You bring up some good points, but where do you realize that to pull this off requires more than what OpenGL is doing, it requires new underlying GPU driver support system for OpenGL?
How do you expect OpenGL to run two 3D Applications utilizing 128mb of GPU RAM, while the UI desktop environment is consuming 32bit of GPU RAM, on a Video card that only as 128mb of RAM?
See where this gets dodgy? And this is just one simplistic example of where the model fails.
Sure the Quake Model ran, but pop open two other 3D rich applications tapping into OpenGL. The demonstration would not be quite as pretty.
Anyway, some food for thought, take my suggestions or don't, but a new GPU/Driver/Interface needs to be addressed in the OpenGL model to ever reach what Microsoft is currently pushing out the door with Vista...
This is wrong. OpenGL is actually better suited for this than Direct3D, since OpenGL has a client/server architecture. OSX proves this - it is easily possible to play in windowed mode with no slowdowns. So, no 3D apps get broken. D3D needs to be redesigned for this, in short it needs a similar client/server-architecture. I wouldnt be surprised to see Direct3D 10 heading in this direction.
Actually OpenGL isn't better suited to this, in fact this is a concept it tends to omit completely.
Secondly, you are not understanding the point here. DirectX applications will run in Windowed Mode on XP just a fast as they will run Full Screen on XP - that is a hallmark of the DirectX design; however, multi-tasking 5 applications that want full access to your video card (to use its memory, etc) becomes problematic, even though DirectX already has mechanisms for handling this.
But this is NOT the point I was making...
Take a full 3D application, use OpenGL to create it, then call it your user desktop, now embed another 3D application into this 3D application without GPU RAM becoming an issue, Coordinate display of the new 3D application becoming an issue, etc.
You can't easily embed one OpenGL application that assumes complete control of the 3D Side of the GPU into another OpenGL 3D application. Even if the main App, the UI is smart, the second application will cause failure as it expects to have all the GPU RAM when it wants it, etc etc...
This is not about running a game in a 'windowed' mode, Microsoft proved that with DirectX Full Screen and Windowed gaming is and should be seamless since 1997, so your theory about the client/server design of OpenGL is a good idea, but doesn't fit the bill of what is required.
This goes deep, to the the *nix/Linux Driver level, past OpenGL. The Video card needs to know how to hand off RAM and multi-task more freely than they currently do.
Open five (5) copies of Quake on your OSX desktop, in a Window, and set each to run through a series of Demonstrations. How well do they run, at what point does this experiment fail?
This is something Microsoft tried to demonstrate at the September PDC, but apparently not a lot of people have yet paid attention to this, and with NDAs on the product, the ones that are getting it can't always talk about it.
Microsoft demonstrated how XP and DirectX would try to mult-task out three or four 3D application in a Windowed mode, but with the initial Vista technologies, it would do this with ten (10) applications, while running the UI GUI with 3D acceleration features enabled - the 'Glass' at the same time.
So not only are they multi-tasking in and out the UI with 3D to not compete but co-exist with other 3D applications whether they are WPF or DirectX, but they are also allowing the applications themselves to multi-task with each other better, and use System RAM as Virtual GPU RAM.
This is a big step in the 3D display technologies, and will result even in changes to the GPU architectures, look for better cooperative multi-tasking of GPU enabled applications, as well as Video cards in SLI or multi core modes extending this ability even further.
Windows is only be considered to be a viable Internet server platform by persons who fall into one (or more) of the below categories.
1. Complete morons/feeble minded persons who assume becuase MS and Bill Gates have a lot of money that they must be better
2. People who dont know anything else, and whom wouldnt be considered 'professionals' except for the MS knowledge they have, and recognize that they would be useless if their MS 'expertise' was no longer relevant
3. Executives who've made the decision to go with MS after being wined and dined by the MS sales team
4. People that think that 'sales' is even *remotely* a valid measurement of the success of an OS. The purpose of software isn't to make money for the company that sells it, the purpose of software is to do what the person installing/deploying it wants it to do.
Possibly, but what about the person with an IQ around 180, has studied and taught OS Theory and Engineering for 15 years, worked with NASA and Pentagon on Security, studied researched and taught UI interaction and user behavior with regard to technology, worked with the Microsft NT team in the early 90s, worked with the X11 project as back as 1986, and to this day will protest that Windows NT and even the flawed Win32 subsystem that sits on top of it is the best OS working theories in production on technilogical merit alone.
This person was also a part of and a strong contributor to the *nix community on and off over the years, and has provided common concepts and code in use in almost every *nix or variant in the world.
You see, I am not totally sold on Windows is perfect, but I'm also not sold on Windows is so flawed only a moron would use it.
Especially since I know the person I am describing above, and spending five minutes with them will make you question your own reality of computers and OSes, and yet they see Windows NT as the 'revolution' of OS computing architecture, not the weak bastard that the average/.er sees it as. However sadly the average/.er tends to see Windows as just Win32 or the Win9x OSes they left to go to some *nix variant.
So do I just assume that your generalizations are correct, or do trust people I work with and myself, with what understanding I have of OS design as well?
I tend to go with the smart people on this, and your generalizations come from anger, hate, or ignorance. None of which seem to be solid foundations that fit logically, they only work when you invoke emotion.
The project has a good concept model, not to destroy XWindows with a rewrite; however, this will considerably limit any real advancement into a comprehensive environment.
I see this as more of a test bed, and partial stepping stone; however there are many issues not being addressed that just need to be ripped apart and rethought out, and this CAN be done without destroying the existing environments.
Part of the problem of Bringing any 3D GPU functions to the desktop is the nature of Video cards, and they are designed to operate in a 2d accelerated mode and a full 3d accelerated mode, with both aspects of the cards not mixing normally.
What this leads to is an environment that mimics the 2D acceleration features in the 3D mode, and turns the Video card into 3D mode full time.
Strangely, what will help this push for full time 3D utilization or cross utilization is work being done at company people really don't like, Microsoft.
Microsoft is pushing both ATI and NVidia to move their Driver technology to allow for overlapping of the two operational modes, and also adding in virtualization of the GPU RAM space - the WDDM/LDDM that will ship with Vista, as it will be the first consumer OS that has a full time 3D accelerated accessible UI environment active.
Also by virtualizing the GPU RAM, Vista drivers (WDDM) are pushing the cards to pull off some interesting tricks, like pushing to System RAM lower priority applications Video, without out of memory considerations - Just like Virtual Memory on Hard Drive did years and years ago, and leaving a full 3D environment and 'appearance' of GPU RAM continually available to applications no matter how many remain active.
Video RAM of the old days was basically having enough RAM to display the resolution and depth for the screen you were displaying, but in the 3D world, GPU RAM is filled with textures, etc - so this mixing and virtualization process has been a long time coming, and surprisingly, Microsoft if the company helping NVidia and ATI get it working at the driver level.
Now for the good news, Microsoft has been generous to ATI and NVidia in the driver development process and in doing so has given both companies a lot of information and technology they would not of had access to from the multi-app OS environment viewpoint.
So all the cool new functions of the WDDM that is being developed for Vista should eventually flow back through both NVidia and ATI and their own driver technologies for supporting these concepts in other OS environments.
However, as I started out and still believe, this technology from the article, and even going full OpenGL desktop is not a complete answer. A full OpenGl desktop will be problematic when you want to run a 'windowed' version of Quake in for example, as the applicaiton will be expecting to have full control of the OpenGL/GPU and not expecting the first priority to be going to the Desktop Environment.
So to get to the full OpenGL desktop is going to break a lot of existing 3D applications in the *nix/OpenGL world, or a technology to bridge this is going to have to come about. A technology that maybe sucks info from ATI and NVidia and Microsoft even to emulate what Vista is pulling off.
Some get it, but most miss the underlying point...
I see arguments about how MS forces people to buy their server OS (this does NOT happen), or that larger Unix system sales are down and this means nothing because of the Linux growth, and how MS is using this as PR, even though it isn't even their tracker, and about 50 other thoughts ideas and assumptions...
What I don't see is the simple fact. Windows Servers are STILL selling and making Money for MS and are also considered to be a viable Server technology.
So no matter what other opinion you take or view you make out of this, you have to step back and realize Windows Servers are not losing ground and are considered by a lot of 'professionals' to be the right solution for whatever environment they were purchased for, especially if they were replacing high end Unix systems of the past, or even if it is just them expanding the Windows base via demand of the Windows Desktop.
