Well, Linux could do to HD what it does with DVD - bypass the media and do uncrippled decryption. Ever wonder why a region 1 DVD drive will play region 2 DVD's under Linux?
I agree with you in concept, but I don't think you get the bigger picture.
This is NOT something that can be bypassed in software. HDMI technology is chip level, and something Intel is behind, and a major problem and part of the DRM efforts of the Movie industry.
There will be cracks, but it is not something at an OS level you can just 'crack' as easily as you think. It isn't just 'software' anymore, as it was with existing DVD encryption of MPEG2.
Take a look at your example, the DVD region bypassing. This is something there are tons of utilities that also exist in the Windows world for free that by pass the current DVD region and encryption technologies, just like in Linux or any other OS.
Even on my theather PC, I have a region freeware tool so I don't have to worry about region or even if I want to make a backup copy of the movie. WindowsXP has region locking technology built in, but that doesn't mean my hack utility doesn't work. It just mean MS said, ok the DVD industry requires, (abc) so we are doing (abc).
Windows won't be excluded if cracks or hacks do become known or available - no OS has leverage in this regard to providing a better illusion to the copy protection mechanisms. Obviously if given user permission the OS can be hacked as well to allow any utility or tool to run and 'pretend' if a crack does become known.
Lets hope the newer specifications are cracked as well, or at least not supported so the Industry drops them. However, it really isn't something we will be able to just 'bypasss' as easily as current DVDs.
Go look up some of the methods of cracking HDMI, they pretty much involve hardware hacks at this point.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek in my post to point out that Macs or Linux will not be immune to the next wave of DRM technologies, and they will either A) support them or B) crack them. Windows you know at the very least they are supported, not that that is the best option, but it is there.
Also Macs are probably the 'worest' example of a OS working to screw the consumer. Since Apple has such a vested interest in their 'online stores' for th iPod, the DRM for the iPod is big in the Apple world.
In the DRM world, Microsoft is the DRM dealer, if you want it, they can get it for ya, but Apple is not only the dealer, but the grower and they are also your buddy that is handing you the joint saying you have to smoke it.
Apple does some really shady things with both the music and movie industry, the iPod being their shining example. To the point they force you (unless you use cracks) to use iTunes to get music on and off the iPod. MS doesn't care if you use Media Player, or any other software the companies supply with the players or the online stores.
The only reason that DRM in HD formats is going to succeed, is because the largest software maker in the world supports it.
If MS would say 'no' to DRM, they wouldn't have succeeded in pushing it through. Somehow, you believe it is a good thing that Vista "supports" the "new formats". But Vista is only facilitating something that is going to be a very bad thing for consumers in general.
I don't fully disagree with you on this, but I think the new DRM crap, especially HDMI will eventually fail no matter what.
MS really had no choice, because as they move Vista to be more of a 'Home Media' type of OS, which is becoming very popular, even in the *nix world, they pretty much have to JUMP when the Movie industry says, fine, don't support it, and Computers just won't be able to play Movies.
Sure MS could have said go pound sand, but how happy would customers be if they can't watch movies on their computer, which a lot of people do now. Because we all know they are going to try to get as much DRM crap into the formats as possible. In fact this is why Sony and MS didn't see eye to eye on Blu-Ray, Sony would put in technology to allow the Movies to be archived off the media. (i.e. put the movies on a Movie Server, which is something Microsoft is working on as well, letting people rip their movies to their computers like we do now with CDs. HD-DVD at least was willing to worth with MS and other companies that has simular requests.)
You also have Intel making the technology for HDMI - which should be the company people should be yelling at. So you bascially have the largest chip company supporting and even aiding the efforts already.
Most of the stuff IS going to fail in the consumer market, or be hacked before long anyway. I won't buy a freaking HD movie that I can't watch at HD resolution because my 'theater' projector doesn't report the proper HDMI information to the computer.
So even though MS is providing the technology, for the people with components that support it, doesn't mean it is going to help sales of the Movies. Most people are not going to buy new hardware, and with some of the DRM crap that is required, to get HD, you need need monitors, etc.
The only area that it will work, is in the stand alone players, and again, as consumers we have to just say no until they offer formats without high levels of 'fair use'.
We also need to push the US congress to look into the copyright violations the Movie industry is creating for itself, as DRM technology on content that is no longer under copyright is illegal as well, basically meaning they can't use DRM to extend their copyrights on movies, which is what is happening.
But MS is the middle man, and even yelling at them is not going to get us anywhere, they can't force Intel and Sony and the rest of the Movie industry to bow to Windows technology. It just won't happen.
Oh you must mean the NEW Hd formats they are going to shove at people to hide the fact that non DRM restricted formats already exist.
Kind of like the losing attempt to unseat Mp3 with WMA.
Mp3 is old but still outnumbers all other audio formats 300 to 1 simply because there is no DRM or DRm capable.
1) The NEW formats are the NEW formats that will be used on everything from DVDs to even newer cable and satellite broadcasts of digital HD content, and I also assume Download content.
2) I truly agree with everyone here the HDMI and DRM and crap is stupid, but it is NOT Microsoft that has 'required' its use at ANY time. It is the choice of the content provider and the movie industry on the HDMI and other HD protections. If you want to look at a company that has pushed this and is making money off of it in the computer world, go look up HDMI and 'INTEL'.
3) Microsoft has actually been working on the consumer side trying to get them to stop all the stupid levels of DRM requirements. Do you really think just from a financial point, MS wanted to invest in coding and figuring out ways to code in all the extra crap for HDMI and other things the movie and music industry is forcing?
4) MP3, WMA? WTF does that have to do with anything? MP3 is not even on the same level of quality as WMA or several other formats out there, it also doesn't have much DRM controls. So download stores ARE NOT USING IT, because DRMing MP3 is too easy to be broken by average Joe Blow.
It used to be a quality issue for most people that used WMA on Windows over MP3, but the stores can use the DRM technologs of WMA. No again, Microsoft never required DRM, and still don't and don't push it; however, they did realize that when music company A and company B was telling them that download content would not happen without some control, MS added DRM technologies to WMA and also created an exteral developer level way to plug in custom DRM in WMA. (Look at companies like www.audible.com that have been doing the DRM type of thing for years, successfully.)
If you really want to be 'POed' at a company for DRMing everything and licking dirt for the music and movie industry, I suggest you try www.apple.com. Even Apple themselves impose levels of DRM that Microsoft does not in their file formats. From iPod to Quicktime's implementation of MPEG4.
Yes I'm pretty sure I know what Javascript is - and I just posted this comment with Javascript turned off.
Are you sure you know what it is?:)
I suggest you keep it turned off too, it is evil... Just like those electric lights, pure evil, wax candles work just fine, we don't need electric lights.
WTF... You act like running JavaScript is 'bad', when it just adds more funtionality to the Web and browsing. And if you think it is a major security risk, you need a bigger tinfoil hat.
If we don't standardize on Javascript, what do you suggest? No interactive Web sites, HTML forms only? Give me a break, this is the 21st century, 10 year old technology should not scare people...
And ya, you can post on Slashdot with Javascript off, but Slashdot still uses Javascript for part of the functionality of the site, so you get a messed up view of the page with Javascript off.
Of course, but if they want to watch the videos in HD format, they will have to buy a separate player or another computer with Windows Vista.
DRM and the HD HDMI restrictions are part of the HD media formats, and have nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft is providing the ability for their OSes to play the media, and unless Mac or Linux also make the same concessions, they will also not be able to play the content in true High Definition.
(Your post was funny, but since it was popular thought this would be a good place to stick these facts. People think that Windows is 'crippled' by DRM and HD HDMI standards, when the movies themselves ship with copy protections, Windows is so far the only OS offering support for them.)
It is like this, regular DVDs have region and DVD copy protection, it is just all DVD players came from the factory supporting the decrypting of the copy protection, and even though it has been hacked and bypassed, 99.9% of the when any of us watches a DVD on a computer or a home player, we are still using the Copy decryption technologies installed in both the players and the computer software.
Same will be for HD DVD and other media. Vista will support the new copy protection, just like the new stand alone players will. So Vista actually 'adds' in the ability to play and decrypt the newer standards. Where people are calling Vista crippled, it is actually the opposite, as it supports the new formats. PERIOD.
Most AJAX applications break accessibility rules, which are law in many countries (including the UK, where I am).
Ok, yes it 'could' and there are a lot of early and current uses that do not adhere to accessibility.
However, go look at MS's vision on this, they are one of the strongest proponents of accessibility on the Web - at least on the development side, even if some of the MS divisions themselves don't always fall in line.
So I just don't see MS putting a lot of faith in making these technologies (which are not even under their control) successful if they were not addressing accessibility.
Sure a lot of the UI items and constructs that can be made available would not fit the normal mold for accessibility, but that does not mean they don't offer alternatives.
Dragging and dropping predefined database bound components on a page does not inherently say, this eliminates accessibility use. There will always be limitations, like dragging the components around, but a screen reader and the 'buttons' and 'links' would work just fine, as they are browser standard, and could have the extra 'accessibility' tags added to them as well.
