is the GPL really helping us? If the GPLed versions were 'easier' to use, companies like MS would not have to reinvent compatible technologies.
Here is another example, SAMBA FS techniques are created from MS code and technology, that is something anyone can implement because MS DOES provide the 'source' and mechanisms in use, yet nobody sees this as Open Source, even though it actually is. MS even works to ensure SAMBA compatibility, Vista's Fast Query problems are good example of where MS is concerned and working to resolve any SAMBA FS issues.
MS took a bold Step with Windows 2003 Server Clustering technologies to implement a GPLed portion for interoperability and compatibility with the current communication technologies already in place. It was a very 'fine' and hard line for them to use this GPL code (which does benefit the Open Source world and consumer as it offers compatibility and interoperability that we all expect), but at the same time the trouble to add this GPLed technology on to Windows 2003 Server was a licensing nightmare for Microsoft and had to be 'kept' independent of all 'intellectual' development at Microsoft not to 'risk' violating the GPL.
This makes it a tough
There are a million arguments to be made for mistakes MS has made with the XBOX. My personal favorite is that they should have released a Windows OS for the XBOX.
I think the 'funny' part of people requesting this is that the XBox and XBox 360 BOTH run Windows. The Version on the XBox is the Win2K core, and the 360 sports the XP/2003 64bit core.
I guess most people don't realize that an XBox is just a core version of Windows running a version of DirectX.
It's also why Mac's cost more but are rock solid: Apple actually spends a lot of time and effort with the vendors making sure things follow the specifications and play nicely with others before they put a "Mac compatible" logo on it.
But sadly they are not more solid. A nice Kernel Panic is as frequent as a BSD on Windows, yet Windows is running on an infinite amount of hardware configurations.
When OS quality hits a point that errors are 99% more apt to general hardware 'failures' there is no easy way to even easily distiguish 'reliability' as the hardware plays a role. And the hardware in a Mac is just as apt to fail as the hardware in a PC, no matter what level of quality control anyone has over the hardware. Drives fails, RAM fails, Video fails, etc...
When errors are in hardware and the architecture of the OS is doing a lot to ensure only hardware could be a point of failure, the whole stability argument is lost.
The only thing you could use at this point is how well the OS handles hardware failure, and what mechanisms of the architecture of the OS prevent errors.
So if you used that as your guideline, then Windows is potentially more stable than OSX, and Vista is even a leap ahead of both with the ability to monitor many things other OSes couldn't handle an error in as well as new technologies for handling failing RAM and even the ability to not crash if you yanked the Video card out of the computer while it is running. There is a lot in Vista in this regard that doesn't even exist in another OS at this point.
As for the assertion that it would be cheaper to circumvent the driver processing in Windows is quite a big leap and shows a complete lack of understanding how the driver model in Vista works. (BTW People made simular comments about XP's protection of system DLLs, saying vendors would just find ways around it, in the end this never happened either...)
Um, Microsoft Licensed the technology from Dragon. OS/2 Warp 4 had it before windows. Please provide links for proof of Microsoft using this in 1992.
As I already stated, go look up 'MS Sound System'.
It was a sound card technology to push the industry (like creative) to release CD quality level sound for PCs with the introduction of the multimedia driver support in Windows 3.1. (I actually owned one of these when released and would play solitaire with only my voice. It included the sound card, microphone, and software.)
It included 'command' based speech recognition. To get 'dictation' level recognition at this time required a separate sound processor (which IBM was one company that produced such a product).
The current 'Vista' version of MS Speech recognition technologies are the result of Microsoft R&D work over the past 10 years.
MS's first 'dictation' level 'released' speech recognition software was a part of OfficeXP. This has been revised in several new directions, some of them quite novel and came from Microsoft R&D.
I would suggest anyone that is truly interested in this stuff to check out the Speech technologies at microsoft.com or research.microsoft.com or even do a few searches on the internet. This is not hard information to fact check.