From my personal experience, we observe Windows is once again being trusted in Web hosting environments. Not only for simplicity and features, but with Windows 2003 Server, MS actually delivered a high level of security and stability.
(And I know that is not a popular statement, but is true - go check the security updates, patches, and vulnerabilities for Windows 2003 Server since its release, they are less than OSX, Linux, Solaris, and in some aspects had fewer patches and updates than even good old secure BSD in the same timeframe.)
what a fscking palaver... why do people put up with this shit? that's retorical question folks... the answer is: they don't know there are alternatives... Microsoft goes to a lot of trouble to make sure the sheep^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers don't know you can buy a computer without windows on it... all Joa & Jane public see in the shops and adverts in the papers are machines with windows on... and Apple is only allowed to exist so Microsoft can claim they aren't a monopoly...
Well if you install your OS every week this would be a slight pain in the butt. However, considering 95% of the people that buy and use computers NEVER install an OS, they use what is loaded, and go on with their work.
Most of the computer users I work with wouldn't even know where to find their OS CD, let alone ever reinstall it. (This includes both OSX and Windows users.)
So if you see this as extreme, I have to ask, why do you install your OS so frequently? What in the world could you possibly be doing that this would be an inconvienience to you?
Even in our test labs where machines are 'continually' reloaded wiped, etc, beta tested, you name it, this has not even been an issue with our techs, it is an issue like right above the struggle of having to get the CD out of the horrible plastic cases before they do an install. The horror and injustice!!!
Is that ISS system mission critical? I didn't think so. Many of the IBM laptops floating around the ISS run Win2k, and that's fine, they don't fly the spacecraft. But in terms of ops, the Shuttles avionics software runs on IBM AP-101S computers with 256 kilobytes of memory. Windows has never been considered, and in fact its complexity and bloat would be a serious liability and danger to flight operations and life and limb
Actually it is part of the control system for the robtic arm, you tell me if that is mission critical or not...
I wasn't refering to application running on computers used by astronauts, I was referring to built in systems, that are a part of the operations of the ISS.
So if you consider Windows to be so flawed, you better tell NASA, as you must be a better rocket scientist then they have. You know, being NASA and all...
You really don't know what you are talking about, and comparing the 1970s Shuttle avionics software to anything in last 30 years makes you look that much more out of the loop.
So give me your viewpoint on this, what do you think NASA uses for systems through the organization? Is everything still running on the IBM AP? Maybe they are using various systems throughout the organization? Or is everything there running OSX or all trusted to a Linux kernel technology? Oh wait, maybe HAL runs the entire organization, and the people that work there are for show only?
I'm sure the article meant this in more of an illustrative measure, but this is a very bad way to present the issue.
Sure companies are going to protect users from legal issues, this is a part of business. It is also a measure of success with a lot of companies, as some do include protections for their customers and are willing to front any legal blows.
Now if Joe Blow compiles Linux and straps on some tools and you use it in your business and you get sued over stuff it contains, what else would expect to happen?
But this is true of any piece of software or OS, why make this a MS vs Linux specific issue? Buzz, get Slashdot attention, make Microsoft out to be something they are not (good or bad)?
If RedHat is offering or trying to offer a level of abstract between their users and lawsuits as Microsoft is, how could this be Linux vs Microsoft? The last I looked Redhat pretty much only shipped Linux.
This is a common business concept and sure there are reasons when you have a lot at stake to go with the better protection. You could also buy insurance to protect your company as well.
My father had to pay when he installed a freakin' dvd burner (which pushed him over the edge and now he's using Ubuntu with no plans on getting Vista). Two guys in my comp sci class had to pay (One bought a new motherboard - just the mobo: same processor and everything, one had a fire in his home and had to rebuild from scratch - but he was smart enough to keep weekly backups, so not much of his data was lost). It happens all the time. Of course MS would say it doesn't. They lie all the time. That's business
They had to PAY? Really... So even though Windows will reactivate itself a set number of times before you are forced to do a manual reactivation, they had to pay to reactivate Windows?
Explain this to me further, give us a receipt where they paid, and how they paid. From my understanding the Activation Center at Microsoft is not even setup to bill users, so I find this facinating that they would of had to contact Sales, and reactivate.
I also find it suprising you know so many people that have had to do this, and yet we work have worked with thousands and thousands of users since XP was released and have not seen one instance EVER of MS asking for EVEN AN EXPLAINATION for the reactivation.
Our only known cases of users having to pay, were users using a hacked key and were directed to sales to get a real licensed copy.
I truly don't dismiss your claims, and I would seriously like to see evidence of this. Anything, a receipt, something from Microsoft about the reactivation license and requesting payment, anything that can confirm this has happened.
Something I can take to the people at MS I know and go, what is up with this, and get an answer...
No wonder NASA refuses to run this junk. Can you imagine having to replace hardware in space, then being unable to return to Earth because the computer can't connect to Redmond to validate the license?
This is only in retail Windows... Corporate and Embedded versions don't do this...
Oh, and NASA does run this junk, we supplied software for a Windows based system on the Space Station a few years ago.
I've never re-activated a copy of Windows XP, but I've heard the opposite about them being so "forgiving". I can't remember his name, but there was one guy on the staff at CNet who couldn't get his copy re-activated and he's not the only one I've heard of with that problem. I'm not an MS-hater but I do think folks should know about the other side of re-activation - sometimes you get somebody on the phone line who refuses to re-activate just because they don't feel liek it. That's product activation really, really sucks.
I know you only have hearsay, but I would seriously like to find evidence of this. At varous times our company as been both a parnet and a consulting partner to Microsoft on various projects, and I know people at MS, specifically a few developers that did the activation and a few people in the management group that oversaw the activation system and reasons for it.
They would also be very surprised to find evidence of someone being forced to pay for a reactivation. Maybe there is some user out there that has 100 installations from one copy, and MS told him no...
I don't know, but according to what I know from life experience and what the MS people tell me, people should not be charged for activations....
However if someone that isn't just biased looks at the list, they will see that N version (required by EU) are included in this list.
There are 4 Basic versions, and the differences are somewhat defined if you pay attention.
Home is for the person that wants a cheap copy, or the OEM to sell a cheaper copy. To the Ultimate version which is geared at developers as it includes all the functionality of extra development tools, Web Services, TabletPC, Windows Media Center, etc.
Then you have the basic Business Class, and the Basic advanced Home user class.
NT has always had a shared code base, and this is a good thing in terms of managiblity; however, it has always got MS flack because Server and Workstation are virtual the same code, one just includes a more robust IIS server, and other Server related software.
So in the Server/Workstation argument, you are paying for the services and software that is bundled with Server, more than the Server Core being significanly different. And here is the rub, Workstation is crippled on network connections, specifically because of the shared code base, if it were not, a Workstation user could pirate the Server Applications and tools and run them on Worksation for a fraction of the price.
Now this also may seem strange, but if you look at Redhat for example, they also split out Workstation and Server, as well as many OS companies do. There is a reason for this, the extra development in the server level services and tools are added expense, and don't affect casual users, it is the businesses that need these tools and are using them.
In comparision to the Linux world as some have stated, sure Linux doesn't limit what you can put on it, but to get a good distribution that has a very good and complete set of server tools for free is not that easy. Additionally bundling of these tools is not common. In the Linux world, you have to get Apache, and other tools to make Linux into a Server OS with greater functionality.
Sure there are a lot of good tools for free available to Linux to make it into a great Server OS, but out of the box, the basic Linux technologies do NOT have these, they are tools made by third parties - some being free, some not, and some crippled unless you pay for them to operate in a server class environment.
Now back to the many Vista versions. Sure there is more than ONE version, but you can pick what you need, and for basic users that want simplicity, they don't have to buy Ultimate version, and have tons of development class processes running. For example, if you don't have a tablet PC, why would you want an installation that added in the tablet services.
I honestly don't fully agree with Microsoft on the varied Vista versions, I didn't agree with the Home/Profressional versions either, but once being an OEM, I know why they did this, price point for OEM customers. However I still think it was stupid.
I think everyone here should tell Microsoft how they feel about the many versions of Vista, even if you are a Linux or FreeBSD or OSX user. If you are in the tech world and will have to be dealing with clients and friends running Vista, you need to make your point to Microsoft.
