there is no reason I am aware of for it to be tied to any specific filesystem, and it should encrypt FAT32 just as capably as NTFS.
Actually, because it uses NTFS structures, it is required.
Bitlocker uses the encryption technologies of NTFS, even though it is technically separate from the EFS (Encrypting File System of NTFS).
However, using FAT32 would be a stupid way around the BitLocker problem.
It would be far easier to JUST NOT TURN ON BitLocker...
Encryption technology can sit on a FS, but with NTFS it is actually a part of the FS, just like compression, security, etc as you sometimes find in other FS technologies.
File Systems can be just an index and one data structure concept or they can encompass various additional data storage structures and concepts like NTFS does.
The software I use, Adobe products, use hard coded font sizes in their apps and they become unusable at that resolution.
But whatever, you're just trolling in any case because judging by the way you come when you mention your Dell piece of shit, you wouldn't switch for the world.
1) In your attempts to assume, you miss the fact I also do graphic design and own almost every Adobe product for both Mac and Windows.
2) Although I didn't specifically say, but it should be noted I DON'T OWN A DELL, have never OWNED a DELL. The reason I jumped into this article was I was looking for a mid-sized laptop (although I like my bricks and TabletPCs), and I thought the new Apple would have made a nice alternative, it once again came up short. Like they have done for several years now. I hate having to give up performance to have a Mac. I remember when they were the 'leader' and having one was no compromise, sad that it isn't now, and other Apple users should also express they want more from Apple.
3) Sorry your eye sight isn't the best, that I can understand that reason for not wanting higher DPI displays when running OSes that are not Resolution independant...
The reason this story made news and the only reason to pull 'marketing' information from Email would be for advertisers.
Unless you can come up with another good reason Google would be reading your email? Oh, Google did admit it was for advertising and marketing, I don't have time to find the articles for you, but I bet a search will find them.;)
You do see a lot of successful religious endeavors spending the bulk of their efforts being against something, homos or drugs or popularly elected south american presidents
True, but none have long term or stable success. People eventually figure things out, even if it takes a while.
Whether it is Microsoft or even the Devil himself, spending the majority of your speeches and company focus on fighting another company instead of bolstering your own company and strenghtening your own products is a bad business model.
You don't see Burger King announce a new burger and tell you that it is ok and the best feature it didn't come from McDonalds...
Maybe if he would have had the same obsession for this company that he did Microsoft, Sun might be stronger on the desktop and not losing server marketshare.
Ok, this is where people step into the room and go, ok but that line look really messed up to a Windows user that is use to wrtiting faster and simpilier syntax.
Besides, I truly don't get the huge reluctance to special character restrictions. This is what the basic constructs of programming and scripting and syntax are all about. Even funadmental concepts that came out of the early *nix years proved that reserved words, operators, etc were a key to a non-fragmented UI consistency. (Even though some of the tools that have survived just shouldn't have.)
I see benefits in both. Windows has the ease of use, and still can leverage some pretty powerful command line abilities if needed. Also Windows has universal scripting languages, like Javascript and VBScript that can not only be used from the GUI, but also in the shells, and especailly in the new Monad Shell. (And with the.NET framework at play here, strap on Python or whatever that is.NET able and run with it, both in the CUI and GUI.)
I find it strange that people here drawing a line in the sand saying the Windows based implementations are bad or the *nix concepts are wrong.
What next, lets propose that in C++ that the + and - signs are no longer reserved operators as well? Just so I can have a variable named Donkey++ and not have it self increment?
I get what people are saying, and a lot of this has to come from the style they are used to, but either side doesn't stop and realize there is ease of use and flexibility offered on both sides of the fence, even if it is not completely obvious because you haven't worked in one as much.
The Windows people haven't seen the power of the inherent in/out structures that are fairly universal, nor have they seen the inline scripting power.
And the *nix people have completely missed the standardized syntax with object and OS Object model referencing, and also have missed that because of.NET inherent scripting get extend from the GUI VB/JS then add on the language independance of.NET so strap on whatever scripting language makes you feel good, find the.NET version and use it as well, like Python, etc.
MS actually gets this better than the *nix would would like to beleive, and this is another case of underestimating MS.
Also another problem in the *nix concepts, even on this subject is how IMPORTANT 'internal' standardization is. Diversity is great in some eco systems, but when trying to establish common interface concepts, the staple of Windows development side success, what MS is doing is important, and it would be better for *nix competing tools like Bash, etc to agree to some common CUI constructs, or at least merge what is currently similar, leave in legacy, but make all new OS interface handlers adhere to a structure.
People forget the success of Windows pre-market gorilla, was the ease and consistency for developers in 1990-1992. More applications were made easily those year for Windows than any other OS had ever seen in history. (VB and the cheap tools from MS helped a lot, and developers are as much to credit the early success in though years as was the end user adoptation.)
Then try using it in a File Open/Save dialog, find that it doesn't work, and notice that it's a one-off hack that I imagine stems from the integration of IE and Explorer...
This is due to the common dialog library that applications use (It is the one carried over from Win32/Win95 and not a real NT level system API control(ie. it was designed to support FAT32 on Win95).
Also an FYI, this no longer exists in Vista, and even newer applications, as they use the updated Common Dialog Controls.
I think the point people are make tying to make is
A) It does work, but not as well as in IE. B) MS's statements are very clear that all live features will be fully cross browser when it is 'out of beta'. That includes Firefox, Safari, etc etc...
And if this was a freaking conspiracty to get people locked into IE, then MS would make Live use IE only technologies and not standards like client side javascript- ie AJAX, etc.
If they wanted to lock people to IE, they could drop in IE specific Controls, etc etc and make it TRULY IE only.
The whole Windows Live project is a 'beta' experiment on the ability to fully implement a large scale of features that do run cross browser without much work in having to alter scripting for differenct browsers.
Yes there will be exceptions, but the goal is that if you are using Opear, Firefox, Safari, etc etc. It will run as well and look as well as it does on IE.
And frankly there are some shortcoming in Firefax on some of it 'standards' implementations. (Not that it is worse than IE in any way, but in the technologies for AJAX model, it does suffer in some ways that other browser like Safari actually do a better job at.)
ALso what do you expect from MS, Live is Beta, they know IE, so that part is easy, the other browsers are a lot of what the 'beta' is about.
(Speaking from inside sources, they are REALLY trying to get Live right, not only for its use, but to showcase how standards can be used effectively without regard to what browser is used.)
We all know its fun to get the pitchforks out, but the person on/. posting this article was specifically trolling/baiting a lot people here, and with success unfortunately.
This is exactly what I put on my feedback form when I opted out of Live Mail. It's basically an advertising page with a little bit or webmail thrown in as an afterthought. Whatever they do now it's clear what they want to achieve so I'm off to GMail.
If gmail shift to enforce advertising, I'll run my own web server
Not to start a flame or war, but you do realize Google has disclosed they data mine(Automated Reading) all incoming and outgoing GMail? That way they can better 'market' information to you as well as classify you when your information is provided to advertisers?
They also link Data mined through all your GMail activity and cross it back to your IP and will use that data to include all your google.com searches.
Google is a good example, as evil as MS is or looks, there are always companies that are worse.
Good luck with the GMail, and if your personal privacy or mail privacy is a concern, I would find another email provider.
Are you *carrying* that behemoth notebook around that much? If not, why not get a 15 inch MBP and hook a 30" Cinema Display up to it? Just wondering.