One of my companies divisions works in limited mobility fields, so trust me when I say, AJAX itself does not break any implementation of the requirements or violate legal requirements, unless the developers of the components and the pages themselves don't address the issue, it has nothing to do with AJAX.
A number of companies block javascript at the firewall
That is lazy or ignorant IT administrators, not a problem with AJAX.
There are also companies that have only a set of 'internet' sites/tools the employees are allowed to access or use, so if you are off checking posting pictures on a personal page with AJAX, that is their right to keep you from using it.
Also, being involved in a LOT of sites around the world, do you realize the number of sites that completely fail where javascript is blocked?
Slashdot would not even display properly with Javascript disabled, so stating this an AJAX problem is way off target.
Javascript is not available in all UA's (e.g. Lynx) - I firmly believe that no website should ever NEED javascript - in fact in my sites I avoid it all together.
And again, you can't even post on Slashdot without Javascript. Are you sure you understand what javascript is?
Does anyone know of any significant javascript code which works on two different browsers without having to have conditionals based on the user agent?
99% of all Javascript code I have worked with, overseen projects that use, etc never require conditionals, with the only exception is some of the older browsers and formation of the 'document' object constructs.
Something from MS that works on MS competitors too? That's unusual. I mean, there's probably a catch in there somewhere, like with ActiveX.
Actually not that unusual... Like Mac Software for the last 20 years...
However the whole concept of Atlas and its use of AJAX is to produce advanced non-browser specific programming capabilities.
So for it to support MS stuff only would be pretty much worthless, even to MS.
How this does help MS is that it showcases the simplicity of ASP.NET 2.0 on the server side and how extensible it is for developers in creating stuff that does work anywhere, but with easy to use, reusable components.
If you look back, this is where sharepoint (office sharepoint) technology started and it is now being wrapped into ASP.NET 2.0 concepts and AJAX as well. Plug in technology with advanced features that do talk with each other well, without a lot of programming having to be invested into it.
And this time, even the non-MS world wins as well...
Every version of windows since Windows NT was supposed to be better and more secure. Unfortunately that wasn't the case as we all know. How about we hold off on the hyperbole until Vista ships one of these days and we see how it actually works, not how some marketdroid claims it will.
NT is and was secure; the breakdown is in the enforcement of the security.
Running users as administrators and not using security protections like NTFS permissions properly, etc are where the problems are.
NT was actually designed with security in mind, having a quite robust token based security model. It also has remained very secure, when enforced.
(Using domain/group policies and doing NT security right, an administrator can make a Windows office network as secure and stable as any other OS technologies - which is what good administrators do, and why you still find business and 'critical' organizations like NASA still using and having Windows environments.)
The problem is when Microsoft made the mistake of choosing application compatibility for 3rd party software over security with Windows 2000 and XP.
It is a balance, and MS should have leaned more to the security side of this issue, instead of keeping users running as administrators for applications that expected to have full Win9X type of control of the OS.
Also during the Win2k beta when Microsoft did 'crack' down the security a few notches, people screamed and complained because some crap application no longer worked, or the 'user' couldn't go in and delete system files if they wanted to, as it was their computer and their right to do so. So Microsoft backed off on some of this in the application area, they did leave in the OS file protection systems, but it was a band aid for applications that tried to modify system files, instead of just telling the applications NO.
Vista is leaning towards security, finally, and is finally enforcing the NT security model that has been there since 1992. This is going to cause some applications to break, although MS is trying to be smart about this and code to fool the applications that they have more control than what they really do.
But watch, people will still complain because App A or App B or work because the developers didn't give a crap about security and wrote the application as if the platform was an insecure Win9X instead of a secure NT system.
So Microsoft is to blame for listening to the people and the 3rd part applications. (Remember before when they broke 3rd party applications, people accused them of doing it on purpose, etc.)
For example right now there are performance issues on Vista with QuickTime, it has to do with poor coding on Apple's part, but Microsoft will probably bend over backwards to let the crappy QuickTime rendering code run just so people don't say MS broke QuickTime on purpose.
I would so hate to be MS, they get blamed no matter which direction they take. But I am happy they are pushing NT Security in Vista finally and are less likely to listen to users whine about poorly coded applications or drivers, when it is the companies producing the crap software the users should be whining to.
I should do a test on all my games and post it. Most stuff works, and well, that is why I found people it strange that when post were saying that the compatibility was bad and didn't work well.
The emulation works many times better than I expected.
I know of more problems with PS1 games on the PS2, but of course there are more titles. However consider their entire architecture didn't change, where the 360 games are all running in an emulation mode on a different architecture completely.
The only consistent thing with XBox is Windows and DirectX, but when it comes to binary compatibility, that doesn't help much.
Billboards in the Matrix Online had both fake and real ads on them from launch. It actually added to the realism of the game, as it wasn't just fake ads. (Made it feel more real)
I quit Matrix because SOE (Sony Online) bought it, and started adding in everquest abilities to the game model, a lot like when they brought the everquest developers over to Star Wars Galaxies and started destroying because they didn't 'get the difference'.
But until then it was kind of cool to see new movie billboards or alienware ads for a new model, etc.
It can make the world more real, but if it fits in the context. I wouldn't expect to see a Pepsi Machine In WoW or a Billboard for a new movie in WoW, it has to fit the game and not break it. Matrix it worked because it was mimmicking a real city.
And if it adds revenue they use to make the game better and add content and expand the game, I'm for it...
Actually, I have avoided Java like the plague. When I decided to dump Windows and run Linux I had zero Linux or Mac experience. I was looking for a language that would be cross-platform. I was considering Java but then there was a story on Slashdot. The story said that developers at Sun didn't think Java was very good in their programming environment. They recommended a couple of languages and Python was one of them.
A good environment was Kylix and Delpi (pascal) from Borland for Linux and Windows. Fast compiler, fit both OS frameworks, etc etc.
Borland didn't get the support in the Linux community and has let the Kylix portion slide. Inquire, show them some support or encourage them to open up part of the project for others to help with.
Good old fashioned C/C++ works the best for moving from platform to platform. There is always a Good C Compiler, but that is not always the easy solution. In Windows you get help with.NET or even the VCL technologies, but in moving to other OSes you ahve to recreate or use the equivalent technologies and that requires a lot of rework on some things.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall a promise about an environment where I could program in Linux and run on Windows. I'm but a Java beginner but still think that I'm in my place to say that if you can't get this promise working you really have to put the blame somewhere else
You are a beginner... Internet applications to Internet distributed platform independant applications, including business applications.
Go reseach where Corel tried to put a lot of work into pulling off some interesting JAVA based application work. They even wanted to create WordPerfect in JAVA. Even what features they could recreate failed horribly, and Corel told Sun to go pound sand.
Ya you can program in JAVA and they will run on Windows or Linux, you can also program in Pascal and create a version for Windows and Linux that runs at the OSes native speed.
JAVA tries to be, and continues to try and be an OS development sandbox on top of an OS. The thing is JAVA isn't 'good' enough to be a simple OS, let alone one that runs efficiently on various OSes.
JAVA should abstract the OS tools and libraries and sandbox that, instead of recreating the wheel. As you watch the coming years where new application technologies become the standard, projects using OpenGL full time for a 3D desktop on Linux to Vista and its massive use of GPU and 3D application accessibility to simple five line code applications.
What is going to happent to JAVA? Are they going to 'reinvent' the JAVA display technologies for every OS incarnation because they chose to write their own in the first place? Here is where it gets tough, if JAVA did crossplatform right,it would set a common feature and standard set (as they have done) but it would translate through the existing OS to utilize the features of the OS, instead of recreating their 'standard' across OSes.
For example, take advantage of the Windows Display technologies, controls, etc as much as they can so that it don't break the JAVA standard, do the same with OSX, Linux, Solaris, etc.
Then you would have the chance of creating a Development platform running at a respectible speed across OSes.
Some people really don't get this one simple concept. JAVA is not even technically a high level 'development language', it is an 'application that provides development features.' In other words, when you are running a JAVA application, it is your application running on the JAVA application environment. So you are basically turning over your appliation to an Application pretending to be an OS technology running on top of another OS.
So since JAVA is about as open as a bank safe, what happens when they change the rules of the game on you, give up on it?
With other languages, you could recompile, and port for a new OS, with JAVA you can't, your application is dead...
Nice troll attempt, but consider games like Halo, Halo2, Jedi Academy, etc etc not only run well, but flawless on the 360...
I'm sure there are a few games on the list that play like crap, but I haven't encountered one yet. And I have 40 XBox titles, so I have tried quite a few.
Don't let this discourage anyone, if the game was good, it plays, period.
Programming in C with a monkey chewing on your arm. I see students doing that all the time. They struggle for hours to write code that they could do in minutes with a higher level language. They look like they are having about as much fun as if they had a monkey chewing on their arm for sure. Usually, for what they are doing, speed of execution is irrelevant.
This not something we disagree on, whatsoever... In fact my past post supporting higher level languages and help from IDEs have not been received so well.
I think there is a balance, programmers can't be fully dependant on a good language and an IDE that does everything for you, as they never get the 'creative' element a lot of times, as things are done for them, instead of them having to 'figure them out', as us old time coders had to struggle with, but also gives us the creative edge. When we had to create our own way for something to happen in C or C++, that gave us the understanding and sparked our creative elements.