And you can be quite effective, as I have seen MS change ship on issues like this before - we had an issue i Win2k along these lines and our company yelled at MS to change the way connections were tracked on the Profressional version, and they listened.
Besides, you can always write, "As a Linux/FreeBSD/OSX user, I am angry that MS is once again spliting the Windows Versions even more, it makes it a technical problem for our users that are using Windows and is one of the reason we personally don't use Windows. Limiting our features for profit is not a good business model - period." - See if that don't get their attention.
As for the shared code base, yet various version of Windows, this is something Microsoft did right in keeping the code base consistent a
And, once I have a version I like. I don't have to fork out another $400 just because I decide to upgrade my motherboard.
To date, Microsoft has only required reactivation of major hardware changes, they have never charged for reactivation, and have been very forgiving, I know people that have installed XP on like 10 machines, and have called MS to get a new activation for each installation.
(The phone activation is even automated, you don't even have to talk to a person once you hit your 3 limit activation)
So if you can prove when ANYONE has ever had to pay for a new copy of Windows based on a hardware change and reactivation, I would seriously like to see this.
Even in situations with friends computers that the circumstances of 'reactivting' were a bit dodgy, I simply talked to a MS person if the automated system failed, they issued a new key and didn't ask even why or even care.
The activation is more of a 'hey this software is protected' than a policing device, I wish people would realize this.
Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience. The only way that they can guarantee a stable, secure, and performant environment is to assert control over their hardware.
I agree with you; however, the key word here is 'they'.
Other OSes like Linux, OpenBSD, etc have proven that they can provide stable and secure environments that run on a massive amount of different hardware and hardware configurations.
And as much as the OSX world hates to hear this, OSX is not anymore stable than these OSes.
Even XP with SP2 and Windows 2003 server, WindowsXP is demonstrating that it can be as stable as OSX, and yet run on a nearly infinite amount of hardware configurations, and its security is starting be on par with other OSes as well, even with the flawed application development environment Microsoft left unsecure for 3rd party access to.
So the whole OSX package concept is probably true, but sad that Apple can only ensure the level of stability and security they are offering people now by keeping the hardware and software in a very small defined configuration.
Just imagine if Microsoft or Linux only shipped on a couple of CPU types and a couple of mainboard types like Apple, both OSes would be so stable it would take a monkey beating the hard drive with a hammer to crash them.
And yet, last night I restarted one of my OSX boxes again because of a Kernal Panic, guess I will have to go through the log to see if I can find what caused it this time, considering this is a pretty clean box, with nothing but pure Apple peripherials.
Oh and last Thursday we went through the large amount of installed fonts crashes that occur in OSX, seems that when you get over 500 fonts installed, some software, especially macromedia tools pop like a cheap balloon.
And I sit here on my WindowsXP notebook that hasn't had an application crash in the last two or three months at least (and it is a development system even), and has never had a system crash, not a single OS freeze, BSD, nothing.
Oh and should I mention I have close to 4000 fonts installed on this laptop, something I wish I could do on my Macs.
Now if my Macs could just pull of the same level of reliability I would be more happy with the Apple controlling the hardware and the software for reliability, until then, maybe they should just either make hardware or software and let people actually choose what they want to do with it...
The renesis's modifications are all external to the engine; a new intake manifold design, new port injection design, etc. The only change to the engine itself really is the enlargement of the intake ports (something tuners have been doing with stock rx7s since they came out). The tradeoff is the bigger the ports, the better high end performance you have, the worse low-end.
The engine is exactly the same as it was, otherwise. It is even classified as a 13B rotary in the shop manuals, so it's not the engine, it's the supporting hardware that makes the difference.
Interesting, this is something I didn't realize. I assumed the new engine had more design changes than the ports and was no longer a 13B.
Amazing the 13B technology from the mid 80s is still a viable design, although considering the simplicity of the Rotary design, I guess it shouldn't be so surprising.
Thanks for the info, I am off to read up more on the RX8...
You know, you don't actually have to write "TheNetAvenger" at the bottom of the post, it says it riiiiiight up the top just underneath the subject line, for everyone to see.
No I didn't notice that, oh my God... (just funning with ya)
Actually, it is a habit so that your name doesn't get forgotten. (i.e. business communication, sign, repeat, sign, etc.)
And although not intended in this instance, it looks like it worked, I bet you won't forget it.:)
Do you have anything other than Microsoft's own FUD to back this up? We all know how reliable their Linux benchmarks are and what an incentive they have to get us to "upgrade."
I do; however, shouldn't you rethink this a bit? It is their OS, and their kernel technologies, who do you think would know them better than MS? Why would MS even put time into 'changing' what was in Win2K if it wasn't to improve it?
Secondly, the facts Microsoft present, like "Larger Device Drivers and System Space" are facts that any geek can check to see works in XP and will fail in Win2k as there is limited space.
As for the non-Microsoft FUD, the first link I posted was from a MS site, however the article was written by Mark Russinovich and David Solomon, and Mark is of SysInternals, a company that has been both assistive and quick to point out truths of flaws in NT over the years. You can find their site at: http://www.sysinternals.com/
So unless they were just being paid to say what MS wanted them to say and risk their credibility with items that could easily be proven wrong if they were wrong, then ya, all I have is MS FUD.
If you don't believe the links I posted, go freaking test it yourself, try to break XP and prove to the world that MS has been lying about XP for 5 years and no one else but you were smart enough to find it. Prove that the Registry Limits are the same as Win2k, pick anything.
There are also a lot of other system changes that are only casually mentioned or skipped in these articles. For example, did you know that in WindowsXP if an application makes a very bad call, instead of just shutting down the offending application as Win2k would do to protect the OS, XP will try to figure out what the application was trying to do, and fix the call and pass back the correct information, address, etc in real-time, so the application doesn't fail and the user never even notices. All for compatibility to correct mistakes of 3rd party programmers that were idiots to keep the 'software' running as expected. That is enough of change in the OS between Win2k and XP to warrant the upgrade alone, let alone the performance, stability, and other improvements.
Does anyone here even think anymore, or does the Microsoft name invoke a knee-jerk reaction and bring out the 'idealistic anti-MS ignorance'?
Well I'm thinking of the MS strategy here, whos to stop them from charging in the future?
Customers, competition... Just becuase it is a new model, don't mean it won't be successful for others as well.
Besides, we all knew it was going to get to this point eventually. Phone would be like Cable, pay flat fee, and watch as much TV as you want. It has been getting closer and closer, and with technology easing the bandwidth and traffic problems of the past, should be a normal thing.
Besides, A) Microsoft wants to sell Windows Based devices & B) Maybe they realize it will actually help or improve the consumer market at the same time it helps them. What is wrong with a win win, even if they lose money investing in the technology initially.
Would I rather use OS X on the desktop and Linux or BSD on a server? Yes of course, but I do think Win 2K pro was the best version of Windows Microsoft ever issued if one is forced to use Windows for games or work
Do you really not understand technology, or just pretending you don't?
WindowsXP has a massive scale of compatibilty, security, application stability and even tons of kernel enhancements over Win2k. People that see WindowsXP as Win2k with prettier graphics must also see a porshe as just a VW Bug with prettier paint.
Add in SP2 that forks off after the Windows 2003 server security and optimizations. (remmeber the reports that when Windows 2003 was first released it was faster on the desktop than XP? Well that code was pushed into WindowsXP in SP2.)
WindowsXP is not only safer, more compatible, has a ton more features, a more robust kernel, but is actually faster than Windows2K, even with the 'pretty' themes turned on. Average tests in our labs show XP consistently 10% faster than Win2k.
Happy reading and please for the love of God people stop believing that Win2k is A) Faster or B) more solid than XP. Both are false and just lead users to staying with an older OS and avoid XP when they could be benefiting from it.
While I appreciate the amount of time you're taking writing that over and over again, I don't see how it changes the fact that it's completely irrelevant how many other companies might do it or not. Microsoft does hold a position which is quite different from any other software vendor at the moment, and which gives it certain authority on the market
I appreciate the time you are taking trying to understand this as well...
When Microsoft first atarted offering these licensing deals they were NOT the 800lb gorilla they are now.
Secondly they were admonished by the press and the industry for a common practice. I don't care if you keep repeating, "just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right."
No it don't but don't hold Microsoft up above the rest of the people that do crap and solely blame them for the problems.