Well, to be honest, I have nice desktops, but I tend to be on the move more than in any one location.
Even a bit more of a brick notebook at 10 lb, it is handy to be able to take a computer that can bounce the performance of most desktops, slip it in a case and have it in my car, hotel, etc. It works well in several ways, but it is not a light weight meeting style laptop. That is what my older Toshiba was(although it still had 1600x1200 on a 15" display), and I also have a couple of other units I use for notes and when I just need to write.
Ya, the one I have and was referencing is a brick, but at least I can have as much power as I want, and not be glued to a desk. It is last years model pops almost 7,000 on 3DMark05 and I don't have to mess around when I do graphics, development, or want to run the newest game.
I use the Dell as an example, because it seems to be well known to Mac users since it is a big brand. It offers 1920x1200 on its 17" display, has a TV Tuner, has Geforce 7900GTX w/512mb, etc etc, and is in the same weight and size class as the Mac. But there are handfuls of other good companies with units in the same range as well. And their current Bricks even outperform the Dell XPS class.
The point is though, there are Dells and other brands that offer the same size and class as the Mac, yet you can get the extra features you CANNOT get on a Mac.
That is what bugs me. Apple should be setting the bar, not barely keeping up.
cm'on: hook up a 30-inch screen to the laptop and you'll have realms of HD goodness.
And that is going to speed up the GPU in the laptop how? I have a 10ft projection monitor also, it is beautiful and High Def, but that doesn't speed up my laptop GPU...
All I want is more from Apple, they use to know how to deliver the 'new' stuff, or at least meet the cutting edge.
Are you editing HD video in 1080p? I didn't think so.
Really don't want this to be a flame war at all, but you picked one of the lucky peeps that do edit 1080 content. Granted it is not for network, but I do work with HD content. So you can maybe understand the frustration?
Why is this something so common on Windows Laptops and we have to beg and fight to get even 720p capable displays from Apple?
The Dell doesn't have a built-in video camera. The Dell doesn't have Firewire 800. The Quadro video is pretty bitchin' I'll admit.
But see it isn't just the Dell, go look at other Laptops. They have 17 and even 15" screens with higher resolution, even DUAL SLI NVidia 7900GTX mobile GPUS, (which is 5-10 times faster than the ATI in the new Mac), and yes even a built in camera.
Even the 'old' laptop I am using that I keep referencing is a Dual-Core 64bit Processor, (and I can run a 64bit OS on it like WindowXP64 or Linux), it also has a RAID HD Setup with 120GB of storage (almost twice as fast as the 'new' Mac), and even a Geforce 7800 Mobile GPU with 512mb of RAM (That is 2-3times the speed of the ATI card in the 'New' Mac, and it was bought last summer.
And to me this is old technology when I look at some of the new models out there. Yelling how many Firewire ports the Mac has, just isn't cutting it, as most of the non-Mac brands also offer Firewire STANDARD.
I also use the Internal Bluetooth, the 108g Wireless(Faster than a/b/or g), a 1000mBit Ethernet, a Hardware Encoder TV built into this 'old' laptop that makes one nice PVR, Quad (surround) Internal Speaker Setup, a Subwoofer, and the list goes on and on. Plus I have 1920x1200 display, which I can't even BUY from Apple in a portable.
This is not Apple Bashing, this is a cry to get others to say, ok, nice try Apple, now here is WHAT WE WANT. We want the toys all the Windows & *nix people get. Admittedly I not a Mac only person, but that actually makes it easier for me to go, hey I have all these features on non-Apple hardware, what the heck is Apple doing. How are they going to get me to have faith in them being the 'leader' again? In almost another lifetime ago I was a graphic designer and my Mac use to be my friend.
- The 1680 x 1050 resolution of the 17" display is the same as many desktop 20" widescreen LCDs such as the Apple 20" Cinema Display and the 20" Dell 2007WFP
Who again is NOT totally angered that Apple won't offer high resolution displays. Comparing the pixel count to their 20" Display is SAD, SO SAD...
I have a 2002 Toshiba Laptop with a 15" screen that does 1600x1200, and a 17" Laptop that does 1920x1200...
Why is Apple still the poor cousin when it comes to graphics? (Let alone the Video solution they are using is 2-5 times slower than offerings from other companies.
I was really hoping they would offer people that work with graphics (even as a hobby) a high resolution display.
And if people complain about tiny print or tiny buttons, once again I will say, Why in the HELL does OSX NOT do a better job of Scaling the UI? Even WindowsXP does a better job, OSX should at least catch up to such a low bar.
Besides, I have good eyes, and the 'smooth' lines and crisp video you can get at a higher DPI is more than worth it. I can at least play WMV HD 1080p on my 1yr old 17" laptop, why in HECK can't I play that resolution of Video or Movies on a Mac of all things. An area of the industry they pride themselves on. (Yes I know the 30" screen has 1920x1200, but we are talking laptops here.)
Every Mac user needs to say, Ok, Apple, (A,B,C are really good, but you totally blew it on D,E,F, and G features.) Why is Apple the cheap version of what I can buy from Dell?
You have to realize that Heat = Wasted Electricity. On a laptop, battery life is bad enough without worrying about the graphics processor killing your battery. I'm sure they could build a laptop with 20 hours battery life. But nobody really seems to be focussing on this. Low power chip + old school graphics card because it doesn't affect office work anyway, and you could probably have a pretty low power computer. Use a slower hard drive, and give it enough ram that it doesn't need to have a swap file, and you'd probably get quite a bit more of life out of the thing
Um, do you understand the concept of 'power saving features'? And I see you are already modded 'insightful'? I am actually on SlashDot and having to explain that laptops DO power saving on their own. Geesh.
This is why a Laptop can and will slow the Video and Hard Drive and even the CPU when on Batteries based on your settings.
However if you are plugged into an AC Outlet, THE COMPUTER SHOULD PERFORM AT FULL SPEED.
So when you are on battery, the performance of most of the components in the Laptop Scale down to whatever level you set and find acceptable. I have a 2Ghz Laptop that will drop the CPU down to 500mhz performance range when on battery, and will slow the video card down to the point is only good for doing word processing. You can also set the laptop to not scale down at all for the sake of performance.
This is what laptops are made to do. There is NO benefit that Apple had to reduce the performance of the computer, just for the sake of batteries - NONE.
Saving batter power is not a credible excuse for a feature reduction on a Laptop of all things.
You also realize that even the 'slowed' down version of the ATI Video is considerably slower and less 'efficient' than mobile GPUs like you would find in a standard Dell or many other brands. So the video is already slower and has less RAM starting out than other laptop brands.
There is NO way this is a good thing. PERIOD.
Once again, Apple is NOT LEADING technically, and they are STILL NOT EVEN keeping up. Macs used to be the technology kings, now they are the 'cheap' version of what you can get from other companies. Why aren't Apple Mac users angered by this, instead of buying the BS from Apple? Why can't we demand Apple to be a 'technology' leader without being called heretics?
This new laptop doesn't even 'look' as cool as the laptops from Dell that have been out for almost a year, and the Dell Laptops from 1 Year ago are actually faster on some things, like video, and this isn't even comparing the performance of the current offerings from Dell and other companies that are still a generation ahead of the 'new' Apple notebook.