However I am all for the higher level language technologies and ease of use from IDEs. Why not let the language and the IDE do a lot of the work, when they can do it with performance or reused concepts, and are smart, considering the processing power we utilize today, then why not use it?
Just because I know how to drop to a low level language or hand code button coordinates for a form, doesn't mean I should have to with current development technologies. The IDEs should be smart and do a LOT of the work for us, and the languages we choose can also be high level and do a lot of the work for us. Even Delphi Pascal, VB, C# are good examples of this, Pascal not only provides speed, but memory clean up that non-existent in many C forms.
So with that all said, I DO NOT thing JAVA is a good example of a high level language or a good solution. Why use JAVA when I can just as easily code in numerous other languages and IDE environments that do all I described above for me, and yet get near C/Assembly level of performance. Why should we suffer SUCH a performance and 'stability' and 'consistency' hit by using JAVA.
If JAVA was 'fast', more stable, and truly platform independant, I would be here championing JAVA. I was an early fan, but SUN Never delivered. It doesn't do any of the original design goals. Heck I could even eat some of the performance hit if it did run reliably across multiple OSes, and it just doesn't at least not yet, and will be probably be too late before it matures to the level needed and these other tools are already filling in the needs.
X86 assembly has been around since 1978, and even on a P4 3.5GHz computer you have to optimize to run well. I guess that means that assembly equals bad performance. It couldn't possibly be because "simple application" nowadays means something different than 10 years ago
You even know this is a bad excuse...
Optimization is always something EVERY developer should be doing. However, there is no way to 'override' some of the inherent performance issues present in JAVA currently.
And no it has nothing to do with simple applications. I can write an XAML.NET application doing 3D animations on a non GPU accelerated computer, and write a few lines of code very quickly, and present a fully functionaly appliation with stunning visual effects and abilities current desktop software marvels at, and sadly it performs better than JAVA by a factor of 5, and this is beta software and development tools and beta technologies, but are already more mature.
I will buy its viability after another 10 years of hype, and when they can show the industry companies like ATI or NVidia using JAVA for video driver library performance level coding.
They already use.NET managed code in parts of their drivers on Windows, I don't see JAVA performing that role or hitting that level of performance.
I could be wrong, but I was an early JAVA lover, and even stuck with them when they cut of their nose to spite their face with the MS lawsuit, but to date Sun has not provided what JAVA was promised to be back in 1995, not EVEN close. I am tired of waiting on them, when other technologies are emerging with the same 'cool' factors and are already more mature.
In a way I hope I am wrong, but I don't ever see JAVA being credible, they lost their window.
You can use DirectX with unmanaged code as well, it is just that it has wrappers available so that if you wanted to use it with C# or VB.NET, you can. It was NOT re-written in C# internally or anything like that, because that WOULD deliver a fair performance hit.
No, not all of it was rewritten in managed code, but there are performance level areas that were moved to managed code for stability and security.
Go check out channel9, and see the DirectX team talk about the decision to move parts to managed.NET code (which does not mean it was written in C#,.NET is language independant, even creating managed code).
They talk about the security and stability reasons and the concerns for the performance trade off by moving to managed.NET code.
The were happy to realize that performance was not a significant issue.
Please don't take my word for this, or anyone else's go look this information up yourself...
Java's a speed demon compared to almost all other programming languages out there
Really, have you even used any other development tool? Oh like Pascal, or other soapbox technologies other than Java?
Look at it this way the.NET framework has a managed code 'sandbox' comparable to Java. Microsoft uses this in DirectX9.0c, which is where performance would be VERY important as it impacts all applications and games that use DirectX. And so far 9.0c of DirectX took about a.009% hit for moving a lot of code structure to.NET from the previous version of DirectX, or it could be just the new features of DirectX.
Either way, can you see anyone ever writing a library or API technology in JAVA, let alone an application that doesnt run like syrup on a cold day?
I would rather write in C with no libraries and a monkey chewing on both of my arms than have to program in JAVA. Sure you can drop out some applications and code quickly, not as quick as other things, but quickly. The problem and times comes when you try to TRULY achieve cross-platform, and the killer, reasonable performance.
JAVA is over 10years old, and yet on P4 3.4ghz computers, you have to performance optimize even simple appliations to run reasonably well. Who in the heck thinks this is normal?
Sorry to dog on your response, but the poster with the car analogy is pretty accurate, only I don't think replacing the engine in the Sedan wouldn't be enough to help JAVA. It is such the poster child a of a good idea gone bad, and a good idea with horrible developers when it comes to implementation and performance. It is the current dark spot on Sun. (pun intented)
You are right, a lot of things in XP are silly or stupid, and shouldn't be there.
Do a bit of research, even from the MS teams notes. They were given a task of fully balancing NT technologies into a 'lower security level' OS.
This was not a simplic thing to balance. And keeping consistency is one of them that had to be balanced along with the users that 'want full control' of their computer, and computer security, and applicaiton compatibility.
The latter being the problem, as it made security holes and also keep XP from stretching it wings more in the NT realm than it was ever allowed to. Microsoft should have 'sand boxed' the Win9X applications instead of lowering the security and leaving the OS open to be compatible with these applications.
MS got the lumps for it, but also with this balance, if MS hadn't left the 'silly' crap and non NT type of security for applications on XP, would XP have ever really been a replacement for Win9x? It might have failed, and the main Windows consumer market would be even more insecure as people would be sticking with Win9X line of technologies for some weird old application.
So all to balance and which direction to lean... MS has provided a level of compatibility including both applicaiton and device support never seen before in the history of computing. Pick up a 1982 DOS application, it still runs, let alone WinFX Vista technologies also run on WinXP.
NT has always been designed as a secure OS, Win2K and XP just never enforced the NT security levels. Administration usage and giving applications basically root access to the system so they wouldn't break. We could go on and on with the silly stuff in XP. MS has actually done well with consistency, especially when you factor in the amount of applicaitons and devices Windows works with. Something Mac users have no concpet of a lot of times.
The UI tries to maintain a certain level of consistency, and this is forced on developers as much as MS could do. For example, pressing the Backspace key and the Delete key work as espected in All Applications, in the Mac world, it is a hmm, wonder how they work in this applicaiton.
Microsoft was also the first to make keyboard accessiblity a part of a GUI concept OS, even early Windows to the latest version of Windows can be FULLY used without a mouse if you need or want to.
Other things, like common controls in the API, have helped to maintain this consistency. Most text boxes for example Ctrl-Z will undo your last modification, and Ctrl-A will select all the text, just as other common functions were standardized like Ctrl-V and Ctrl-C in the Mac world. MS took it to the next level and I am sure if I accidentally erase this line, I can hit Ctrl-Z to undo my mistake.
This brings me back to your comments on Mult-User, sure Multi-User has been possible in NT since the begining. Microsoft did well with thte multi-login, and keeping the users applications running on XP, but this really isn't the multi-user concept. Multi-User was limited in XP, we assume to not confuse people or just to make money. If you see Windows 2003 server with real multi-user access and 100 people running off of one server, you can see MS has multi-user down just fine. And with RDP and the new Vista RDP, Microsoft will be doing something even XWindows which was designed to be a networking GUI can't do, like push 3D elements/effect and vector items over RDP, and run newer Vista type applications over the network faster than current RDP technologies.
However... case in point: the pop-up key-stealer,
This is not really anything to do with mult-user, this is again, old 3rd party application design concepts allowed to exist in the interface. Some applications just think they have the right to pop their dialog box infront of everyone else, and sure the OS should allow this I suppose, but it takes re-education of the nuts programming this stuff, and yes some of the nuts are even people inside the Windows Development team.
The tool "Microsoft Acrylic Graphic Designer" or "Microsoft Expression Graphic Designer" was NEVER meant to be even in competition with Adobe, especially Photoshop.
Do the idiots writing this stuff or posting reference to this crap even use Photoshop in their life, let alone the MS product?
As a developer, it was VERY CLEAR from MS to us DEVELOPERS that Acrylic was a new XAML based drawing application FOR MAKING WINDOWS WPF/WinFX APPLICATION AND WEBSITES.
PERIOD.
The features it offers are not even comparable to Photoshop, the closest product on the market that would be 'comparable', would be Deneba Canvas, but Acrylic Designer has NO WHERE NEAR the features set or even tries to.
It is made to make Graphics in XAML format to be put into the "Interactive Designer" or dropped directly in a WPF/Vista/WinFX application, as they are in XAML format.
Why XAML? Because the elements are common objects and not just lines, and can be accessed and programmed to react or move as the application requests, not to be a new 'picture' format or even a SVG killer. I can take a freaking XAML ID/NAME tag and have the line move, reshape, float around, respond to a user clicking it, and all in a 3D Space.
And XAML itself can also define 'behaviors' for the elements in the file format. Not something a normal standard like SVG even tries to do. When SVG is for designing Windows applicaions and can define not only visual elements but also can do object collision and movement, then we will talk.