Your time on your soap box would be better spent actually addressing the OEMs and other software companies that are now packing Google Desktop on your new computer than to keep yelling at Microsoft.
Microsoft does VERY litlee exclusive bundling deals anymore, go read what they are allowed to do from the DOJ settlement.
You are beating a dead horse by contining to state how awful MS is, when they are aren't even doing half of the crap you assume them to do be doing.
When Microsfot was hit with the Bundling deals during the 90s, they were trying to compete with OS/2 and OS companies, WHICH ALSO HAD exclusive contracts.
This would be like letting everyone in the world drive SUVS, then one day, notice they are consuming too much gas, and pick ONE PERSON in the work that owned 5 of them and blamed them for the Entire SUV problem.
Do you see why your lack of logic is so distressing to me?
Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?
Possibly, and that is my point, yet the auto industry and insurance companies classify it as a 4 cylinder engine (not having a 2 chamber engine checkbox when they are filling out forms for it.)
It also had 4 spark plugs, so people assumed one plug per cylinder, etc etc... But that was misleading as two plugs worked with each chamber - trailing and leading.
In operation it is somewheber between a 4 cyclinder and 6 cylinder in terms of the ecentric chambers, but when modeled on performance alone it is a high end V6/V8 range depending othe V6 or V8 being compared to.
So to state that its fuel efficiency is bad, becuase people think of it in the 4cylinder class really don't get it. Put it in the V6 class at least, and then compare emissions and fuel efficiency.
Not really, nothing was borrowed or brought over from the OS/2-IBM project.
MS did create a lot of what the geeks see OS/2 2.0 as (the first 32 bit version) but the falling out between IBM and MS was that IBM would not support a 386 only version of OS/2, it had to run on the 286 platform.
However after Microsoft said, ok and took their toys and went home, IBM scrambled to assemble what MS had left, used what code share access they had with Micrsoft and came out with OS/2 2.0
Thing people don't realize about OS/2 the Object Desktop that the users loved, were MS design concepts, not IBM. OS/2 had very poor kernel technology. OS/2 also use a single input Queue, meaning that ANY SINGLE application could hang the entire OS, as the user click could not get past the crashed application. (And no this was not fixed in V4 as a another posted suggested)
Oh and one of my favorite things OS/2 2.0 was billed a full 32bit OS, but like I said it had a crap kernel design as it was an kludge attempt by IBM to reassmeble the pieces of the MS work on OS/2. What this mean is that OS/2 even version 4.0 still used 16bit drivers, resulting in some very unstable incarnations.
Oh back to the Microsoft OS/2 becoming XP. Not quite. The Microsoft team moved on from OS/2, and actually started from scratch - for legal reason if nothing else, as IBM had code sharing and monitor rights to the NT OS. So even the HPFS was scrapped and some of its concepts were brought over to NTFS, but NTFS was entirely different.
Past that the kernel technologies and whole client/server kernel architecture of NT was something OS/2 couldn't even dream of doing. (Most OSes still can't do this, hence why you see Windows 2003 R2 with a full *nix subsystem (not emulated) running on the NT kernel).
OS/2 had some cool features in the Object Desktop - it was more object oriented than NEXT or OSX or Windows. The funny part, MS was the ones that developed it for IBM, and IBM initially canned it.
So go OS/2 fans, celebrate the technologies of MS that IBM shelved, and tell us how great hacked together MS technologies and IBM development technologies are to create the greatest OS ever, OS/2 of course.
Microsoft doesn't trumpet news about booting because they only run on x86 (whoop doo)!
Really? Have you heard of WindowsXP Embedded or how about an XBox 360...?
The only reason XP only ships for 32bit and 64bit x86 and Itanium architectures, is a pure popularity issue, not a technological issue. NT was designed to be very portable, go look up the HAL and kernel concepts of NT.
Oh, and you are right, people are way to obsessed with bashing other people's fun. *wink
Pardon me for repeating what others have already said, but that is not a justification to anything, even if I did claim that Microsoft does something which other vendors don't (which I didn't). My beef is more about what Microsoft does in context of what it is.
Ok, I am kind of repeating this, but this is what you and the others are missing from this statement.
I also don't agree with exclusive bundles, or pricing that includes all units sold whether a copy was shipped with it or not.
However these bundling options were not invented by MS, they were entering the game from the old IBM model they were involved in, and picked up what everyone else was doing.
Ya, it is still a crap model, but a LOT of companies do this, it wasn't until Microsoft hit pay dirt of success that it became a problem.
The second part is that when Microsoft became too successful, and issues about these OEM licensing deal came to light, many people were quick to point fingers at Microsoft and be disgusted at Micrsoft for doing what almost EVERY OTHER software company was doing.
In fact, software companies that were offering the SAME deals to OEMs, were quick to step in and shake their finger at Microsoft. It was using the media and the anti-Microsoft propaganda at its finest.
The third thing that is STILL missed in all of this... Even though we all agree these are bad licensing deals, so bad my company would not touch them even to save a few bucks, we still push the blame back to Microsoft. It is the OEMs signing the contracts and screwing their customers, Microsoft is not holding a gun to their heads. Additionally, these same companies are STILL signing these same type of licensing/bundling deals with every other company in the business to save a buck or two.
It truly is the greed of the OEMS that has screwed consumers and consumer choice, not Microsoft, not Wordperfect, not even IBM.
Step back for a minute and remember I was in this position as the head of a OEM, and Microsoft was good to our company and didn't care if we did a licensing deal or bought our OEM copies through a vendor 25 or even 5 copies at time.
- Also realize that I looked at the other companies that were whoring themselves out to every software company in the world to save a couple of bucks and was in digust that these companies would screw the choice of the consumer for a few bucks.
- I saw this issue from the OEM side, we just chose not to screw our customers, and we also decided that we didn't want to lock our customers into Windows on 100% of our PC sales, and we even liked Microsoft.
The years I saw all of this transpire were from 1990 through 1999, and I still shake my head at Dell and HP and Gateway for screwing their customers to save a few bucks.
You do realize that hardware vendors also do this, right? There has been a reason Dell wouldn't sell AMD CPUs, or some companies only sold ATI Video Cards, etc... And again it comes down to the OEMs, not ATI or Intel.
Dell or HP could and can always say no, period.
It isn't fair to be mad at Microsoft, unless you are willing to be mad at almost every other software and hardware company out there.
Minor correction - the 13B engine was reintroduced on the 1984 model GSL-SE RX7. Mine is still running (original engine), with over 250,000km on the odometer.
You are right, it was 84 and GSL-SE, not GXL-SE. The 84s were very rare though, even the 85s were rare.
I almost bought a used 85 GSL-SE, but instead waited and got a new 87 GXL.
I already had an 81 GS, and after driving a friends 86, I actually liked the feel of the new body, and wanted something different from my 81. Also the lure of the active suspension system and passive rear steering int he 86-91 models was actually quite impressive, especially for the time. And even being a bit 'bigger' it still felt so nimble and was very much still an RX7.:)
PS Enjoy your RX7, it should also be worth a penny or two someday being the SE. I moved from my 87 RX7 to a new Corvette convertable in 1991, and even though the Vette had muscle, looks, I missed the way my RX7 drove.
The Corvette was great, but it drove more like a race car than a sports car. It had speed, muscle and great cornering, but you had to know how to drive to get everything out of it. The RX7 was more about doing the same things, but with a bit of ease, letting the car do a lot of the work for you, especialy in agility and cornering.
I then moved to a 1993 RX7 and it again had that distinct feel my older RX7s had. I kept it and had a couple of Vettes at the time. I enjoyed driving the RX7 more, but the Vettes always got more attention.
I have been tempted to pick up an RX8, I tested one for a day, and it had that Mazda/RX7 feel, although not quite as tight as the RX7. If they do a Turbo/Performance version of the RX8, I will be one of the first people in line. I would like to see a new RX7 as well.
Sorry for the long post, just reminding me of my RX7s and days of youth.:)
Slashdot Mirror
You bring up some good points, but where do you realize that to pull this off requires more than what OpenGL is doing, it requires new underlying GPU driver support system for OpenGL?
How do you expect OpenGL to run two 3D Applications utilizing 128mb of GPU RAM, while the UI desktop environment is consuming 32bit of GPU RAM, on a Video card that only as 128mb of RAM?