I was half excited at the announcement, and the Video performance was the first thing I noticed (before even reading about the slower clock speeds). The second thing I noticed is the Display resolution on the 17" models even. What in the heck are they thinking? Different I guess, but for doing graphics work I like the 1920x1600 17" laptop screen I bought over a year ago. Even my 2002 Toshiba 15" had 1600x1200. Why do I have to go with a lower resolution display if I want a Mac? So much for leading...
Why in the heck is Apple NOT focusing on graphics people, those of us that demand high resolution displays. For illustrating to photo editing and even how about HD Video? I can play a WMV 1080p on my 1yr old Laptop and I can't on anything Mac has to offer. SAD. (Don't go into the tiny print and icons with higher resolutions, OSX should have been doing better at a scalable UI long before now, at least meet the WindowsXP level for goodness sake.)
I've read about this several times, but what I'd like to see to verify that is that said third parties (especially those who have reason to mistrust the NSA) have built binaries and diffed them from the shipping code.
If they didn't what in the F*** do you think they wanted the source for? To check the syntax? See if Microsoft properly commented?
Security issues was on the #1 reasons the source was request and required to let MS sell software to their goverment agencies.
You need to loosen one of the rubberbands on your tinfoil hat.
PS, Also brush up on your Google skills, my first attempt returned pages on the topic from just the last month.
Not smoking anything, but I do know how to read past a 3rd grade level. More than I can say about the President....
Oh if you can read, here check out some of the lastest news bits on the 2004 election.
There are tons of links to every major Media and News outlet if you can figure out how to type 2004 voter fraud in Google. But in case you can't here is a link to get you started that monitors the latest information.
Has any national candiate endorsed by Air America ever won an election
Considering they don't endorse canidates, I would doubt it... Some of the hosts supports canidates, but unlike right wing radio, they don't unilaterally agree and drink the republican kool aid...
Oh, and ya, lost of canidates that have been supported by some of the hosts have, but since some of the other hosts supported other people, not ALL could possibly have won...
Ok, time for you kool-aid, don't want your republican mind control to wear off and actually let you think for yourself.
Just get Browser to fully support Scaleable viewing content.
Heck even IE7 on XP does this now, zoom in and out to any resolution, the Graphics/text keep the page formatting the same, and look crisper on higher resolution screens...
Why complicate the design standards when this can be easily solved inside the browsers as even Freaking IE7 has demonstrated?
Wow, all that and you didn't even ask for the Build number of Vista I was using.
I was merely following your lead when you asserted that I must say, that is my favorite line of defense when you are caught not knowing your arse from a hole in the ground.
I also didn't even get a going away kiss. Manners these days...
does that make the majority of americans who elected him.
Actually, only a small percentage of Americans voted for him. The problem is, most people did not, or were 'unable' to vote...
(Suppressing votes is a key to fundamental leaders winning; take a look at Iran for example, less than 15% of the population voted for their current leader as well.)
Watch that generalization brush when you blindly use it to paint on such a big canvas. Most people in the US think Bush is an illiterate fool with psychopathic tendencies. (Do a search on voter fraud and all the indictments in just the last year from 2004 election alone, especially all the indictments from a key state, Ohio.)
Actually the screenshots that Paul Posted are already outdated, this is why it is called a BETA.
No they aren't. You're either stupid or in denial. Incidentally, I love the capitalisation on the second P. Paul Posted. It's like some kind of...I dunno. But it's quite funny...
Wow, you are psychic and know what build of Vista I am testing? That is so cool. Well sadly you are wrong, but I still think it is cool that you believe in your powers. I say you should maybe do your own 900 Ms. Cleo number, I'm sure people here will gladly pay money to hear all your other predictions and hyperbole.
I should have assumed from your philippic post that you would be the kind of person to write posts in your word processor and then point out typographical errors in the post you are responding to as a way of discounting anyone's credibility. I am happy that you can see the red squiggles and correct all your typos before you post. Microsoft Word is grand tool for someone like yourself trying to elevate your perceived level of education. Oh by the way, you missed the red squiggle under 'dunno'.
So I have seen Windows evolve, from the glorified DOS shell that it was to the bloated piece of crap it has become in Windows XP and beyond, and in each release, I have noted what has changed and what has stayed the same.
An awful lot has stayed the same. Many tools did not change at all between Windows NT 3.1 and NT 4 (which explains why NT 4's DUN was such a peculiar anomaly to those who came to it from 9x), and whilst 2000 genuinely offered some much needed polish and useful enhancement (and is, IMHO, Microsoft's magnum opus**), the same cannot be said of that which has followed. It is incredibly striking to see how icons originally used in Windows 95 (or perhaps NT 4 - more likely) are still in Windows Vista a full eleven years later. Despite, as you allege, all this revamping.
You could have easily shortened these paragraphs by just saying you have no freaking clue what you are talking about, but maybe you just love to see your words on the screen. (Queue Carly Simon Music)
Get back to me when you realize there is a difference between DOS and NT. Heck, why don't we try to get you to a 101 course level, get back to me when you can explain the fundamental concepts of the client/server kernel in NT and how this gives NT advantages over both monolithic and microkernel designs.
I think you sum it up quite well where you say that "the parts that haven't are compiled using the new development tools from MS". This is precisely what has happened, and precisely why nothing has changed. Redesign the controls, call it.NET and recompile. Voilà - a new operating system!
Again it would have been easier to say I have no freaking clue.
Actually, this paragraph is truly a work of art. Please don't tell me you serious think Microsoft recompiled Vista in.NET. Actually do tell me that, I want another post from you to forward to my colleagues. They are already about to pee themselves from laughing at this post, and are begging me to bait you into posting another rant from your delusive contentment. Seriously, they are even awarding you the bloviating ass of the day award. (Queue Your Acceptance Speech)
Windows still doesn't have it. Granted, Apple's implementation is not a full DBFS, but to the end user, the result is the same, so it matters little. And Microsoft isn't even including WinFS in Vista anyway! So I am left wondering if you have any idea what you are on about...
I had forgotten about the DCI controversy, I guess I should have known that people still saw it as 'QuickTime' technology being put in 'Windows Media Products'.
It was a copyright suit. Although I am truly surprised that people still believe it was Microsoft that tried to do something wrong, or believe that QuickTime technology actually is in Windows Media after all this time.
Apple paid a company 'Canyon' to write code for QuickTime, Canyon came up with the idea to drop the video output to the video card directly (A form of an Overlay, Direct Write, etc, etc).
Apple was happy with the results, until they learned that Canyon gave the code to Intel, and Intel gave the code to Microsoft. Microsoft released an SDK for their AVI format with the Intel code, which really was a copy of the Apple owned code.
The idea of directly writing captured video to the video card instead of the OS's display was developed by Canyon for Apple, making it Apple's property.
1) This is about a technique for writing captured video to a display.
2) MS removed the code when they learned it was not Intel's to give out.
3) There is not currently QuickTime code in Windows Media, and technically hasn't been since Microsoft pulled the developer preview of their 'Video for Windows' that included the Canyon code over 13 years ago.
4) The only thing MS participated in was using the Intel DCI code that was pulled when the code from Intel was brought into question by Apple.
5) Microsoft was more than a little angry at Intel for putting their AVI development at risk.
So does Windows Media contain QuickTime code - No...
Did MS steal code from Apple - No...
Did Intel purposely use code knowing Apple owned it - probably... It all depends on if Canyon disclosed this to Intel or not specifically noting they were selling Intel code Apple owned. But based on Intel's knowledge of the code, and their reaction, including their apologies to Microsoft, I would bet they did know.