I get so tired of the "SVG Killer, Flash Killer, Photoshop Killer, Acrobat Killer, blah, blah, blah..."
(And Flash is the closest to reality with expression and XAML, as some people have went on to write little application that are Flash based, although it is not powerful enough to write full scale Windows applications, and here is where the difference lies, not to mention the level of programming difference, the full 3D workspace and design environemnt Microsoft has created.)
Flash will live on doing what it does, but it won't be used to make Windows Applications... Geesh.
MS Expression are tools and technologies for DEVELOPING applications in the new 'Presenation Layer' concept of Windows Vista and WinFX runtime components for XP.
If you don't believe me, actually go use these applications in a 'development' environment (they are free downloads even) and see how they are 'designed' to be the new generation of 'development' tools, adding in elements for 'graphic designers' that are programmible. Your first clue would be to notice that code that lays behind the drawing, and all the items of the drawing have the cute little Object properties that looks more like somthing from Visual Stuido/Visual Basic. And trust me, this is not somthing you find in Photoshop.
If you use Acrylic and think it could ever be a Photoshop killer, then you are smoking something the rest of us are not. It is not even the same type of drawing tool - anyone know Vector/Bitmap differences? Anyone?
Please save our sanity and stop the crap about every thing Mirosoft is doing as being a 'Killer' of some other companies products. Especially development design tools killing Photoshop, jeeez.
Even the new Tablet PC from MS were iPod Killers, how far can you go with this? What next, "The new clock in Windows Vista is a Killer of your home grandfather clock."
If you are posting a link to an article, it should at least be something you 'get' or understand, or you should not be allowed to write the pretext for the link. PERIOD.
It suprises me on the lack of posts that don't hit at one of the cores of the topics. Sure there is the GPL thing, the non-profit thing etc...
But we have been trusting and using this product and derivitive products now for a long time to find out they are just as greedy and could care less about open source or other important issues we thought we were supporting by using and assisting in the development of their products?
Where is my kick back for time I spent contributing to their 'cause'?
From this it is obvious they have no concern for consumer privacy, as they are willing to hand anything over to Google for the mighty dollar.
And we have had this Google issue on the table here way too many times, they are not a lycos or a Altavista nor even MSN which is scary to say.
They are NOT a search engine company, they are a marketing company working under the guise of a search engine company, and not only reverse associating search data to other online actions, but even data mining email in and out of their system and reverse associating this information based on email and IP back to the searchs and other activities they are tracking.
Google is the 'corporate' version of the NSA on the Internet.
So where is our consumer protections and privacy and how well are people 'overseeing' the mozilla code, how much 'isn't' open. Not to sound like I am wearing a tinfoil hat, but how do we know for sure the mozilla engine isn't reporting more than just what we know and searches to Google? A little something something slipped into the final builds for Google.
With all that money being thrown their way, it would be a hard temptation if Google has or would one day say, tell us all the form data mozilla collects, or we stop funding.
Sadly I know feel we are better off sticking with other projects and letting mozilla go the way of the original netscape. Things like Opera, Safari and even now here we are back to seeing IE as another 'safer' alternative, if MS keeps up with the security (as the last reports show, even in unconfirmed exploits, they were darn close to any other browers out there, and in disclosed ones, ahead of the curve.)
How sad of a day is this, IE is now a 'safer' choice if you don't want your information being tracked by Google or whatever our imagination could imagine this horrible alignmnet might entail.
Ya, MS could put code in IE that would 'invade' privacy, just like opera or Apple could as well, but we do not have any reason to believe any of these companies are doing that, as they would have nothing to gain from it.
And with IE, they are too closely watched, not only by the US govt, if you don't trust the US, but by the EU and other foreign governments to ensure IE isn't data mining or doing things we now find out mozilla is a part of for sure. (As these bodies are working almost too hard to nit pick Winows and IE, and they have full access to MS's code.)
Ok, tinfoil hat off, and truly think about this, there are a lot of bad things already pointed out about this alliance, but the security and privacy is the one that is the kick in the kneecap.
Seperation of drivers into user mode, more like *nix. No more reboots for upgrading a hardware driver...
You have a good post, but technically this is not accurate and I see others have already try to discount you with this statement.
What Vista is doing, and I think is being confused here is that they are 'finally' forcing the NT security system on, for all applications, drivers, and users. Meaning no more running as administrator, no more letting programs touch stuff by running at an elevated state. Basically NT has always had a robust security model, it just was NEVER enforced for users, programs, or even drivers for the sake of compatibility with Win9X applications.
Windows driver separation model HASN'T changed, drivers have been in an upper Ring level since NT was created, the only expection is Video was dropped to a lower Ring for Gaming performance in NT 4.0, which is a potential stability risk, but worth the performance gains, and NVidia and ATI are doing pretty good with drivers anymore, and when running certified Video Drivers, XP SP2 has shown Windows can be freaky stable even with Video having a lower level of kernel access.
Unixes on the other hand tend to go the other way, and drivers are not only low level, but are often compiled into the kernel even.
The ways *nixes and Windows handles each tends to be a bit different, and there are advantages to both.
As for the driver reboots, Windows NT, and especially since Win2k has not needed to reboot for virtually any level of driver. It is just some services and for compatibility with the common Win9X driver technologies that have required reboots.
For example, if the processes using the drivers are 'smart' any driver can be ripped in and out at will on the NT platform, even the Video Driver, which runs at a lower level.
Just because the NVidia or ATI installer asks you to reboot, doesn't mean it couldn't just tell NT(XP) the new Video is turned on, and initialize it.
(And as techs that work with XP know, this actually happens a lot, when video cards are changed, the system boots with one default Video Driver, recognizes the new card, and flips out the standard driver and poof, the system is running with the new Video Driver with no restart.)
The big thing with restarting the system for drivers, is the manufacturers want to be certain their drivers are installed properly, so they don't yank running driver files and DLLs, and replace them on the fly, they would rather replace them during the next boot cycle to ensure they are are not locked by some process or service and don't fully get updated.
NT's Driver model is dang good at flipping in and out drivers and devices without reboots, manufacturers just don't take advantage of it. (For example, If I worked at NVidia for installing a new video driver I would drop the system to SVGA, yank the files, ensure all processes release them, replace them with the new driver files and flip the system to the new Video Drivers without a restart at all.)
Don't let them dog on ya for one missed fact, that for all we know is this is something you know and was trying to say something else and it just didn't come out like you wanted.
I have been accused of being a MS fan, which I'm really not if people knew me, but I also have the wait and see, and lets give it a chance. I sure as hell don't have the time to write an entire OS myself from Kernel to GUI, so I depend and hope others do dang good work.:)
You need to remember that bios doesn't allow for some of the really cool features like booting over the network. doesn't bios require a hard drive? Why limit yourself?
There have network based booting mechanisms since the begining of PC time almost. Even at one of our early companies, we ran Win3.1 systems with no local media, meaning no floppies or HD and they booted from the network. All it takes is a Network card with a boot loader.
I'm not saying EFI is evil, but it is not a 'cool' thing either, and it is really still up for debate whether it is even the right thing.
There are other BIOS alternative technologies that have been thrown around for years by big names, just because Apple and Intel are going EFI doesn't mean it is the best or even the right direction.
EFI is easy for Apple, it gives them hardware protection like they are used to, and it also helps the stability of OSX by relying on EFI to weed out the infinite amount of driver and hardware confirgurations that OSes like Linux and Windows have to deal with daily.
This doesn't make EFI cool, or even say anything about Windows being weak because they don't put the EFI boot extensions in the 32bit version of Vista. (They do in the 64bit, just not the 32bit.)
Just try to put things in perspective, EFI isn't evil, but just because it is what Apple is using, and using to protect their hardware and give them driver control has nothing really to do with EFI, or Windows or anything else.
Apple could add ACME(X) technology to keep their systems locked as 'Apple Hardware', it really has no reflection or relevance to the rest of the industry.
Ohh, I could tell you exactly how wrong you are, but you are just trolling. "The difference between Vista and XP is as vast as the jump from Win3.1 to NT" proves it.
If you are bright, here is ONE fact that would demonstrate what I am saying is true.
The Win32API is no longer necessary for application development in Vista, it is being replaced. How is that for a big change? Sounds like a bigger jump from Win16 to Win32 to me, but hey, you think I'm just a troll.
And there are tons of changes throughout the OS that are this vast.
Also go look up things like WPF/WinFX or even the basic internal message system changes, the kernel changes, the user mode changes, the NT security mechanisms being finally fully enforced for users and process.
Vista even ships with MS's full Unix subsystem, meaning Windows users can and will be running all the open source *nix stuff they want as well, but on the NT kernel technologies with all the drivers of the Windows world that no *nix to date can match.
Vista is NT that can no longer be classifed as NT with the Win32 subsystem as WindowsXP is. And like I said above, if you are bright you will realize how massive of a difference just this is.
So I beg of you and others, do some research and quit responding to topics you apparently have little understanding on, which makes you appear to be the one trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Linux could do to HD what it does with DVD - bypass the media and do uncrippled decryption. Ever wonder why a region 1 DVD drive will play region 2 DVD's under Linux?