See where this gets dodgy? And this is just one simplistic example of where the model fails.
Sure the Quake Model ran, but pop open two other 3D rich applications tapping into OpenGL. The demonstration would not be quite as pretty.
Anyway, some food for thought, take my suggestions or don't, but a new GPU/Driver/Interface needs to be addressed in the OpenGL model to ever reach what Microsoft is currently pushing out the door with Vista...
This is wrong. OpenGL is actually better suited for this than Direct3D, since OpenGL has a client/server architecture. OSX proves this - it is easily possible to play in windowed mode with no slowdowns. So, no 3D apps get broken. D3D needs to be redesigned for this, in short it needs a similar client/server-architecture. I wouldnt be surprised to see Direct3D 10 heading in this direction.
Actually OpenGL isn't better suited to this, in fact this is a concept it tends to omit completely.
Secondly, you are not understanding the point here. DirectX applications will run in Windowed Mode on XP just a fast as they will run Full Screen on XP - that is a hallmark of the DirectX design; however, multi-tasking 5 applications that want full access to your video card (to use its memory, etc) becomes problematic, even though DirectX already has mechanisms for handling this.
But this is NOT the point I was making...
Take a full 3D application, use OpenGL to create it, then call it your user desktop, now embed another 3D application into this 3D application without GPU RAM becoming an issue, Coordinate display of the new 3D application becoming an issue, etc.
You can't easily embed one OpenGL application that assumes complete control of the 3D Side of the GPU into another OpenGL 3D application. Even if the main App, the UI is smart, the second application will cause failure as it expects to have all the GPU RAM when it wants it, etc etc...
This is not about running a game in a 'windowed' mode, Microsoft proved that with DirectX Full Screen and Windowed gaming is and should be seamless since 1997, so your theory about the client/server design of OpenGL is a good idea, but doesn't fit the bill of what is required.
This goes deep, to the the *nix/Linux Driver level, past OpenGL. The Video card needs to know how to hand off RAM and multi-task more freely than they currently do.
Open five (5) copies of Quake on your OSX desktop, in a Window, and set each to run through a series of Demonstrations. How well do they run, at what point does this experiment fail?
This is something Microsoft tried to demonstrate at the September PDC, but apparently not a lot of people have yet paid attention to this, and with NDAs on the product, the ones that are getting it can't always talk about it.
Microsoft demonstrated how XP and DirectX would try to mult-task out three or four 3D application in a Windowed mode, but with the initial Vista technologies, it would do this with ten (10) applications, while running the UI GUI with 3D acceleration features enabled - the 'Glass' at the same time.
So not only are they multi-tasking in and out the UI with 3D to not compete but co-exist with other 3D applications whether they are WPF or DirectX, but they are also allowing the applications themselves to multi-task with each other better, and use System RAM as Virtual GPU RAM.
This is a big step in the 3D display technologies, and will result even in changes to the GPU architectures, look for better cooperative multi-tasking of GPU enabled applications, as well as Video cards in SLI or multi core modes extending this ability even further.
Windows is only be considered to be a viable Internet server platform by persons who fall into one (or more) of the below categories.
/.er sees it as. However sadly the average /.er tends to see Windows as just Win32 or the Win9x OSes they left to go to some *nix variant.
1. Complete morons/feeble minded persons who assume becuase MS and Bill Gates have a lot of money that they must be better
2. People who dont know anything else, and whom wouldnt be considered 'professionals' except for the MS knowledge they have, and recognize that they would be useless if their MS 'expertise' was no longer relevant
3. Executives who've made the decision to go with MS after being wined and dined by the MS sales team
4. People that think that 'sales' is even *remotely* a valid measurement of the success of an OS. The purpose of software isn't to make money for the company that sells it, the purpose of software is to do what the person installing/deploying it wants it to do.
Possibly, but what about the person with an IQ around 180, has studied and taught OS Theory and Engineering for 15 years, worked with NASA and Pentagon on Security, studied researched and taught UI interaction and user behavior with regard to technology, worked with the Microsft NT team in the early 90s, worked with the X11 project as back as 1986, and to this day will protest that Windows NT and even the flawed Win32 subsystem that sits on top of it is the best OS working theories in production on technilogical merit alone.
This person was also a part of and a strong contributor to the *nix community on and off over the years, and has provided common concepts and code in use in almost every *nix or variant in the world.
You see, I am not totally sold on Windows is perfect, but I'm also not sold on Windows is so flawed only a moron would use it.
Especially since I know the person I am describing above, and spending five minutes with them will make you question your own reality of computers and OSes, and yet they see Windows NT as the 'revolution' of OS computing architecture, not the weak bastard that the average
So do I just assume that your generalizations are correct, or do trust people I work with and myself, with what understanding I have of OS design as well?
I tend to go with the smart people on this, and your generalizations come from anger, hate, or ignorance. None of which seem to be solid foundations that fit logically, they only work when you invoke emotion.
A good step, but not the end game...
The project has a good concept model, not to destroy XWindows with a rewrite; however, this will considerably limit any real advancement into a comprehensive environment.
I see this as more of a test bed, and partial stepping stone; however there are many issues not being addressed that just need to be ripped apart and rethought out, and this CAN be done without destroying the existing environments.
Part of the problem of Bringing any 3D GPU functions to the desktop is the nature of Video cards, and they are designed to operate in a 2d accelerated mode and a full 3d accelerated mode, with both aspects of the cards not mixing normally.
What this leads to is an environment that mimics the 2D acceleration features in the 3D mode, and turns the Video card into 3D mode full time.
Strangely, what will help this push for full time 3D utilization or cross utilization is work being done at company people really don't like, Microsoft.
Microsoft is pushing both ATI and NVidia to move their Driver technology to allow for overlapping of the two operational modes, and also adding in virtualization of the GPU RAM space - the WDDM/LDDM that will ship with Vista, as it will be the first consumer OS that has a full time 3D accelerated accessible UI environment active.
Also by virtualizing the GPU RAM, Vista drivers (WDDM) are pushing the cards to pull off some interesting tricks, like pushing to System RAM lower priority applications Video, without out of memory considerations - Just like Virtual Memory on Hard Drive did years and years ago, and leaving a full 3D environment and 'appearance' of GPU RAM continually available to applications no matter how many remain active.
Video RAM of the old days was basically having enough RAM to display the resolution and depth for the screen you were displaying, but in the 3D world, GPU RAM is filled with textures, etc - so this mixing and virtualization process has been a long time coming, and surprisingly, Microsoft if the company helping NVidia and ATI get it working at the driver level.
Now for the good news, Microsoft has been generous to ATI and NVidia in the driver development process and in doing so has given both companies a lot of information and technology they would not of had access to from the multi-app OS environment viewpoint.
So all the cool new functions of the WDDM that is being developed for Vista should eventually flow back through both NVidia and ATI and their own driver technologies for supporting these concepts in other OS environments.
However, as I started out and still believe, this technology from the article, and even going full OpenGL desktop is not a complete answer. A full OpenGl desktop will be problematic when you want to run a 'windowed' version of Quake in for example, as the applicaiton will be expecting to have full control of the OpenGL/GPU and not expecting the first priority to be going to the Desktop Environment.
So to get to the full OpenGL desktop is going to break a lot of existing 3D applications in the *nix/OpenGL world, or a technology to bridge this is going to have to come about. A technology that maybe sucks info from ATI and NVidia and Microsoft even to emulate what Vista is pulling off.
Some get it, but most miss the underlying point...
I see arguments about how MS forces people to buy their server OS (this does NOT happen), or that larger Unix system sales are down and this means nothing because of the Linux growth, and how MS is using this as PR, even though it isn't even their tracker, and about 50 other thoughts ideas and assumptions...
What I don't see is the simple fact. Windows Servers are STILL selling and making Money for MS and are also considered to be a viable Server technology.
So no matter what other opinion you take or view you make out of this, you have to step back and realize Windows Servers are not losing ground and are considered by a lot of 'professionals' to be the right solution for whatever environment they were purchased for, especially if they were replacing high end Unix systems of the past, or even if it is just them expanding the Windows base via demand of the Windows Desktop.
From my personal experience, we observe Windows is once again being trusted in Web hosting environments. Not only for simplicity and features, but with Windows 2003 Server, MS actually delivered a high level of security and stability.