Direct Write concepts pre-date QuickTime and the Intel DCI, meaning the only thing Apple had grounds was the 'exact' code was used. They didn't argue their technology was stolen, they argued their code was copied.
Which means this was a copyright suit, not a patent case defending technology. Apple was suing over the code, not the concept.
But I will step back, as I didn't equate this case with what the poster I was responding to was talking about, I should have caught the trap and kept my mouth shut, but I didn't.
So I will take my lumps, as I was technically wrong and concede this thread...
(This was part of the agreement that let MS off the hook for appropriating quicktime technology into their own media products.)
Apple alleged that Microsoft purposely made Quicktime fail on Windows due to the changes in the new version of Windows.
Apple never accused Microsoft of using any technology from Quickime.
Apple's allegations about Microsoft purposely coding Windows to make Quicktime fail were later disproven by many experts, even though it never made any legal grounds.
The Apple vs Microsoft deal payoff deal was to settle the 'look and feel' lawsuit, which ironically is close to same lawsuit Apple won against Xerox, just in reverse. Another side note in history... (If the 1975 Xerox Consent Decree hadn't been in place, the Star (Xerox) GUI would have been protected and Xerox would of had patent and other legal grounds to protect what Apple copied.)
If you have some link or case number or evidence that Microsoft was ever even accused of using Quicktime technology, please share with the rest of us. I had my assistant do a quick legal and internet search and returned nothing on MS using Quicktime technology.
Also, Apple having access to APIs is not as clear cut as it might seem from the person writing the article. The APIs Apple has access to DO NOT include newer OSes like WindowsXP, and Apple also never received the source code.
So implementing all the Win32/GDI+/DirectX/etc APIs needed to run Windows applications quite an feat to pull off, especially when you then have to add in all the NT layer APIs that some applications and portions of the shared libraries in the WIN32 subsystem need. Heck just ask some of the WINE developers how easy implementing the Windows API is...
Doesn't this show that it's not the goal of the EU to give their technologies a chance, but to keep competition alive (of whichever nation's companies)? No?
Good point...
But this doesn't mean their methods are the best way to do this. Maybe they would be better to take the money and time invested in putting MS on trial and instead establish a grant system for competiting technologies.
If that is their intent as you suggest, they would be better served by doing a lot of other things than focusing only on Microsoft. True leveling of technology standards instead of addressing the big fish in the pond at this point in history will not accomplish the 'sparking' of innovation in other technologies, all it will do is halt or retard the innovation in MS products.
In the end, the consumer loses with this strategy, less technology from the leader (Microsoft) while doing nothing to help the competition to catch up or surpass the leader.
You can't spark innovation by JUST holding back the current technology provider in the market, you have to address this issue from more than one side.
Everyone sees Windows as successful because MS is a bully, it is more successful because of its springboard off of a DOS world, and being well rounded. Sure things are not always the easiest or best in every aspect, but as a whole, it works well for what it is.
And from that statement I mean not only in the daily use by consumers, but the level of development support provided by Microsoft in creating applications for Windows.
As visual basic in the early 90s demonstrated, writing applications on Windows can be very easy, and that is where Microsoft tends to shine more than the consumers realize. Even people in the Open Source world regard MS's development tools fairly high, even if they feel the need to spit after saying it.;)
It is easier for myself as a developer to write a quick and easy Windows application than it is to write the same application on OSX or Linux for example. And this is part of the hidden secret of the success of the Windows empire.
It is also why when the market share of Windows 3.0 and Apple Mac back in 1990 were reversed (Apple was on top), that not only in that year but the following two years more applications were written for Windows and Windows 3.1 in that timeframe than had EVER been written for the Apple Mac, even though the Mac had been on the market for over 7 years.
People forget Mac had the lead on GUI applications, but because it was easier to write programs on Windows at the time, that is where the developers headed.
This was kind of the GUI gold rush of the early 90s. Even non-programmers could make working and simple applications with Visual Basic and other Microsoft tools. (Microsoft also sold their development tools for cheap and gave them away and provided a lot of help for the little developers, all at a time when people were paying $1,500 to develop an application for OS/2 or the Apple Mac.)
Windows is almost more successful from the inside out, as it originally brought in more developers and MS gave the developers support before the consumer end base was built.
I think the EU very well could have good motives, but they seem to be short-sighted on technology or a way to open the technology industry up. Just killing the big weed in the garden won't make other plants grow, you have to actually lay seeds for the other plants as well.
What I hear is just from friends that work at the EU, and not having been to Brussels myself in almost two years, I have no way to validate the level of access they have to the case or if what they hear is truly a reflection of the motives.
The only validity I can give to what I hear is the reactions to people going anti-MS then buying Apple or Redhat. But again this could be because Apple is closed and it just all mixes together.
As for controlling the Internet, many have tried with various technologies, from MS to Sun and Java, nothing has had dominance, instead you find these companies reverse direction and go back to the standard bodies.
Even MS is now pushing Standards only Internet design. Sure they want you to run Windows Server with ASP, but even they don't require it.
The new technologies coming from Microsoft stress to even Windows only developers 'stick with standards'.
For example, in showcasing a part of the new WPF Web development tool (a version of Frontpage that is WPF aware), they talk more about ensuring the work meets standards, even accessibility standards more than showcasing the WPF features of the product.
Even if the client side control or server side control gave any company leverage to control the internet, it doesn't mean the people will just go along with it. We are too fickle, and it is TOO easy for the small developer to develop alternative technologies. And if MS went as far to say, do it only this way, most of us would do it a different way just to screw with MS.
Can you see the Firefox developers going, ok, we are doing everything MS's way, or Apple conforming to a MS only view of the world? And those are more mainstream, just imagine the GNOME and KDE and other open browser or http server technologies and what their reaction would be.
Is it possible, sure anything is, but not likely, I don't see any company ever owning the internet. The internet by definition and how it works almost ensures this will never happen.
People rebel too easily, as we see here on slashdot all the time.
As for MS controling the majority of the client computer technologies, this also means very little. It sounds like a strong argument, but MS doesn't lock anyone to the tools 'included', sure MS doesn't want them to be crap, but they are more to provide basic functionality for the average user, just like FONT support and Calculator.
Even look at Windows Media Player, since it gets the most attention from the EU. WMP supports any codec, not just MS codecs, it also support ANY online music store, not just MS's.
As for content, it also supports almost ANY content and content format, it even allows the Web standards to dictate how content is displayed inside it when browsing for music online, etc.
There is no MS version of HTML for example, and what MS has contributed to HTML, like parts of XHTML, are advances for everyone, not just MS. In fact, most of the other browsers have adopted the standards and started using them before MS and IE even has. I also wouldn't be surprised to see even the WPF/E technologies in use in other browsers before Vista even ships.
Of all things, these are really small things to try to focus on, I could think of better things the EU could focus on with Microsoft and Windows. IE and Windows Media Player are not the threat, and as you notice, people in Europe don't want to buy an N version of Windows, it actually reduces their choice in what software they use.
Slashdot Mirror
there is no reason I am aware of for it to be tied to any specific filesystem, and it should encrypt FAT32 just as capably as NTFS.
Actually, because it uses NTFS structures, it is required.
Bitlocker uses the encryption technologies of NTFS, even though it is technically separate from the EFS (Encrypting File System of NTFS).
However, using FAT32 would be a stupid way around the BitLocker problem.