I agree with you in concept, but I don't think you get the bigger picture.
This is NOT something that can be bypassed in software. HDMI technology is chip level, and something Intel is behind, and a major problem and part of the DRM efforts of the Movie industry.
There will be cracks, but it is not something at an OS level you can just 'crack' as easily as you think. It isn't just 'software' anymore, as it was with existing DVD encryption of MPEG2.
Take a look at your example, the DVD region bypassing. This is something there are tons of utilities that also exist in the Windows world for free that by pass the current DVD region and encryption technologies, just like in Linux or any other OS.
Even on my theather PC, I have a region freeware tool so I don't have to worry about region or even if I want to make a backup copy of the movie. WindowsXP has region locking technology built in, but that doesn't mean my hack utility doesn't work. It just mean MS said, ok the DVD industry requires, (abc) so we are doing (abc).
Windows won't be excluded if cracks or hacks do become known or available - no OS has leverage in this regard to providing a better illusion to the copy protection mechanisms. Obviously if given user permission the OS can be hacked as well to allow any utility or tool to run and 'pretend' if a crack does become known.
Lets hope the newer specifications are cracked as well, or at least not supported so the Industry drops them. However, it really isn't something we will be able to just 'bypasss' as easily as current DVDs.
Go look up some of the methods of cracking HDMI, they pretty much involve hardware hacks at this point.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek in my post to point out that Macs or Linux will not be immune to the next wave of DRM technologies, and they will either A) support them or B) crack them. Windows you know at the very least they are supported, not that that is the best option, but it is there.
Also Macs are probably the 'worest' example of a OS working to screw the consumer. Since Apple has such a vested interest in their 'online stores' for th iPod, the DRM for the iPod is big in the Apple world.
In the DRM world, Microsoft is the DRM dealer, if you want it, they can get it for ya, but Apple is not only the dealer, but the grower and they are also your buddy that is handing you the joint saying you have to smoke it.
Apple does some really shady things with both the music and movie industry, the iPod being their shining example. To the point they force you (unless you use cracks) to use iTunes to get music on and off the iPod. MS doesn't care if you use Media Player, or any other software the companies supply with the players or the online stores.
The only reason that DRM in HD formats is going to succeed, is because the largest software maker in the world supports it.
If MS would say 'no' to DRM, they wouldn't have succeeded in pushing it through.
Somehow, you believe it is a good thing that Vista "supports" the "new formats".
But Vista is only facilitating something that is going to be a very bad thing for consumers in general.
I don't fully disagree with you on this, but I think the new DRM crap, especially HDMI will eventually fail no matter what.
MS really had no choice, because as they move Vista to be more of a 'Home Media' type of OS, which is becoming very popular, even in the *nix world, they pretty much have to JUMP when the Movie industry says, fine, don't support it, and Computers just won't be able to play Movies.
Sure MS could have said go pound sand, but how happy would customers be if they can't watch movies on their computer, which a lot of people do now. Because we all know they are going to try to get as much DRM crap into the formats as possible. In fact this is why Sony and MS didn't see eye to eye on Blu-Ray, Sony would put in technology to allow the Movies to be archived off the media. (i.e. put the movies on a Movie Server, which is something Microsoft is working on as well, letting people rip their movies to their computers like we do now with CDs. HD-DVD at least was willing to worth with MS and other companies that has simular requests.)
You also have Intel making the technology for HDMI - which should be the company people should be yelling at. So you bascially have the largest chip company supporting and even aiding the efforts already.
Most of the stuff IS going to fail in the consumer market, or be hacked before long anyway. I won't buy a freaking HD movie that I can't watch at HD resolution because my 'theater' projector doesn't report the proper HDMI information to the computer.
So even though MS is providing the technology, for the people with components that support it, doesn't mean it is going to help sales of the Movies. Most people are not going to buy new hardware, and with some of the DRM crap that is required, to get HD, you need need monitors, etc.
The only area that it will work, is in the stand alone players, and again, as consumers we have to just say no until they offer formats without high levels of 'fair use'.
We also need to push the US congress to look into the copyright violations the Movie industry is creating for itself, as DRM technology on content that is no longer under copyright is illegal as well, basically meaning they can't use DRM to extend their copyrights on movies, which is what is happening.
But MS is the middle man, and even yelling at them is not going to get us anywhere, they can't force Intel and Sony and the rest of the Movie industry to bow to Windows technology. It just won't happen.
Take Care.
Oh you must mean the NEW Hd formats they are going to shove at people to hide the fact that non DRM restricted formats already exist.
Kind of like the losing attempt to unseat Mp3 with WMA.
Mp3 is old but still outnumbers all other audio formats 300 to 1 simply because there is no DRM or DRm capable.
1) The NEW formats are the NEW formats that will be used on everything from DVDs to even newer cable and satellite broadcasts of digital HD content, and I also assume Download content.
2) I truly agree with everyone here the HDMI and DRM and crap is stupid, but it is NOT Microsoft that has 'required' its use at ANY time. It is the choice of the content provider and the movie industry on the HDMI and other HD protections. If you want to look at a company that has pushed this and is making money off of it in the computer world, go look up HDMI and 'INTEL'.
3) Microsoft has actually been working on the consumer side trying to get them to stop all the stupid levels of DRM requirements. Do you really think just from a financial point, MS wanted to invest in coding and figuring out ways to code in all the extra crap for HDMI and other things the movie and music industry is forcing?
4) MP3, WMA? WTF does that have to do with anything? MP3 is not even on the same level of quality as WMA or several other formats out there, it also doesn't have much DRM controls. So download stores ARE NOT USING IT, because DRMing MP3 is too easy to be broken by average Joe Blow.
It used to be a quality issue for most people that used WMA on Windows over MP3, but the stores can use the DRM technologs of WMA. No again, Microsoft never required DRM, and still don't and don't push it; however, they did realize that when music company A and company B was telling them that download content would not happen without some control, MS added DRM technologies to WMA and also created an exteral developer level way to plug in custom DRM in WMA. (Look at companies like www.audible.com that have been doing the DRM type of thing for years, successfully.)
If you really want to be 'POed' at a company for DRMing everything and licking dirt for the music and movie industry, I suggest you try www.apple.com. Even Apple themselves impose levels of DRM that Microsoft does not in their file formats. From iPod to Quicktime's implementation of MPEG4.
Yes I'm pretty sure I know what Javascript is - and I just posted this comment with Javascript turned off.
:)
Are you sure you know what it is?
I suggest you keep it turned off too, it is evil... Just like those electric lights, pure evil, wax candles work just fine, we don't need electric lights.
WTF... You act like running JavaScript is 'bad', when it just adds more funtionality to the Web and browsing. And if you think it is a major security risk, you need a bigger tinfoil hat.
If we don't standardize on Javascript, what do you suggest? No interactive Web sites, HTML forms only? Give me a break, this is the 21st century, 10 year old technology should not scare people...
And ya, you can post on Slashdot with Javascript off, but Slashdot still uses Javascript for part of the functionality of the site, so you get a messed up view of the page with Javascript off.
Macs, duh
Of course, but if they want to watch the videos in HD format, they will have to buy a separate player or another computer with Windows Vista.
DRM and the HD HDMI restrictions are part of the HD media formats, and have nothing to do with Microsoft. Microsoft is providing the ability for their OSes to play the media, and unless Mac or Linux also make the same concessions, they will also not be able to play the content in true High Definition.
(Your post was funny, but since it was popular thought this would be a good place to stick these facts. People think that Windows is 'crippled' by DRM and HD HDMI standards, when the movies themselves ship with copy protections, Windows is so far the only OS offering support for them.)
It is like this, regular DVDs have region and DVD copy protection, it is just all DVD players came from the factory supporting the decrypting of the copy protection, and even though it has been hacked and bypassed, 99.9% of the when any of us watches a DVD on a computer or a home player, we are still using the Copy decryption technologies installed in both the players and the computer software.
Same will be for HD DVD and other media. Vista will support the new copy protection, just like the new stand alone players will. So Vista actually 'adds' in the ability to play and decrypt the newer standards. Where people are calling Vista crippled, it is actually the opposite, as it supports the new formats. PERIOD.
Most AJAX applications break accessibility rules, which are law in many countries (including the UK, where I am).
Ok, yes it 'could' and there are a lot of early and current uses that do not adhere to accessibility.
However, go look at MS's vision on this, they are one of the strongest proponents of accessibility on the Web - at least on the development side, even if some of the MS divisions themselves don't always fall in line.
So I just don't see MS putting a lot of faith in making these technologies (which are not even under their control) successful if they were not addressing accessibility.
Sure a lot of the UI items and constructs that can be made available would not fit the normal mold for accessibility, but that does not mean they don't offer alternatives.
Dragging and dropping predefined database bound components on a page does not inherently say, this eliminates accessibility use. There will always be limitations, like dragging the components around, but a screen reader and the 'buttons' and 'links' would work just fine, as they are browser standard, and could have the extra 'accessibility' tags added to them as well.
One of my companies divisions works in limited mobility fields, so trust me when I say, AJAX itself does not break any implementation of the requirements or violate legal requirements, unless the developers of the components and the pages themselves don't address the issue, it has nothing to do with AJAX.