(And I know that is not a popular statement, but is true - go check the security updates, patches, and vulnerabilities for Windows 2003 Server since its release, they are less than OSX, Linux, Solaris, and in some aspects had fewer patches and updates than even good old secure BSD in the same timeframe.)
what a fscking palaver... why do people put up with this shit? that's retorical question folks... the answer is: they don't know there are alternatives... Microsoft goes to a lot of trouble to make sure the sheep^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers don't know you can buy a computer without windows on it... all Joa & Jane public see in the shops and adverts in the papers are machines with windows on... and Apple is only allowed to exist so Microsoft can claim they aren't a monopoly...
Well if you install your OS every week this would be a slight pain in the butt. However, considering 95% of the people that buy and use computers NEVER install an OS, they use what is loaded, and go on with their work.
Most of the computer users I work with wouldn't even know where to find their OS CD, let alone ever reinstall it. (This includes both OSX and Windows users.)
So if you see this as extreme, I have to ask, why do you install your OS so frequently? What in the world could you possibly be doing that this would be an inconvienience to you?
Even in our test labs where machines are 'continually' reloaded wiped, etc, beta tested, you name it, this has not even been an issue with our techs, it is an issue like right above the struggle of having to get the CD out of the horrible plastic cases before they do an install. The horror and injustice!!!
*geesh*
Is that ISS system mission critical? I didn't think so. Many of the IBM laptops floating around the ISS run Win2k, and that's fine, they don't fly the spacecraft. But in terms of ops, the Shuttles avionics software runs on IBM AP-101S computers with 256 kilobytes of memory. Windows has never been considered, and in fact its complexity and bloat would be a serious liability and danger to flight operations and life and limb
Actually it is part of the control system for the robtic arm, you tell me if that is mission critical or not...
I wasn't refering to application running on computers used by astronauts, I was referring to built in systems, that are a part of the operations of the ISS.
So if you consider Windows to be so flawed, you better tell NASA, as you must be a better rocket scientist then they have. You know, being NASA and all...
You really don't know what you are talking about, and comparing the 1970s Shuttle avionics software to anything in last 30 years makes you look that much more out of the loop.
So give me your viewpoint on this, what do you think NASA uses for systems through the organization? Is everything still running on the IBM AP? Maybe they are using various systems throughout the organization? Or is everything there running OSX or all trusted to a Linux kernel technology? Oh wait, maybe HAL runs the entire organization, and the people that work there are for show only?
Oh my gawd, NT has a HAL, maybe that is it...
*geesh*
Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue?
I'm sure the article meant this in more of an illustrative measure, but this is a very bad way to present the issue.
Sure companies are going to protect users from legal issues, this is a part of business. It is also a measure of success with a lot of companies, as some do include protections for their customers and are willing to front any legal blows.
Now if Joe Blow compiles Linux and straps on some tools and you use it in your business and you get sued over stuff it contains, what else would expect to happen?
But this is true of any piece of software or OS, why make this a MS vs Linux specific issue? Buzz, get Slashdot attention, make Microsoft out to be something they are not (good or bad)?
If RedHat is offering or trying to offer a level of abstract between their users and lawsuits as Microsoft is, how could this be Linux vs Microsoft? The last I looked Redhat pretty much only shipped Linux.
This is a common business concept and sure there are reasons when you have a lot at stake to go with the better protection. You could also buy insurance to protect your company as well.
Is this not news to just me?
My father had to pay when he installed a freakin' dvd burner (which pushed him over the edge and now he's using Ubuntu with no plans on getting Vista). Two guys in my comp sci class had to pay (One bought a new motherboard - just the mobo: same processor and everything, one had a fire in his home and had to rebuild from scratch - but he was smart enough to keep weekly backups, so not much of his data was lost). It happens all the time. Of course MS would say it doesn't. They lie all the time. That's business
They had to PAY? Really... So even though Windows will reactivate itself a set number of times before you are forced to do a manual reactivation, they had to pay to reactivate Windows?
Explain this to me further, give us a receipt where they paid, and how they paid. From my understanding the Activation Center at Microsoft is not even setup to bill users, so I find this facinating that they would of had to contact Sales, and reactivate.
I also find it suprising you know so many people that have had to do this, and yet we work have worked with thousands and thousands of users since XP was released and have not seen one instance EVER of MS asking for EVEN AN EXPLAINATION for the reactivation.
Our only known cases of users having to pay, were users using a hacked key and were directed to sales to get a real licensed copy.
I truly don't dismiss your claims, and I would seriously like to see evidence of this. Anything, a receipt, something from Microsoft about the reactivation license and requesting payment, anything that can confirm this has happened.
Something I can take to the people at MS I know and go, what is up with this, and get an answer...
No wonder NASA refuses to run this junk. Can you imagine having to replace hardware in space, then being unable to return to Earth because the computer can't connect to Redmond to validate the license?
This is only in retail Windows... Corporate and Embedded versions don't do this...
Oh, and NASA does run this junk, we supplied software for a Windows based system on the Space Station a few years ago.
I've never re-activated a copy of Windows XP, but I've heard the opposite about them being so "forgiving". I can't remember his name, but there was one guy on the staff at CNet who couldn't get his copy re-activated and he's not the only one I've heard of with that problem. I'm not an MS-hater but I do think folks should know about the other side of re-activation - sometimes you get somebody on the phone line who refuses to re-activate just because they don't feel liek it. That's product activation really, really sucks.
I know you only have hearsay, but I would seriously like to find evidence of this. At varous times our company as been both a parnet and a consulting partner to Microsoft on various projects, and I know people at MS, specifically a few developers that did the activation and a few people in the management group that oversaw the activation system and reasons for it.
They would also be very surprised to find evidence of someone being forced to pay for a reactivation. Maybe there is some user out there that has 100 installations from one copy, and MS told him no...
I don't know, but according to what I know from life experience and what the MS people tell me, people should not be charged for activations....
Ok, yes 8 seems like a LOT of versions...
However if someone that isn't just biased looks at the list, they will see that N version (required by EU) are included in this list.
There are 4 Basic versions, and the differences are somewhat defined if you pay attention.
Home is for the person that wants a cheap copy, or the OEM to sell a cheaper copy. To the Ultimate version which is geared at developers as it includes all the functionality of extra development tools, Web Services, TabletPC, Windows Media Center, etc.
Then you have the basic Business Class, and the Basic advanced Home user class.
NT has always had a shared code base, and this is a good thing in terms of managiblity; however, it has always got MS flack because Server and Workstation are virtual the same code, one just includes a more robust IIS server, and other Server related software.
So in the Server/Workstation argument, you are paying for the services and software that is bundled with Server, more than the Server Core being significanly different. And here is the rub, Workstation is crippled on network connections, specifically because of the shared code base, if it were not, a Workstation user could pirate the Server Applications and tools and run them on Worksation for a fraction of the price.
Now this also may seem strange, but if you look at Redhat for example, they also split out Workstation and Server, as well as many OS companies do. There is a reason for this, the extra development in the server level services and tools are added expense, and don't affect casual users, it is the businesses that need these tools and are using them.
In comparision to the Linux world as some have stated, sure Linux doesn't limit what you can put on it, but to get a good distribution that has a very good and complete set of server tools for free is not that easy. Additionally bundling of these tools is not common. In the Linux world, you have to get Apache, and other tools to make Linux into a Server OS with greater functionality.
Sure there are a lot of good tools for free available to Linux to make it into a great Server OS, but out of the box, the basic Linux technologies do NOT have these, they are tools made by third parties - some being free, some not, and some crippled unless you pay for them to operate in a server class environment.
Now back to the many Vista versions. Sure there is more than ONE version, but you can pick what you need, and for basic users that want simplicity, they don't have to buy Ultimate version, and have tons of development class processes running. For example, if you don't have a tablet PC, why would you want an installation that added in the tablet services.
I honestly don't fully agree with Microsoft on the varied Vista versions, I didn't agree with the Home/Profressional versions either, but once being an OEM, I know why they did this, price point for OEM customers. However I still think it was stupid.
I think everyone here should tell Microsoft how they feel about the many versions of Vista, even if you are a Linux or FreeBSD or OSX user. If you are in the tech world and will have to be dealing with clients and friends running Vista, you need to make your point to Microsoft.