It would be far easier to JUST NOT TURN ON BitLocker...
Encryption technology can sit on a FS, but with NTFS it is actually a part of the FS, just like compression, security, etc as you sometimes find in other FS technologies.
File Systems can be just an index and one data structure concept or they can encompass various additional data storage structures and concepts like NTFS does.
The software I use, Adobe products, use hard coded font sizes in their apps and they become unusable at that resolution.
But whatever, you're just trolling in any case because judging by the way you come when you mention your Dell piece of shit, you wouldn't switch for the world.
1) In your attempts to assume, you miss the fact I also do graphic design and own almost every Adobe product for both Mac and Windows.
2) Although I didn't specifically say, but it should be noted I DON'T OWN A DELL, have never OWNED a DELL. The reason I jumped into this article was I was looking for a mid-sized laptop (although I like my bricks and TabletPCs), and I thought the new Apple would have made a nice alternative, it once again came up short. Like they have done for several years now. I hate having to give up performance to have a Mac. I remember when they were the 'leader' and having one was no compromise, sad that it isn't now, and other Apple users should also express they want more from Apple.
3) Sorry your eye sight isn't the best, that I can understand that reason for not wanting higher DPI displays when running OSes that are not Resolution independant...
Take Care...
Google hands mail data over to advertisers
;)
The reason this story made news and the only reason to pull 'marketing' information from Email would be for advertisers.
Unless you can come up with another good reason Google would be reading your email? Oh, Google did admit it was for advertising and marketing, I don't have time to find the articles for you, but I bet a search will find them.
You do see a lot of successful religious endeavors spending the bulk of their efforts being against something, homos or drugs or popularly elected south american presidents
True, but none have long term or stable success. People eventually figure things out, even if it takes a while.
Whether it is Microsoft or even the Devil himself, spending the majority of your speeches and company focus on fighting another company instead of bolstering your own company and strenghtening your own products is a bad business model.
You don't see Burger King announce a new burger and tell you that it is ok and the best feature it didn't come from McDonalds...
Maybe if he would have had the same obsession for this company that he did Microsoft, Sun might be stronger on the desktop and not losing server marketshare.
Ok, this is where people step into the room and go, ok but that line look really messed up to a Windows user that is use to wrtiting faster and simpilier syntax.
.NET framework at play here, strap on Python or whatever that is .NET able and run with it, both in the CUI and GUI.)
.NET inherent scripting get extend from the GUI VB/JS then add on the language independance of .NET so strap on whatever scripting language makes you feel good, find the .NET version and use it as well, like Python, etc.
Besides, I truly don't get the huge reluctance to special character restrictions. This is what the basic constructs of programming and scripting and syntax are all about. Even funadmental concepts that came out of the early *nix years proved that reserved words, operators, etc were a key to a non-fragmented UI consistency. (Even though some of the tools that have survived just shouldn't have.)
I see benefits in both. Windows has the ease of use, and still can leverage some pretty powerful command line abilities if needed. Also Windows has universal scripting languages, like Javascript and VBScript that can not only be used from the GUI, but also in the shells, and especailly in the new Monad Shell. (And with the
I find it strange that people here drawing a line in the sand saying the Windows based implementations are bad or the *nix concepts are wrong.
What next, lets propose that in C++ that the + and - signs are no longer reserved operators as well? Just so I can have a variable named Donkey++ and not have it self increment?
I get what people are saying, and a lot of this has to come from the style they are used to, but either side doesn't stop and realize there is ease of use and flexibility offered on both sides of the fence, even if it is not completely obvious because you haven't worked in one as much.
The Windows people haven't seen the power of the inherent in/out structures that are fairly universal, nor have they seen the inline scripting power.
And the *nix people have completely missed the standardized syntax with object and OS Object model referencing, and also have missed that because of
MS actually gets this better than the *nix would would like to beleive, and this is another case of underestimating MS.
Also another problem in the *nix concepts, even on this subject is how IMPORTANT 'internal' standardization is. Diversity is great in some eco systems, but when trying to establish common interface concepts, the staple of Windows development side success, what MS is doing is important, and it would be better for *nix competing tools like Bash, etc to agree to some common CUI constructs, or at least merge what is currently similar, leave in legacy, but make all new OS interface handlers adhere to a structure.
People forget the success of Windows pre-market gorilla, was the ease and consistency for developers in 1990-1992. More applications were made easily those year for Windows than any other OS had ever seen in history. (VB and the cheap tools from MS helped a lot, and developers are as much to credit the early success in though years as was the end user adoptation.)
Then try using it in a File Open/Save dialog, find that it doesn't work, and notice that it's a one-off hack that I imagine stems from the integration of IE and Explorer...
This is due to the common dialog library that applications use (It is the one carried over from Win32/Win95 and not a real NT level system API control(ie. it was designed to support FAT32 on Win95).
Also an FYI, this no longer exists in Vista, and even newer applications, as they use the updated Common Dialog Controls.
I think the point people are make tying to make is
/. posting this article was specifically trolling/baiting a lot people here, and with success unfortunately.
A) It does work, but not as well as in IE.
B) MS's statements are very clear that all live features will be fully cross browser when it is 'out of beta'. That includes Firefox, Safari, etc etc...
And if this was a freaking conspiracty to get people locked into IE, then MS would make Live use IE only technologies and not standards like client side javascript- ie AJAX, etc.
If they wanted to lock people to IE, they could drop in IE specific Controls, etc etc and make it TRULY IE only.
The whole Windows Live project is a 'beta' experiment on the ability to fully implement a large scale of features that do run cross browser without much work in having to alter scripting for differenct browsers.
Yes there will be exceptions, but the goal is that if you are using Opear, Firefox, Safari, etc etc. It will run as well and look as well as it does on IE.
And frankly there are some shortcoming in Firefax on some of it 'standards' implementations. (Not that it is worse than IE in any way, but in the technologies for AJAX model, it does suffer in some ways that other browser like Safari actually do a better job at.)
ALso what do you expect from MS, Live is Beta, they know IE, so that part is easy, the other browsers are a lot of what the 'beta' is about.
(Speaking from inside sources, they are REALLY trying to get Live right, not only for its use, but to showcase how standards can be used effectively without regard to what browser is used.)
We all know its fun to get the pitchforks out, but the person on
This is exactly what I put on my feedback form when I opted out of Live Mail. It's basically an advertising page with a little bit or webmail thrown in as an afterthought. Whatever they do now it's clear what they want to achieve so I'm off to GMail.
If gmail shift to enforce advertising, I'll run my own web server
Not to start a flame or war, but you do realize Google has disclosed they data mine(Automated Reading) all incoming and outgoing GMail? That way they can better 'market' information to you as well as classify you when your information is provided to advertisers?
They also link Data mined through all your GMail activity and cross it back to your IP and will use that data to include all your google.com searches.
Google is a good example, as evil as MS is or looks, there are always companies that are worse.
Good luck with the GMail, and if your personal privacy or mail privacy is a concern, I would find another email provider.
Are you *carrying* that behemoth notebook around that much? If not, why not get a 15 inch MBP and hook a 30" Cinema Display up to it? Just wondering.
Well, to be honest, I have nice desktops, but I tend to be on the move more than in any one location.
Even a bit more of a brick notebook at 10 lb, it is handy to be able to take a computer that can bounce the performance of most desktops, slip it in a case and have it in my car, hotel, etc. It works well in several ways, but it is not a light weight meeting style laptop. That is what my older Toshiba was(although it still had 1600x1200 on a 15" display), and I also have a couple of other units I use for notes and when I just need to write.