A number of companies block javascript at the firewall
That is lazy or ignorant IT administrators, not a problem with AJAX.
There are also companies that have only a set of 'internet' sites/tools the employees are allowed to access or use, so if you are off checking posting pictures on a personal page with AJAX, that is their right to keep you from using it.
Also, being involved in a LOT of sites around the world, do you realize the number of sites that completely fail where javascript is blocked?
Slashdot would not even display properly with Javascript disabled, so stating this an AJAX problem is way off target.
Javascript is not available in all UA's (e.g. Lynx) - I firmly believe that no website should ever NEED javascript - in fact in my sites I avoid it all together.
And again, you can't even post on Slashdot without Javascript. Are you sure you understand what javascript is?
Does anyone know of any significant javascript code which works on two different browsers without having to have conditionals based on the user agent?
99% of all Javascript code I have worked with, overseen projects that use, etc never require conditionals, with the only exception is some of the older browsers and formation of the 'document' object constructs.
Something from MS that works on MS competitors too? That's unusual. I mean, there's probably a catch in there somewhere, like with ActiveX.
Actually not that unusual... Like Mac Software for the last 20 years...
However the whole concept of Atlas and its use of AJAX is to produce advanced non-browser specific programming capabilities.
So for it to support MS stuff only would be pretty much worthless, even to MS.
How this does help MS is that it showcases the simplicity of ASP.NET 2.0 on the server side and how extensible it is for developers in creating stuff that does work anywhere, but with easy to use, reusable components.
If you look back, this is where sharepoint (office sharepoint) technology started and it is now being wrapped into ASP.NET 2.0 concepts and AJAX as well. Plug in technology with advanced features that do talk with each other well, without a lot of programming having to be invested into it.
And this time, even the non-MS world wins as well...
Every version of windows since Windows NT was supposed to be better and more secure. Unfortunately that wasn't the case as we all know. How about we hold off on the hyperbole until Vista ships one of these days and we see how it actually works, not how some marketdroid claims it will.
NT is and was secure; the breakdown is in the enforcement of the security.
Running users as administrators and not using security protections like NTFS permissions properly, etc are where the problems are.
NT was actually designed with security in mind, having a quite robust token based security model. It also has remained very secure, when enforced.
(Using domain/group policies and doing NT security right, an administrator can make a Windows office network as secure and stable as any other OS technologies - which is what good administrators do, and why you still find business and 'critical' organizations like NASA still using and having Windows environments.)
The problem is when Microsoft made the mistake of choosing application compatibility for 3rd party software over security with Windows 2000 and XP.
It is a balance, and MS should have leaned more to the security side of this issue, instead of keeping users running as administrators for applications that expected to have full Win9X type of control of the OS.
Also during the Win2k beta when Microsoft did 'crack' down the security a few notches, people screamed and complained because some crap application no longer worked, or the 'user' couldn't go in and delete system files if they wanted to, as it was their computer and their right to do so. So Microsoft backed off on some of this in the application area, they did leave in the OS file protection systems, but it was a band aid for applications that tried to modify system files, instead of just telling the applications NO.
Vista is leaning towards security, finally, and is finally enforcing the NT security model that has been there since 1992. This is going to cause some applications to break, although MS is trying to be smart about this and code to fool the applications that they have more control than what they really do.
But watch, people will still complain because App A or App B or work because the developers didn't give a crap about security and wrote the application as if the platform was an insecure Win9X instead of a secure NT system.
So Microsoft is to blame for listening to the people and the 3rd part applications. (Remember before when they broke 3rd party applications, people accused them of doing it on purpose, etc.)
For example right now there are performance issues on Vista with QuickTime, it has to do with poor coding on Apple's part, but Microsoft will probably bend over backwards to let the crappy QuickTime rendering code run just so people don't say MS broke QuickTime on purpose.
I would so hate to be MS, they get blamed no matter which direction they take. But I am happy they are pushing NT Security in Vista finally and are less likely to listen to users whine about poorly coded applications or drivers, when it is the companies producing the crap software the users should be whining to.
Take Care.
I should do a test on all my games and post it. Most stuff works, and well, that is why I found people it strange that when post were saying that the compatibility was bad and didn't work well.
The emulation works many times better than I expected.
I know of more problems with PS1 games on the PS2, but of course there are more titles. However consider their entire architecture didn't change, where the 360 games are all running in an emulation mode on a different architecture completely.
The only consistent thing with XBox is Windows and DirectX, but when it comes to binary compatibility, that doesn't help much.
Billboards in the Matrix Online had both fake and real ads on them from launch. It actually added to the realism of the game, as it wasn't just fake ads. (Made it feel more real)
I quit Matrix because SOE (Sony Online) bought it, and started adding in everquest abilities to the game model, a lot like when they brought the everquest developers over to Star Wars Galaxies and started destroying because they didn't 'get the difference'.
But until then it was kind of cool to see new movie billboards or alienware ads for a new model, etc.
It can make the world more real, but if it fits in the context. I wouldn't expect to see a Pepsi Machine In WoW or a Billboard for a new movie in WoW, it has to fit the game and not break it. Matrix it worked because it was mimmicking a real city.
And if it adds revenue they use to make the game better and add content and expand the game, I'm for it...
Actually, I have avoided Java like the plague. When I decided to dump Windows and run Linux I had zero Linux or Mac experience. I was looking for a language that would be cross-platform. I was considering Java but then there was a story on Slashdot. The story said that developers at Sun didn't think Java was very good in their programming environment. They recommended a couple of languages and Python was one of them.
.NET or even the VCL technologies, but in moving to other OSes you ahve to recreate or use the equivalent technologies and that requires a lot of rework on some things.
A good environment was Kylix and Delpi (pascal) from Borland for Linux and Windows. Fast compiler, fit both OS frameworks, etc etc.
Borland didn't get the support in the Linux community and has let the Kylix portion slide. Inquire, show them some support or encourage them to open up part of the project for others to help with.
Good old fashioned C/C++ works the best for moving from platform to platform. There is always a Good C Compiler, but that is not always the easy solution. In Windows you get help with
Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall a promise about an environment where I could program in Linux and run on Windows. I'm but a Java beginner but still think that I'm in my place to say that if you can't get this promise working you really have to put the blame somewhere else
You are a beginner... Internet applications to Internet distributed platform independant applications, including business applications.
Go reseach where Corel tried to put a lot of work into pulling off some interesting JAVA based application work. They even wanted to create WordPerfect in JAVA. Even what features they could recreate failed horribly, and Corel told Sun to go pound sand.
Ya you can program in JAVA and they will run on Windows or Linux, you can also program in Pascal and create a version for Windows and Linux that runs at the OSes native speed.
JAVA tries to be, and continues to try and be an OS development sandbox on top of an OS. The thing is JAVA isn't 'good' enough to be a simple OS, let alone one that runs efficiently on various OSes.
JAVA should abstract the OS tools and libraries and sandbox that, instead of recreating the wheel. As you watch the coming years where new application technologies become the standard, projects using OpenGL full time for a 3D desktop on Linux to Vista and its massive use of GPU and 3D application accessibility to simple five line code applications.
What is going to happent to JAVA? Are they going to 'reinvent' the JAVA display technologies for every OS incarnation because they chose to write their own in the first place? Here is where it gets tough, if JAVA did crossplatform right,it would set a common feature and standard set (as they have done) but it would translate through the existing OS to utilize the features of the OS, instead of recreating their 'standard' across OSes.
For example, take advantage of the Windows Display technologies, controls, etc as much as they can so that it don't break the JAVA standard, do the same with OSX, Linux, Solaris, etc.
Then you would have the chance of creating a Development platform running at a respectible speed across OSes.
Some people really don't get this one simple concept. JAVA is not even technically a high level 'development language', it is an 'application that provides development features.' In other words, when you are running a JAVA application, it is your application running on the JAVA application environment. So you are basically turning over your appliation to an Application pretending to be an OS technology running on top of another OS.
So since JAVA is about as open as a bank safe, what happens when they change the rules of the game on you, give up on it?
With other languages, you could recompile, and port for a new OS, with JAVA you can't, your application is dead...
if it plays everything you have you should consider yourself very lucky.
So my Xbox 360 is magical or special?
If you are seriously having this many problems, contact MS, they will correct it.
Some of the titles on the compatibility list
Nice troll attempt, but consider games like Halo, Halo2, Jedi Academy, etc etc not only run well, but flawless on the 360...
I'm sure there are a few games on the list that play like crap, but I haven't encountered one yet. And I have 40 XBox titles, so I have tried quite a few.
Don't let this discourage anyone, if the game was good, it plays, period.
Programming in C with a monkey chewing on your arm. I see students doing that all the time. They struggle for hours to write code that they could do in minutes with a higher level language. They look like they are having about as much fun as if they had a monkey chewing on their arm for sure. Usually, for what they are doing, speed of execution is irrelevant.
This not something we disagree on, whatsoever... In fact my past post supporting higher level languages and help from IDEs have not been received so well.