And you can be quite effective, as I have seen MS change ship on issues like this before - we had an issue i Win2k along these lines and our company yelled at MS to change the way connections were tracked on the Profressional version, and they listened.
Besides, you can always write, "As a Linux/FreeBSD/OSX user, I am angry that MS is once again spliting the Windows Versions even more, it makes it a technical problem for our users that are using Windows and is one of the reason we personally don't use Windows. Limiting our features for profit is not a good business model - period." - See if that don't get their attention.
As for the shared code base, yet various version of Windows, this is something Microsoft did right in keeping the code base consistent a
And, once I have a version I like. I don't have to fork out another $400 just because I decide to upgrade my motherboard.
To date, Microsoft has only required reactivation of major hardware changes, they have never charged for reactivation, and have been very forgiving, I know people that have installed XP on like 10 machines, and have called MS to get a new activation for each installation.
(The phone activation is even automated, you don't even have to talk to a person once you hit your 3 limit activation)
So if you can prove when ANYONE has ever had to pay for a new copy of Windows based on a hardware change and reactivation, I would seriously like to see this.
Even in situations with friends computers that the circumstances of 'reactivting' were a bit dodgy, I simply talked to a MS person if the automated system failed, they issued a new key and didn't ask even why or even care.
The activation is more of a 'hey this software is protected' than a policing device, I wish people would realize this.
Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience. The only way that they can guarantee a stable, secure, and performant environment is to assert control over their hardware.
I agree with you; however, the key word here is 'they'.
Other OSes like Linux, OpenBSD, etc have proven that they can provide stable and secure environments that run on a massive amount of different hardware and hardware configurations.
And as much as the OSX world hates to hear this, OSX is not anymore stable than these OSes.
Even XP with SP2 and Windows 2003 server, WindowsXP is demonstrating that it can be as stable as OSX, and yet run on a nearly infinite amount of hardware configurations, and its security is starting be on par with other OSes as well, even with the flawed application development environment Microsoft left unsecure for 3rd party access to.
So the whole OSX package concept is probably true, but sad that Apple can only ensure the level of stability and security they are offering people now by keeping the hardware and software in a very small defined configuration.
Just imagine if Microsoft or Linux only shipped on a couple of CPU types and a couple of mainboard types like Apple, both OSes would be so stable it would take a monkey beating the hard drive with a hammer to crash them.
And yet, last night I restarted one of my OSX boxes again because of a Kernal Panic, guess I will have to go through the log to see if I can find what caused it this time, considering this is a pretty clean box, with nothing but pure Apple peripherials.
Oh and last Thursday we went through the large amount of installed fonts crashes that occur in OSX, seems that when you get over 500 fonts installed, some software, especially macromedia tools pop like a cheap balloon.
And I sit here on my WindowsXP notebook that hasn't had an application crash in the last two or three months at least (and it is a development system even), and has never had a system crash, not a single OS freeze, BSD, nothing.
Oh and should I mention I have close to 4000 fonts installed on this laptop, something I wish I could do on my Macs.
Now if my Macs could just pull of the same level of reliability I would be more happy with the Apple controlling the hardware and the software for reliability, until then, maybe they should just either make hardware or software and let people actually choose what they want to do with it...
The renesis's modifications are all external to the engine; a new intake manifold design, new port injection design, etc. The only change to the engine itself really is the enlargement of the intake ports (something tuners have been doing with stock rx7s since they came out). The tradeoff is the bigger the ports, the better high end performance you have, the worse low-end.
The engine is exactly the same as it was, otherwise. It is even classified as a 13B rotary in the shop manuals, so it's not the engine, it's the supporting hardware that makes the difference.
Interesting, this is something I didn't realize. I assumed the new engine had more design changes than the ports and was no longer a 13B.
Amazing the 13B technology from the mid 80s is still a viable design, although considering the simplicity of the Rotary design, I guess it shouldn't be so surprising.
Thanks for the info, I am off to read up more on the RX8...
You know, you don't actually have to write "TheNetAvenger" at the bottom of the post, it says it riiiiiight up the top just underneath the subject line, for everyone to see.
:)
No I didn't notice that, oh my God... (just funning with ya)
Actually, it is a habit so that your name doesn't get forgotten. (i.e. business communication, sign, repeat, sign, etc.)
And although not intended in this instance, it looks like it worked, I bet you won't forget it.
TheNetAvenger *Smile*
Do you have anything other than Microsoft's own FUD to back this up? We all know how reliable their Linux benchmarks are and what an incentive they have to get us to "upgrade."
I do; however, shouldn't you rethink this a bit? It is their OS, and their kernel technologies, who do you think would know them better than MS? Why would MS even put time into 'changing' what was in Win2K if it wasn't to improve it?
Secondly, the facts Microsoft present, like "Larger Device Drivers and System Space" are facts that any geek can check to see works in XP and will fail in Win2k as there is limited space.
As for the non-Microsoft FUD, the first link I posted was from a MS site, however the article was written by Mark Russinovich and David Solomon, and Mark is of SysInternals, a company that has been both assistive and quick to point out truths of flaws in NT over the years. You can find their site at:
http://www.sysinternals.com/
So unless they were just being paid to say what MS wanted them to say and risk their credibility with items that could easily be proven wrong if they were wrong, then ya, all I have is MS FUD.
If you don't believe the links I posted, go freaking test it yourself, try to break XP and prove to the world that MS has been lying about XP for 5 years and no one else but you were smart enough to find it. Prove that the Registry Limits are the same as Win2k, pick anything.
There are also a lot of other system changes that are only casually mentioned or skipped in these articles. For example, did you know that in WindowsXP if an application makes a very bad call, instead of just shutting down the offending application as Win2k would do to protect the OS, XP will try to figure out what the application was trying to do, and fix the call and pass back the correct information, address, etc in real-time, so the application doesn't fail and the user never even notices. All for compatibility to correct mistakes of 3rd party programmers that were idiots to keep the 'software' running as expected. That is enough of change in the OS between Win2k and XP to warrant the upgrade alone, let alone the performance, stability, and other improvements.
Does anyone here even think anymore, or does the Microsoft name invoke a knee-jerk reaction and bring out the 'idealistic anti-MS ignorance'?
Well I'm thinking of the MS strategy here, whos to stop them from charging in the future?
Customers, competition... Just becuase it is a new model, don't mean it won't be successful for others as well.
Besides, we all knew it was going to get to this point eventually. Phone would be like Cable, pay flat fee, and watch as much TV as you want. It has been getting closer and closer, and with technology easing the bandwidth and traffic problems of the past, should be a normal thing.
Besides, A) Microsoft wants to sell Windows Based devices & B) Maybe they realize it will actually help or improve the consumer market at the same time it helps them. What is wrong with a win win, even if they lose money investing in the technology initially.
Would I rather use OS X on the desktop and Linux or BSD on a server? Yes of course, but I do think Win 2K pro was the best version of Windows Microsoft ever issued if one is forced to use Windows for games or work
K ernel/default.aspx
r nel.mspx
Do you really not understand technology, or just pretending you don't?
WindowsXP has a massive scale of compatibilty, security, application stability and even tons of kernel enhancements over Win2k. People that see WindowsXP as Win2k with prettier graphics must also see a porshe as just a VW Bug with prettier paint.
Add in SP2 that forks off after the Windows 2003 server security and optimizations. (remmeber the reports that when Windows 2003 was first released it was faster on the desktop than XP? Well that code was pushed into WindowsXP in SP2.)
WindowsXP is not only safer, more compatible, has a ton more features, a more robust kernel, but is actually faster than Windows2K, even with the 'pretty' themes turned on. Average tests in our labs show XP consistently 10% faster than Win2k.
Here are some 'real' tech points, and these are just the changes in XP prior to SP2.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XP
Here is the MS version of some of the same topics:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/xp_ke
Happy reading and please for the love of God people stop believing that Win2k is A) Faster or B) more solid than XP. Both are false and just lead users to staying with an older OS and avoid XP when they could be benefiting from it.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
While I appreciate the amount of time you're taking writing that over and over again, I don't see how it changes the fact that it's completely irrelevant how many other companies might do it or not. Microsoft does hold a position which is quite different from any other software vendor at the moment, and which gives it certain authority on the market
I appreciate the time you are taking trying to understand this as well...
When Microsoft first atarted offering these licensing deals they were NOT the 800lb gorilla they are now.