Ya, the one I have and was referencing is a brick, but at least I can have as much power as I want, and not be glued to a desk. It is last years model pops almost 7,000 on 3DMark05 and I don't have to mess around when I do graphics, development, or want to run the newest game.
I use the Dell as an example, because it seems to be well known to Mac users since it is a big brand. It offers 1920x1200 on its 17" display, has a TV Tuner, has Geforce 7900GTX w/512mb, etc etc, and is in the same weight and size class as the Mac. But there are handfuls of other good companies with units in the same range as well. And their current Bricks even outperform the Dell XPS class.
The point is though, there are Dells and other brands that offer the same size and class as the Mac, yet you can get the extra features you CANNOT get on a Mac.
That is what bugs me. Apple should be setting the bar, not barely keeping up.
cm'on: hook up a 30-inch screen to the laptop and you'll have realms of HD goodness.
And that is going to speed up the GPU in the laptop how? I have a 10ft projection monitor also, it is beautiful and High Def, but that doesn't speed up my laptop GPU...
All I want is more from Apple, they use to know how to deliver the 'new' stuff, or at least meet the cutting edge.
Are you editing HD video in 1080p? I didn't think so.
Really don't want this to be a flame war at all, but you picked one of the lucky peeps that do edit 1080 content. Granted it is not for network, but I do work with HD content. So you can maybe understand the frustration?
Why is this something so common on Windows Laptops and we have to beg and fight to get even 720p capable displays from Apple?
The Dell doesn't have a built-in video camera. The Dell doesn't have Firewire 800. The Quadro video is pretty bitchin' I'll admit.
But see it isn't just the Dell, go look at other Laptops. They have 17 and even 15" screens with higher resolution, even DUAL SLI NVidia 7900GTX mobile GPUS, (which is 5-10 times faster than the ATI in the new Mac), and yes even a built in camera.
Even the 'old' laptop I am using that I keep referencing is a Dual-Core 64bit Processor, (and I can run a 64bit OS on it like WindowXP64 or Linux), it also has a RAID HD Setup with 120GB of storage (almost twice as fast as the 'new' Mac), and even a Geforce 7800 Mobile GPU with 512mb of RAM (That is 2-3times the speed of the ATI card in the 'New' Mac, and it was bought last summer.
And to me this is old technology when I look at some of the new models out there. Yelling how many Firewire ports the Mac has, just isn't cutting it, as most of the non-Mac brands also offer Firewire STANDARD.
I also use the Internal Bluetooth, the 108g Wireless(Faster than a/b/or g), a 1000mBit Ethernet, a Hardware Encoder TV built into this 'old' laptop that makes one nice PVR, Quad (surround) Internal Speaker Setup, a Subwoofer, and the list goes on and on. Plus I have 1920x1200 display, which I can't even BUY from Apple in a portable.
This is not Apple Bashing, this is a cry to get others to say, ok, nice try Apple, now here is WHAT WE WANT. We want the toys all the Windows & *nix people get. Admittedly I not a Mac only person, but that actually makes it easier for me to go, hey I have all these features on non-Apple hardware, what the heck is Apple doing. How are they going to get me to have faith in them being the 'leader' again? In almost another lifetime ago I was a graphic designer and my Mac use to be my friend.
- The 1680 x 1050 resolution of the 17" display is the same as many desktop 20" widescreen LCDs such as the Apple 20" Cinema Display and the 20" Dell 2007WFP
Who again is NOT totally angered that Apple won't offer high resolution displays. Comparing the pixel count to their 20" Display is SAD, SO SAD...
I have a 2002 Toshiba Laptop with a 15" screen that does 1600x1200, and a 17" Laptop that does 1920x1200...
Why is Apple still the poor cousin when it comes to graphics? (Let alone the Video solution they are using is 2-5 times slower than offerings from other companies.
I was really hoping they would offer people that work with graphics (even as a hobby) a high resolution display.
And if people complain about tiny print or tiny buttons, once again I will say, Why in the HELL does OSX NOT do a better job of Scaling the UI? Even WindowsXP does a better job, OSX should at least catch up to such a low bar.
Besides, I have good eyes, and the 'smooth' lines and crisp video you can get at a higher DPI is more than worth it. I can at least play WMV HD 1080p on my 1yr old 17" laptop, why in HECK can't I play that resolution of Video or Movies on a Mac of all things. An area of the industry they pride themselves on. (Yes I know the 30" screen has 1920x1200, but we are talking laptops here.)
Every Mac user needs to say, Ok, Apple, (A,B,C are really good, but you totally blew it on D,E,F, and G features.) Why is Apple the cheap version of what I can buy from Dell?
You have to realize that Heat = Wasted Electricity. On a laptop, battery life is bad enough without worrying about the graphics processor killing your battery. I'm sure they could build a laptop with 20 hours battery life. But nobody really seems to be focussing on this. Low power chip + old school graphics card because it doesn't affect office work anyway, and you could probably have a pretty low power computer. Use a slower hard drive, and give it enough ram that it doesn't need to have a swap file, and you'd probably get quite a bit more of life out of the thing
Um, do you understand the concept of 'power saving features'? And I see you are already modded 'insightful'? I am actually on SlashDot and having to explain that laptops DO power saving on their own. Geesh.
This is why a Laptop can and will slow the Video and Hard Drive and even the CPU when on Batteries based on your settings.
However if you are plugged into an AC Outlet, THE COMPUTER SHOULD PERFORM AT FULL SPEED.
So when you are on battery, the performance of most of the components in the Laptop Scale down to whatever level you set and find acceptable. I have a 2Ghz Laptop that will drop the CPU down to 500mhz performance range when on battery, and will slow the video card down to the point is only good for doing word processing. You can also set the laptop to not scale down at all for the sake of performance.
This is what laptops are made to do. There is NO benefit that Apple had to reduce the performance of the computer, just for the sake of batteries - NONE.
Saving batter power is not a credible excuse for a feature reduction on a Laptop of all things.
You also realize that even the 'slowed' down version of the ATI Video is considerably slower and less 'efficient' than mobile GPUs like you would find in a standard Dell or many other brands. So the video is already slower and has less RAM starting out than other laptop brands.
There is NO way this is a good thing. PERIOD.
Once again, Apple is NOT LEADING technically, and they are STILL NOT EVEN keeping up. Macs used to be the technology kings, now they are the 'cheap' version of what you can get from other companies. Why aren't Apple Mac users angered by this, instead of buying the BS from Apple? Why can't we demand Apple to be a 'technology' leader without being called heretics?
This new laptop doesn't even 'look' as cool as the laptops from Dell that have been out for almost a year, and the Dell Laptops from 1 Year ago are actually faster on some things, like video, and this isn't even comparing the performance of the current offerings from Dell and other companies that are still a generation ahead of the 'new' Apple notebook.
I was half excited at the announcement, and the Video performance was the first thing I noticed (before even reading about the slower clock speeds). The second thing I noticed is the Display resolution on the 17" models even. What in the heck are they thinking? Different I guess, but for doing graphics work I like the 1920x1600 17" laptop screen I bought over a year ago. Even my 2002 Toshiba 15" had 1600x1200. Why do I have to go with a lower resolution display if I want a Mac? So much for leading...