I think there is a balance, programmers can't be fully dependant on a good language and an IDE that does everything for you, as they never get the 'creative' element a lot of times, as things are done for them, instead of them having to 'figure them out', as us old time coders had to struggle with, but also gives us the creative edge. When we had to create our own way for something to happen in C or C++, that gave us the understanding and sparked our creative elements.
However I am all for the higher level language technologies and ease of use from IDEs. Why not let the language and the IDE do a lot of the work, when they can do it with performance or reused concepts, and are smart, considering the processing power we utilize today, then why not use it?
Just because I know how to drop to a low level language or hand code button coordinates for a form, doesn't mean I should have to with current development technologies. The IDEs should be smart and do a LOT of the work for us, and the languages we choose can also be high level and do a lot of the work for us. Even Delphi Pascal, VB, C# are good examples of this, Pascal not only provides speed, but memory clean up that non-existent in many C forms.
So with that all said, I DO NOT thing JAVA is a good example of a high level language or a good solution. Why use JAVA when I can just as easily code in numerous other languages and IDE environments that do all I described above for me, and yet get near C/Assembly level of performance. Why should we suffer SUCH a performance and 'stability' and 'consistency' hit by using JAVA.
If JAVA was 'fast', more stable, and truly platform independant, I would be here championing JAVA. I was an early fan, but SUN Never delivered. It doesn't do any of the original design goals. Heck I could even eat some of the performance hit if it did run reliably across multiple OSes, and it just doesn't at least not yet, and will be probably be too late before it matures to the level needed and these other tools are already filling in the needs.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
X86 assembly has been around since 1978, and even on a P4 3.5GHz computer you have to optimize to run well. I guess that means that assembly equals bad performance. It couldn't possibly be because "simple application" nowadays means something different than 10 years ago
.NET application doing 3D animations on a non GPU accelerated computer, and write a few lines of code very quickly, and present a fully functionaly appliation with stunning visual effects and abilities current desktop software marvels at, and sadly it performs better than JAVA by a factor of 5, and this is beta software and development tools and beta technologies, but are already more mature.
You even know this is a bad excuse...
Optimization is always something EVERY developer should be doing. However, there is no way to 'override' some of the inherent performance issues present in JAVA currently.
And no it has nothing to do with simple applications. I can write an XAML
Sad....
Yes and yes.
.NET managed code in parts of their drivers on Windows, I don't see JAVA performing that role or hitting that level of performance.
I will buy its viability after another 10 years of hype, and when they can show the industry companies like ATI or NVidia using JAVA for video driver library performance level coding.
They already use
I could be wrong, but I was an early JAVA lover, and even stuck with them when they cut of their nose to spite their face with the MS lawsuit, but to date Sun has not provided what JAVA was promised to be back in 1995, not EVEN close. I am tired of waiting on them, when other technologies are emerging with the same 'cool' factors and are already more mature.
In a way I hope I am wrong, but I don't ever see JAVA being credible, they lost their window.
You can use DirectX with unmanaged code as well, it is just that it has wrappers available so that if you wanted to use it with C# or VB.NET, you can. It was NOT re-written in C# internally or anything like that, because that WOULD deliver a fair performance hit.
.NET code (which does not mean it was written in C#, .NET is language independant, even creating managed code).
.NET code.
No, not all of it was rewritten in managed code, but there are performance level areas that were moved to managed code for stability and security.
Go check out channel9, and see the DirectX team talk about the decision to move parts to managed
They talk about the security and stability reasons and the concerns for the performance trade off by moving to managed
The were happy to realize that performance was not a significant issue.
Please don't take my word for this, or anyone else's go look this information up yourself...
Java's a speed demon compared to almost all other programming languages out there
.NET framework has a managed code 'sandbox' comparable to Java. Microsoft uses this in DirectX9.0c, which is where performance would be VERY important as it impacts all applications and games that use DirectX. And so far 9.0c of DirectX took about a .009% hit for moving a lot of code structure to .NET from the previous version of DirectX, or it could be just the new features of DirectX.
Really, have you even used any other development tool? Oh like Pascal, or other soapbox technologies other than Java?
Look at it this way the
Either way, can you see anyone ever writing a library or API technology in JAVA, let alone an application that doesnt run like syrup on a cold day?
I would rather write in C with no libraries and a monkey chewing on both of my arms than have to program in JAVA. Sure you can drop out some applications and code quickly, not as quick as other things, but quickly. The problem and times comes when you try to TRULY achieve cross-platform, and the killer, reasonable performance.
JAVA is over 10years old, and yet on P4 3.4ghz computers, you have to performance optimize even simple appliations to run reasonably well. Who in the heck thinks this is normal?
Sorry to dog on your response, but the poster with the car analogy is pretty accurate, only I don't think replacing the engine in the Sedan wouldn't be enough to help JAVA. It is such the poster child a of a good idea gone bad, and a good idea with horrible developers when it comes to implementation and performance. It is the current dark spot on Sun. (pun intented)
You are right, a lot of things in XP are silly or stupid, and shouldn't be there.
Do a bit of research, even from the MS teams notes. They were given a task of fully balancing NT technologies into a 'lower security level' OS.
This was not a simplic thing to balance. And keeping consistency is one of them that had to be balanced along with the users that 'want full control' of their computer, and computer security, and applicaiton compatibility.
The latter being the problem, as it made security holes and also keep XP from stretching it wings more in the NT realm than it was ever allowed to. Microsoft should have 'sand boxed' the Win9X applications instead of lowering the security and leaving the OS open to be compatible with these applications.
MS got the lumps for it, but also with this balance, if MS hadn't left the 'silly' crap and non NT type of security for applications on XP, would XP have ever really been a replacement for Win9x? It might have failed, and the main Windows consumer market would be even more insecure as people would be sticking with Win9X line of technologies for some weird old application.
So all to balance and which direction to lean... MS has provided a level of compatibility including both applicaiton and device support never seen before in the history of computing. Pick up a 1982 DOS application, it still runs, let alone WinFX Vista technologies also run on WinXP.
NT has always been designed as a secure OS, Win2K and XP just never enforced the NT security levels. Administration usage and giving applications basically root access to the system so they wouldn't break. We could go on and on with the silly stuff in XP.
MS has actually done well with consistency, especially when you factor in the amount of applicaitons and devices Windows works with. Something Mac users have no concpet of a lot of times.
The UI tries to maintain a certain level of consistency, and this is forced on developers as much as MS could do. For example, pressing the Backspace key and the Delete key work as espected in All Applications, in the Mac world, it is a hmm, wonder how they work in this applicaiton.
Microsoft was also the first to make keyboard accessiblity a part of a GUI concept OS, even early Windows to the latest version of Windows can be FULLY used without a mouse if you need or want to.
Other things, like common controls in the API, have helped to maintain this consistency. Most text boxes for example Ctrl-Z will undo your last modification, and Ctrl-A will select all the text, just as other common functions were standardized like Ctrl-V and Ctrl-C in the Mac world. MS took it to the next level and I am sure if I accidentally erase this line, I can hit Ctrl-Z to undo my mistake.
This brings me back to your comments on Mult-User, sure Multi-User has been possible in NT since the begining. Microsoft did well with thte multi-login, and keeping the users applications running on XP, but this really isn't the multi-user concept. Multi-User was limited in XP, we assume to not confuse people or just to make money. If you see Windows 2003 server with real multi-user access and 100 people running off of one server, you can see MS has multi-user down just fine. And with RDP and the new Vista RDP, Microsoft will be doing something even XWindows which was designed to be a networking GUI can't do, like push 3D elements/effect and vector items over RDP, and run newer Vista type applications over the network faster than current RDP technologies.
However...
case in point: the pop-up key-stealer,
This is not really anything to do with mult-user, this is again, old 3rd party application design concepts allowed to exist in the interface. Some applications just think they have the right to pop their dialog box infront of everyone else, and sure the OS should allow this I suppose, but it takes re-education of the nuts programming this stuff, and yes some of the nuts are even people inside the Windows Development team.
One of th
The tool "Microsoft Acrylic Graphic Designer" or "Microsoft Expression Graphic Designer" was NEVER meant to be even in competition with Adobe, especially Photoshop.
Do the idiots writing this stuff or posting reference to this crap even use Photoshop in their life, let alone the MS product?
As a developer, it was VERY CLEAR from MS to us DEVELOPERS that Acrylic was a new XAML based drawing application FOR MAKING WINDOWS WPF/WinFX APPLICATION AND WEBSITES.
PERIOD.
The features it offers are not even comparable to Photoshop, the closest product on the market that would be 'comparable', would be Deneba Canvas, but Acrylic Designer has NO WHERE NEAR the features set or even tries to.
It is made to make Graphics in XAML format to be put into the "Interactive Designer" or dropped directly in a WPF/Vista/WinFX application, as they are in XAML format.
Why XAML? Because the elements are common objects and not just lines, and can be accessed and programmed to react or move as the application requests, not to be a new 'picture' format or even a SVG killer. I can take a freaking XAML ID/NAME tag and have the line move, reshape, float around, respond to a user clicking it, and all in a 3D Space.
And XAML itself can also define 'behaviors' for the elements in the file format. Not something a normal standard like SVG even tries to do. When SVG is for designing Windows applicaions and can define not only visual elements but also can do object collision and movement, then we will talk.