Secondly they were admonished by the press and the industry for a common practice. I don't care if you keep repeating, "just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right."
No it don't but don't hold Microsoft up above the rest of the people that do crap and solely blame them for the problems.
Your time on your soap box would be better spent actually addressing the OEMs and other software companies that are now packing Google Desktop on your new computer than to keep yelling at Microsoft.
Microsoft does VERY litlee exclusive bundling deals anymore, go read what they are allowed to do from the DOJ settlement.
You are beating a dead horse by contining to state how awful MS is, when they are aren't even doing half of the crap you assume them to do be doing.
When Microsfot was hit with the Bundling deals during the 90s, they were trying to compete with OS/2 and OS companies, WHICH ALSO HAD exclusive contracts.
This would be like letting everyone in the world drive SUVS, then one day, notice they are consuming too much gas, and pick ONE PERSON in the work that owned 5 of them and blamed them for the Entire SUV problem.
Do you see why your lack of logic is so distressing to me?
Each of two chambers is divided into 3 working volumes by a single rotor, for a total of 6 independent working volumes at any given time. Wouldn't this be more analogous to a 6-cyl engine?
Possibly, and that is my point, yet the auto industry and insurance companies classify it as a 4 cylinder engine (not having a 2 chamber engine checkbox when they are filling out forms for it.)
It also had 4 spark plugs, so people assumed one plug per cylinder, etc etc... But that was misleading as two plugs worked with each chamber - trailing and leading.
In operation it is somewheber between a 4 cyclinder and 6 cylinder in terms of the ecentric chambers, but when modeled on performance alone it is a high end V6/V8 range depending othe V6 or V8 being compared to.
So to state that its fuel efficiency is bad, becuase people think of it in the 4cylinder class really don't get it. Put it in the V6 class at least, and then compare emissions and fuel efficiency.
Microsoft O/S 2 went on to become windows XP.
Not really, nothing was borrowed or brought over from the OS/2-IBM project.
MS did create a lot of what the geeks see OS/2 2.0 as (the first 32 bit version) but the falling out between IBM and MS was that IBM would not support a 386 only version of OS/2, it had to run on the 286 platform.
However after Microsoft said, ok and took their toys and went home, IBM scrambled to assemble what MS had left, used what code share access they had with Micrsoft and came out with OS/2 2.0
Thing people don't realize about OS/2 the Object Desktop that the users loved, were MS design concepts, not IBM. OS/2 had very poor kernel technology. OS/2 also use a single input Queue, meaning that ANY SINGLE application could hang the entire OS, as the user click could not get past the crashed application. (And no this was not fixed in V4 as a another posted suggested)
Oh and one of my favorite things OS/2 2.0 was billed a full 32bit OS, but like I said it had a crap kernel design as it was an kludge attempt by IBM to reassmeble the pieces of the MS work on OS/2. What this mean is that OS/2 even version 4.0 still used 16bit drivers, resulting in some very unstable incarnations.
Oh back to the Microsoft OS/2 becoming XP. Not quite. The Microsoft team moved on from OS/2, and actually started from scratch - for legal reason if nothing else, as IBM had code sharing and monitor rights to the NT OS. So even the HPFS was scrapped and some of its concepts were brought over to NTFS, but NTFS was entirely different.
Past that the kernel technologies and whole client/server kernel architecture of NT was something OS/2 couldn't even dream of doing. (Most OSes still can't do this, hence why you see Windows 2003 R2 with a full *nix subsystem (not emulated) running on the NT kernel).
OS/2 had some cool features in the Object Desktop - it was more object oriented than NEXT or OSX or Windows. The funny part, MS was the ones that developed it for IBM, and IBM initially canned it.
So go OS/2 fans, celebrate the technologies of MS that IBM shelved, and tell us how great hacked together MS technologies and IBM development technologies are to create the greatest OS ever, OS/2 of course.
*gag*
Microsoft doesn't trumpet news about booting because they only run on x86 (whoop doo)!
Really? Have you heard of WindowsXP Embedded or how about an XBox 360...?
The only reason XP only ships for 32bit and 64bit x86 and Itanium architectures, is a pure popularity issue, not a technological issue. NT was designed to be very portable, go look up the HAL and kernel concepts of NT.
Oh, and you are right, people are way to obsessed with bashing other people's fun. *wink
Pardon me for repeating what others have already said, but that is not a justification to anything, even if I did claim that Microsoft does something which other vendors don't (which I didn't). My beef is more about what Microsoft does in context of what it is.
Ok, I am kind of repeating this, but this is what you and the others are missing from this statement.
I also don't agree with exclusive bundles, or pricing that includes all units sold whether a copy was shipped with it or not.
However these bundling options were not invented by MS, they were entering the game from the old IBM model they were involved in, and picked up what everyone else was doing.
Ya, it is still a crap model, but a LOT of companies do this, it wasn't until Microsoft hit pay dirt of success that it became a problem.
The second part is that when Microsoft became too successful, and issues about these OEM licensing deal came to light, many people were quick to point fingers at Microsoft and be disgusted at Micrsoft for doing what almost EVERY OTHER software company was doing.
In fact, software companies that were offering the SAME deals to OEMs, were quick to step in and shake their finger at Microsoft. It was using the media and the anti-Microsoft propaganda at its finest.
The third thing that is STILL missed in all of this... Even though we all agree these are bad licensing deals, so bad my company would not touch them even to save a few bucks, we still push the blame back to Microsoft. It is the OEMs signing the contracts and screwing their customers, Microsoft is not holding a gun to their heads. Additionally, these same companies are STILL signing these same type of licensing/bundling deals with every other company in the business to save a buck or two.
It truly is the greed of the OEMS that has screwed consumers and consumer choice, not Microsoft, not Wordperfect, not even IBM.
Step back for a minute and remember I was in this position as the head of a OEM, and Microsoft was good to our company and didn't care if we did a licensing deal or bought our OEM copies through a vendor 25 or even 5 copies at time.
- Also realize that I looked at the other companies that were whoring themselves out to every software company in the world to save a couple of bucks and was in digust that these companies would screw the choice of the consumer for a few bucks.
- I saw this issue from the OEM side, we just chose not to screw our customers, and we also decided that we didn't want to lock our customers into Windows on 100% of our PC sales, and we even liked Microsoft.
The years I saw all of this transpire were from 1990 through 1999, and I still shake my head at Dell and HP and Gateway for screwing their customers to save a few bucks.
You do realize that hardware vendors also do this, right? There has been a reason Dell wouldn't sell AMD CPUs, or some companies only sold ATI Video Cards, etc... And again it comes down to the OEMs, not ATI or Intel.
Dell or HP could and can always say no, period.
It isn't fair to be mad at Microsoft, unless you are willing to be mad at almost every other software and hardware company out there.
Minor correction - the 13B engine was reintroduced on the 1984 model GSL-SE RX7. Mine is still running (original engine), with over 250,000km on the odometer.
:)
:)
You are right, it was 84 and GSL-SE, not GXL-SE. The 84s were very rare though, even the 85s were rare.
I almost bought a used 85 GSL-SE, but instead waited and got a new 87 GXL.
I already had an 81 GS, and after driving a friends 86, I actually liked the feel of the new body, and wanted something different from my 81. Also the lure of the active suspension system and passive rear steering int he 86-91 models was actually quite impressive, especially for the time. And even being a bit 'bigger' it still felt so nimble and was very much still an RX7.
PS Enjoy your RX7, it should also be worth a penny or two someday being the SE. I moved from my 87 RX7 to a new Corvette convertable in 1991, and even though the Vette had muscle, looks, I missed the way my RX7 drove.
The Corvette was great, but it drove more like a race car than a sports car. It had speed, muscle and great cornering, but you had to know how to drive to get everything out of it. The RX7 was more about doing the same things, but with a bit of ease, letting the car do a lot of the work for you, especialy in agility and cornering.
I then moved to a 1993 RX7 and it again had that distinct feel my older RX7s had. I kept it and had a couple of Vettes at the time. I enjoyed driving the RX7 more, but the Vettes always got more attention.
I have been tempted to pick up an RX8, I tested one for a day, and it had that Mazda/RX7 feel, although not quite as tight as the RX7. If they do a Turbo/Performance version of the RX8, I will be one of the first people in line. I would like to see a new RX7 as well.
Sorry for the long post, just reminding me of my RX7s and days of youth.