Why in the heck is Apple NOT focusing on graphics people, those of us that demand high resolution displays. For illustrating to photo editing and even how about HD Video? I can play a WMV 1080p on my 1yr old Laptop and I can't on anything Mac has to offer. SAD. (Don't go into the tiny print and icons with higher resolutions, OSX should have been doing better at a scalable UI long before now, at least meet the WindowsXP level for goodness sake.)
Mac Users deserve better. PERIOD.
I've read about this several times, but what I'd like to see to verify that is that said third parties (especially those who have reason to mistrust the NSA) have built binaries and diffed them from the shipping code.
If they didn't what in the F*** do you think they wanted the source for? To check the syntax? See if Microsoft properly commented?
Security issues was on the #1 reasons the source was request and required to let MS sell software to their goverment agencies.
You need to loosen one of the rubberbands on your tinfoil hat.
PS, Also brush up on your Google skills, my first attempt returned pages on the topic from just the last month.
Not smoking anything, but I do know how to read past a 3rd grade level. More than I can say about the President....
t e_fraud.html
Oh if you can read, here check out some of the lastest news bits on the 2004 election.
There are tons of links to every major Media and News outlet if you can figure out how to type 2004 voter fraud in Google. But in case you can't here is a link to get you started that monitors the latest information.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vo
Has any national candiate endorsed by Air America ever won an election
Considering they don't endorse canidates, I would doubt it... Some of the hosts supports canidates, but unlike right wing radio, they don't unilaterally agree and drink the republican kool aid...
Oh, and ya, lost of canidates that have been supported by some of the hosts have, but since some of the other hosts supported other people, not ALL could possibly have won...
Ok, time for you kool-aid, don't want your republican mind control to wear off and actually let you think for yourself.
Try again...
Just get Browser to fully support Scaleable viewing content.
Heck even IE7 on XP does this now, zoom in and out to any resolution, the Graphics/text keep the page formatting the same, and look crisper on higher resolution screens...
Why complicate the design standards when this can be easily solved inside the browsers as even Freaking IE7 has demonstrated?
Wow, all that and you didn't even ask for the Build number of Vista I was using.
/wink)
I was merely following your lead when you asserted that
I must say, that is my favorite line of defense when you are caught not knowing your arse from a hole in the ground.
I also didn't even get a going away kiss. Manners these days...
Take Care... (Extra ellipses just for you.
does that make the majority of americans who elected him.
Actually, only a small percentage of Americans voted for him. The problem is, most people did not, or were 'unable' to vote...
(Suppressing votes is a key to fundamental leaders winning; take a look at Iran for example, less than 15% of the population voted for their current leader as well.)
Watch that generalization brush when you blindly use it to paint on such a big canvas. Most people in the US think Bush is an illiterate fool with psychopathic tendencies. (Do a search on voter fraud and all the indictments in just the last year from 2004 election alone, especially all the indictments from a key state, Ohio.)
Check out http://www.airamericaradio.com/ for a view from the majority of Americans...
Actually the screenshots that Paul Posted are already outdated, this is why it is called a BETA.
.NET and recompile. Voilà - a new operating system!
.NET. Actually do tell me that, I want another post from you to forward to my colleagues. They are already about to pee themselves from laughing at this post, and are begging me to bait you into posting another rant from your delusive contentment. Seriously, they are even awarding you the bloviating ass of the day award. (Queue Your Acceptance Speech)
No they aren't. You're either stupid or in denial. Incidentally, I love the capitalisation on the second P. Paul Posted. It's like some kind of...I dunno. But it's quite funny...
Wow, you are psychic and know what build of Vista I am testing? That is so cool. Well sadly you are wrong, but I still think it is cool that you believe in your powers. I say you should maybe do your own 900 Ms. Cleo number, I'm sure people here will gladly pay money to hear all your other predictions and hyperbole.
I should have assumed from your philippic post that you would be the kind of person to write posts in your word processor and then point out typographical errors in the post you are responding to as a way of discounting anyone's credibility. I am happy that you can see the red squiggles and correct all your typos before you post. Microsoft Word is grand tool for someone like yourself trying to elevate your perceived level of education. Oh by the way, you missed the red squiggle under 'dunno'.
So I have seen Windows evolve, from the glorified DOS shell that it was to the bloated piece of crap it has become in Windows XP and beyond, and in each release, I have noted what has changed and what has stayed the same.
An awful lot has stayed the same. Many tools did not change at all between Windows NT 3.1 and NT 4 (which explains why NT 4's DUN was such a peculiar anomaly to those who came to it from 9x), and whilst 2000 genuinely offered some much needed polish and useful enhancement (and is, IMHO, Microsoft's magnum opus**), the same cannot be said of that which has followed. It is incredibly striking to see how icons originally used in Windows 95 (or perhaps NT 4 - more likely) are still in Windows Vista a full eleven years later. Despite, as you allege, all this revamping.
You could have easily shortened these paragraphs by just saying you have no freaking clue what you are talking about, but maybe you just love to see your words on the screen. (Queue Carly Simon Music)
Get back to me when you realize there is a difference between DOS and NT. Heck, why don't we try to get you to a 101 course level, get back to me when you can explain the fundamental concepts of the client/server kernel in NT and how this gives NT advantages over both monolithic and microkernel designs.
I think you sum it up quite well where you say that "the parts that haven't are compiled using the new development tools from MS". This is precisely what has happened, and precisely why nothing has changed. Redesign the controls, call it
Again it would have been easier to say I have no freaking clue.
Actually, this paragraph is truly a work of art. Please don't tell me you serious think Microsoft recompiled Vista in
Windows still doesn't have it. Granted, Apple's implementation is not a full DBFS, but to the end user, the result is the same, so it matters little. And Microsoft isn't even including WinFS in Vista anyway! So I am left wondering if you have any idea what you are on about...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/desktopsearch/def ault.mspx
Once again you are correct; the link above this line also doesn't exist. (Queue Wayne's World Dream Effect Sounds)
Oh, and if you truly think the Apple's Spotlight is even close to WinFS, you are smoking something that is not legal where I live.
In 2002, I bought an iBoo
I stand corrected...
I had forgotten about the DCI controversy, I guess I should have known that people still saw it as 'QuickTime' technology being put in 'Windows Media Products'.
It was a copyright suit. Although I am truly surprised that people still believe it was Microsoft that tried to do something wrong, or believe that QuickTime technology actually is in Windows Media after all this time.
Apple paid a company 'Canyon' to write code for QuickTime, Canyon came up with the idea to drop the video output to the video card directly (A form of an Overlay, Direct Write, etc, etc).
Apple was happy with the results, until they learned that Canyon gave the code to Intel, and Intel gave the code to Microsoft. Microsoft released an SDK for their AVI format with the Intel code, which really was a copy of the Apple owned code.
The idea of directly writing captured video to the video card instead of the OS's display was developed by Canyon for Apple, making it Apple's property.
1) This is about a technique for writing captured video to a display.
2) MS removed the code when they learned it was not Intel's to give out.
3) There is not currently QuickTime code in Windows Media, and technically hasn't been since Microsoft pulled the developer preview of their 'Video for Windows' that included the Canyon code over 13 years ago.
4) The only thing MS participated in was using the Intel DCI code that was pulled when the code from Intel was brought into question by Apple.
5) Microsoft was more than a little angry at Intel for putting their AVI development at risk.
So does Windows Media contain QuickTime code - No...
Did MS steal code from Apple - No...