I get so tired of the "SVG Killer, Flash Killer, Photoshop Killer, Acrobat Killer, blah, blah, blah..."
(And Flash is the closest to reality with expression and XAML, as some people have went on to write little application that are Flash based, although it is not powerful enough to write full scale Windows applications, and here is where the difference lies, not to mention the level of programming difference, the full 3D workspace and design environemnt Microsoft has created.)
Flash will live on doing what it does, but it won't be used to make Windows Applications... Geesh.
MS Expression are tools and technologies for DEVELOPING applications in the new 'Presenation Layer' concept of Windows Vista and WinFX runtime components for XP.
If you don't believe me, actually go use these applications in a 'development' environment (they are free downloads even) and see how they are 'designed' to be the new generation of 'development' tools, adding in elements for 'graphic designers' that are programmible. Your first clue would be to notice that code that lays behind the drawing, and all the items of the drawing have the cute little Object properties that looks more like somthing from Visual Stuido/Visual Basic. And trust me, this is not somthing you find in Photoshop.
If you use Acrylic and think it could ever be a Photoshop killer, then you are smoking something the rest of us are not. It is not even the same type of drawing tool - anyone know Vector/Bitmap differences? Anyone?
Please save our sanity and stop the crap about every thing Mirosoft is doing as being a 'Killer' of some other companies products. Especially development design tools killing Photoshop, jeeez.
Even the new Tablet PC from MS were iPod Killers, how far can you go with this? What next, "The new clock in Windows Vista is a Killer of your home grandfather clock."
If you are posting a link to an article, it should at least be something you 'get' or understand, or you should not be allowed to write the pretext for the link. PERIOD.
Doesn't this concern anyone?
It suprises me on the lack of posts that don't hit at one of the cores of the topics. Sure there is the GPL thing, the non-profit thing etc...
But we have been trusting and using this product and derivitive products now for a long time to find out they are just as greedy and could care less about open source or other important issues we thought we were supporting by using and assisting in the development of their products?
Where is my kick back for time I spent contributing to their 'cause'?
From this it is obvious they have no concern for consumer privacy, as they are willing to hand anything over to Google for the mighty dollar.
And we have had this Google issue on the table here way too many times, they are not a lycos or a Altavista nor even MSN which is scary to say.
They are NOT a search engine company, they are a marketing company working under the guise of a search engine company, and not only reverse associating search data to other online actions, but even data mining email in and out of their system and reverse associating this information based on email and IP back to the searchs and other activities they are tracking.
Google is the 'corporate' version of the NSA on the Internet.
So where is our consumer protections and privacy and how well are people 'overseeing' the mozilla code, how much 'isn't' open. Not to sound like I am wearing a tinfoil hat, but how do we know for sure the mozilla engine isn't reporting more than just what we know and searches to Google? A little something something slipped into the final builds for Google.
With all that money being thrown their way, it would be a hard temptation if Google has or would one day say, tell us all the form data mozilla collects, or we stop funding.
Sadly I know feel we are better off sticking with other projects and letting mozilla go the way of the original netscape. Things like Opera, Safari and even now here we are back to seeing IE as another 'safer' alternative, if MS keeps up with the security (as the last reports show, even in unconfirmed exploits, they were darn close to any other browers out there, and in disclosed ones, ahead of the curve.)
How sad of a day is this, IE is now a 'safer' choice if you don't want your information being tracked by Google or whatever our imagination could imagine this horrible alignmnet might entail.
Ya, MS could put code in IE that would 'invade' privacy, just like opera or Apple could as well, but we do not have any reason to believe any of these companies are doing that, as they would have nothing to gain from it.
And with IE, they are too closely watched, not only by the US govt, if you don't trust the US, but by the EU and other foreign governments to ensure IE isn't data mining or doing things we now find out mozilla is a part of for sure. (As these bodies are working almost too hard to nit pick Winows and IE, and they have full access to MS's code.)
Ok, tinfoil hat off, and truly think about this, there are a lot of bad things already pointed out about this alliance, but the security and privacy is the one that is the kick in the kneecap.
Seperation of drivers into user mode, more like *nix. No more reboots for upgrading a hardware driver...
:)
You have a good post, but technically this is not accurate and I see others have already try to discount you with this statement.
What Vista is doing, and I think is being confused here is that they are 'finally' forcing the NT security system on, for all applications, drivers, and users. Meaning no more running as administrator, no more letting programs touch stuff by running at an elevated state. Basically NT has always had a robust security model, it just was NEVER enforced for users, programs, or even drivers for the sake of compatibility with Win9X applications.
Windows driver separation model HASN'T changed, drivers have been in an upper Ring level since NT was created, the only expection is Video was dropped to a lower Ring for Gaming performance in NT 4.0, which is a potential stability risk, but worth the performance gains, and NVidia and ATI are doing pretty good with drivers anymore, and when running certified Video Drivers, XP SP2 has shown Windows can be freaky stable even with Video having a lower level of kernel access.
Unixes on the other hand tend to go the other way, and drivers are not only low level, but are often compiled into the kernel even.
The ways *nixes and Windows handles each tends to be a bit different, and there are advantages to both.
As for the driver reboots, Windows NT, and especially since Win2k has not needed to reboot for virtually any level of driver. It is just some services and for compatibility with the common Win9X driver technologies that have required reboots.
For example, if the processes using the drivers are 'smart' any driver can be ripped in and out at will on the NT platform, even the Video Driver, which runs at a lower level.
Just because the NVidia or ATI installer asks you to reboot, doesn't mean it couldn't just tell NT(XP) the new Video is turned on, and initialize it.
(And as techs that work with XP know, this actually happens a lot, when video cards are changed, the system boots with one default Video Driver, recognizes the new card, and flips out the standard driver and poof, the system is running with the new Video Driver with no restart.)
The big thing with restarting the system for drivers, is the manufacturers want to be certain their drivers are installed properly, so they don't yank running driver files and DLLs, and replace them on the fly, they would rather replace them during the next boot cycle to ensure they are are not locked by some process or service and don't fully get updated.
NT's Driver model is dang good at flipping in and out drivers and devices without reboots, manufacturers just don't take advantage of it. (For example, If I worked at NVidia for installing a new video driver I would drop the system to SVGA, yank the files, ensure all processes release them, replace them with the new driver files and flip the system to the new Video Drivers without a restart at all.)
Don't let them dog on ya for one missed fact, that for all we know is this is something you know and was trying to say something else and it just didn't come out like you wanted.
I have been accused of being a MS fan, which I'm really not if people knew me, but I also have the wait and see, and lets give it a chance. I sure as hell don't have the time to write an entire OS myself from Kernel to GUI, so I depend and hope others do dang good work.
You need to remember that bios doesn't allow for some of the really cool features like booting over the network. doesn't bios require a hard drive? Why limit yourself?
There have network based booting mechanisms since the begining of PC time almost. Even at one of our early companies, we ran Win3.1 systems with no local media, meaning no floppies or HD and they booted from the network. All it takes is a Network card with a boot loader.
I'm not saying EFI is evil, but it is not a 'cool' thing either, and it is really still up for debate whether it is even the right thing.
There are other BIOS alternative technologies that have been thrown around for years by big names, just because Apple and Intel are going EFI doesn't mean it is the best or even the right direction.
EFI is easy for Apple, it gives them hardware protection like they are used to, and it also helps the stability of OSX by relying on EFI to weed out the infinite amount of driver and hardware confirgurations that OSes like Linux and Windows have to deal with daily.
This doesn't make EFI cool, or even say anything about Windows being weak because they don't put the EFI boot extensions in the 32bit version of Vista. (They do in the 64bit, just not the 32bit.)
Just try to put things in perspective, EFI isn't evil, but just because it is what Apple is using, and using to protect their hardware and give them driver control has nothing really to do with EFI, or Windows or anything else.
Apple could add ACME(X) technology to keep their systems locked as 'Apple Hardware', it really has no reflection or relevance to the rest of the industry.
Ohh, I could tell you exactly how wrong you are, but you are just trolling. "The difference between Vista and XP is as vast as the jump from Win3.1 to NT" proves it.
If you are bright, here is ONE fact that would demonstrate what I am saying is true.
The Win32API is no longer necessary for application development in Vista, it is being replaced. How is that for a big change? Sounds like a bigger jump from Win16 to Win32 to me, but hey, you think I'm just a troll.
And there are tons of changes throughout the OS that are this vast.
Also go look up things like WPF/WinFX or even the basic internal message system changes, the kernel changes, the user mode changes, the NT security mechanisms being finally fully enforced for users and process.
Vista even ships with MS's full Unix subsystem, meaning Windows users can and will be running all the open source *nix stuff they want as well, but on the NT kernel technologies with all the drivers of the Windows world that no *nix to date can match.
Vista is NT that can no longer be classifed as NT with the Win32 subsystem as WindowsXP is. And like I said above, if you are bright you will realize how massive of a difference just this is.
So I beg of you and others, do some research and quit responding to topics you apparently have little understanding on, which makes you appear to be the one trolling.