Did Intel purposely use code knowing Apple owned it - probably... It all depends on if Canyon disclosed this to Intel or not specifically noting they were selling Intel code Apple owned. But based on Intel's knowledge of the code, and their reaction, including their apologies to Microsoft, I would bet they did know.
Direct Write concepts pre-date QuickTime and the Intel DCI, meaning the only thing Apple had grounds was the 'exact' code was used. They didn't argue their technology was stolen, they argued their code was copied.
Which means this was a copyright suit, not a patent case defending technology. Apple was suing over the code, not the concept.
But I will step back, as I didn't equate this case with what the poster I was responding to was talking about, I should have caught the trap and kept my mouth shut, but I didn't.
So I will take my lumps, as I was technically wrong and concede this thread...
Take Care...
(This was part of the agreement that let MS off the hook for appropriating quicktime technology into their own media products.)
Apple alleged that Microsoft purposely made Quicktime fail on Windows due to the changes in the new version of Windows.
Apple never accused Microsoft of using any technology from Quickime.
Apple's allegations about Microsoft purposely coding Windows to make Quicktime fail were later disproven by many experts, even though it never made any legal grounds.
The Apple vs Microsoft deal payoff deal was to settle the 'look and feel' lawsuit, which ironically is close to same lawsuit Apple won against Xerox, just in reverse. Another side note in history... (If the 1975 Xerox Consent Decree hadn't been in place, the Star (Xerox) GUI would have been protected and Xerox would of had patent and other legal grounds to protect what Apple copied.)
If you have some link or case number or evidence that Microsoft was ever even accused of using Quicktime technology, please share with the rest of us. I had my assistant do a quick legal and internet search and returned nothing on MS using Quicktime technology.
Also, Apple having access to APIs is not as clear cut as it might seem from the person writing the article. The APIs Apple has access to DO NOT include newer OSes like WindowsXP, and Apple also never received the source code.
So implementing all the Win32/GDI+/DirectX/etc APIs needed to run Windows applications quite an feat to pull off, especially when you then have to add in all the NT layer APIs that some applications and portions of the shared libraries in the WIN32 subsystem need. Heck just ask some of the WINE developers how easy implementing the Windows API is...
Doesn't this show that it's not the goal of the EU to give their technologies a chance, but to keep competition alive (of whichever nation's companies)? No?
;)
Good point...
But this doesn't mean their methods are the best way to do this. Maybe they would be better to take the money and time invested in putting MS on trial and instead establish a grant system for competiting technologies.
If that is their intent as you suggest, they would be better served by doing a lot of other things than focusing only on Microsoft. True leveling of technology standards instead of addressing the big fish in the pond at this point in history will not accomplish the 'sparking' of innovation in other technologies, all it will do is halt or retard the innovation in MS products.
In the end, the consumer loses with this strategy, less technology from the leader (Microsoft) while doing nothing to help the competition to catch up or surpass the leader.
You can't spark innovation by JUST holding back the current technology provider in the market, you have to address this issue from more than one side.
Everyone sees Windows as successful because MS is a bully, it is more successful because of its springboard off of a DOS world, and being well rounded. Sure things are not always the easiest or best in every aspect, but as a whole, it works well for what it is.
And from that statement I mean not only in the daily use by consumers, but the level of development support provided by Microsoft in creating applications for Windows.
As visual basic in the early 90s demonstrated, writing applications on Windows can be very easy, and that is where Microsoft tends to shine more than the consumers realize. Even people in the Open Source world regard MS's development tools fairly high, even if they feel the need to spit after saying it.
It is easier for myself as a developer to write a quick and easy Windows application than it is to write the same application on OSX or Linux for example. And this is part of the hidden secret of the success of the Windows empire.
It is also why when the market share of Windows 3.0 and Apple Mac back in 1990 were reversed (Apple was on top), that not only in that year but the following two years more applications were written for Windows and Windows 3.1 in that timeframe than had EVER been written for the Apple Mac, even though the Mac had been on the market for over 7 years.
People forget Mac had the lead on GUI applications, but because it was easier to write programs on Windows at the time, that is where the developers headed.
This was kind of the GUI gold rush of the early 90s. Even non-programmers could make working and simple applications with Visual Basic and other Microsoft tools. (Microsoft also sold their development tools for cheap and gave them away and provided a lot of help for the little developers, all at a time when people were paying $1,500 to develop an application for OS/2 or the Apple Mac.)
Windows is almost more successful from the inside out, as it originally brought in more developers and MS gave the developers support before the consumer end base was built.
I think the EU very well could have good motives, but they seem to be short-sighted on technology or a way to open the technology industry up. Just killing the big weed in the garden won't make other plants grow, you have to actually lay seeds for the other plants as well.
Take Care.
You could also be right on.
e b_designer/demos.mspx?v=wd_formatting
What I hear is just from friends that work at the EU, and not having been to Brussels myself in almost two years, I have no way to validate the level of access they have to the case or if what they hear is truly a reflection of the motives.
The only validity I can give to what I hear is the reactions to people going anti-MS then buying Apple or Redhat. But again this could be because Apple is closed and it just all mixes together.
As for controlling the Internet, many have tried with various technologies, from MS to Sun and Java, nothing has had dominance, instead you find these companies reverse direction and go back to the standard bodies.
Even MS is now pushing Standards only Internet design. Sure they want you to run Windows Server with ASP, but even they don't require it.
The new technologies coming from Microsoft stress to even Windows only developers 'stick with standards'.
For example, in showcasing a part of the new WPF Web development tool (a version of Frontpage that is WPF aware), they talk more about ensuring the work meets standards, even accessibility standards more than showcasing the WPF features of the product.
http://www.microsoft.com/products/expression/en/w
Even if the client side control or server side control gave any company leverage to control the internet, it doesn't mean the people will just go along with it. We are too fickle, and it is TOO easy for the small developer to develop alternative technologies. And if MS went as far to say, do it only this way, most of us would do it a different way just to screw with MS.
Can you see the Firefox developers going, ok, we are doing everything MS's way, or Apple conforming to a MS only view of the world? And those are more mainstream, just imagine the GNOME and KDE and other open browser or http server technologies and what their reaction would be.
Is it possible, sure anything is, but not likely, I don't see any company ever owning the internet. The internet by definition and how it works almost ensures this will never happen.
People rebel too easily, as we see here on slashdot all the time.
As for MS controling the majority of the client computer technologies, this also means very little. It sounds like a strong argument, but MS doesn't lock anyone to the tools 'included', sure MS doesn't want them to be crap, but they are more to provide basic functionality for the average user, just like FONT support and Calculator.
Even look at Windows Media Player, since it gets the most attention from the EU. WMP supports any codec, not just MS codecs, it also support ANY online music store, not just MS's.
As for content, it also supports almost ANY content and content format, it even allows the Web standards to dictate how content is displayed inside it when browsing for music online, etc.
There is no MS version of HTML for example, and what MS has contributed to HTML, like parts of XHTML, are advances for everyone, not just MS. In fact, most of the other browsers have adopted the standards and started using them before MS and IE even has. I also wouldn't be surprised to see even the WPF/E technologies in use in other browsers before Vista even ships.
Of all things, these are really small things to try to focus on, I could think of better things the EU could focus on with Microsoft and Windows. IE and Windows Media Player are not the threat, and as you notice, people in Europe don't want to buy an N version of Windows, it actually reduces their choice in what software they use.
Take Care...