Nope, sorry. "Wankel engines are criticized for poor fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions."
"Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust."
"A related cause for unexpectedly poor fuel economy involves an inherent weakness of the Wankel rotor design when used with conventional fuels. Some studies have indicated that at high speeds, the rate at which the volume of the combustion chamber increases in the moments after ignition actually outpaces the expansion of the burning fuel. The result is that, at high speeds, less useful energy is extracted from the same volume of fuel"
You need to rely on more than wikipedia my friend. Originally the Wankel design was less efficient at both the full usage of the fuel, resulting in lower fuel efficiency and extra pollution.
However if you would have looked up some of the Work Mazda specifically did with the design, these concerns were virtually gone at the 12A engine, and with the 13B engine were better than a comperable performing regular cylinder engine.
Remember you have to contrast the performance of the Engine. A 1987 (13B) Mazda RX7's fuel efficiency was better than a 6 Cylinder Nissan, yet the Mazda produced more horsepower.
Additionally, with the Mazda designs, the combustion chamber DOES Burn the fuel more completely, and there are considerable less emmissions when comparing the engine to the same performing engine.
Here is where people get confused. The Mazda Rotary engines were 'classified as 4cylinder engines because they had 4 spark plugs - lead and trail on each of the two chambers'. However the engine is in the performance class of V6 and V8 engines.
So yes, if you were to compare a 2 chamber Rotary engine with an average 4 cylinder engine, the fuel economy looked bad. However, when compared to the same performance level 6 cylinder engine, the rotary was far ahead of it.
So these are false stats, as you can't truly call the Mazda Rotary a 4 cylinder engine, when it outperforms 6 cylinder engines. (And technically it is a two chamber engine.)
Even look at the new rotary in the RX8, it is technically classified as a 4 cylinder engine for insurance purposes or in common car classifications; however, it outperforms the Mitsubishi Eclipse 6 cylinder engine, and gets the same or better fuel efficiency. So in terms of power, it is a 6 or 8 cylinder engine.
Here think about it like this, a 1985 Corvette had 230hp, with the new tuned port V8, and yet the new Mazda RX8 has better horsepower and better fuel efficiency.
If you want to call the 2 chamber rotary a 4 cylinder engine, and try to compare it to an engine that produces about 1/2 the HP, then sure, the fuel efficiency doesn't look so great.
But doing so would be a bit 'insane'...
PS WikiPedia is only as good as the person that felt like an expert the day before you looked up the article, do some real research next time.
I may not do cars for a living, but I know my way around them, owned every type of RX7 and many other sports cars, outside of computers, it is my passion. I also did an engineering paper on the Wankel when I was in University, so I have did a bit more than just drive and work on them.
wonder when people will realize that hydrogen is merely an energy currency? Do they realize that electricity (a.k.a. Fossil Fuels) must still be used to break apart the water? Do they further realize that any compressed gas is a pain to transfer anywhere? When will people realize that ethanol, until it can be produced in extremely massive quantities (30 gallons per vehicle per week, minimum ), is merely a short-term solution to a long-term problem? Why are people nowdays programmed to think just like the media wants them to think?
Energy Currency? Wow, I wonder when people will actually do a bit of research instead of reciting the oil industry taglines...
Ya in your senerio alternative energies don't look so great, as the coal plant producing the electricity, etc etc...
However, go lookup Humboldt State University, there are also several other programs that are in testing production processes that PRODUCE hydrogen from either Solar/water processes or simplistic chemcial reactions. Go do a search on this, the information is out there and is feasible.
And that is the key and ticket out of the cycle of the energy currency that goes back to fossil fuels.
Also hydrogen is a great starting point, in production of hydrogen the pollution you get is Oxygen and resulting pollution from consumption is water. Also Elec-hydro based vehicles would not only be fossil fuel independant, but imagine a car with 4 independant motor assemblies at each wheel. It would have the control, stability and performance that exceeds a race car, and be pollution free, quiet, and even safer.
Also we don't have the density to energy concerns of the previous generation of cars. A car that needs to be refueled every 200-300 miles is not a problem, even driving across Utah and Nevada if the alternative fuel as available as Gas is now. We don't need the extended range we did even 30 years ago.
Now consider, a small US based public works project to decide on a fuel, subsidize it, and create a new market would cost maybe what, 8 or 10 billion dollars to change the face of both the Fueling stations and auto industry to produce and convert vehicles in the US. Do you realize how tiny of an amount of money that is for the US? Heck even say 50 billion to start this new industry and move vehicles alone to non-fossil fuels. Is that really so much? We spend that kind of money on crap and lies....
By the way, what is probably the most advanced vehicle ever made? Space Shuttle by chance? Past the solid fuel boosters, what is the fuel of the Space Shuttle? So why if fossil is the end game of all energy currency do you think NASA would be so stupid to use hydrogen?
Or maybe they aren't buying the oil company tag lines and are using what is best for the job.
232HP in the Renesis (RX-8 engine) is no more efficient than the 13B's found in later model RX-7's? Considering it took a twin turbo to hit the 255HP stock in the 7? The engine itself is incredible and has a 9500RPM redline that's mostly in place to keep from destroying the transmission. Seems like a technology / efficiency improvement to me...
Agree, however the 9500RPM isn't much different than the 9000RPM redline in many of the 13B RX7s.
But the new version of the Rotary is quite a bit more advanced than the 13B, considering like you said it nearly has the same performance without any turbo assistance.
Now just imagine a twin-turbo version of the new Renesis engine in the RX8 or even a RX7.... It would be in the performance class of the low 3sec 0-60 performance cars of today like the Z06 Vette.
Mazda has been the main user of the rotary engine for the past decade or so. Both their RX-7 (which ended it's lifespan in 1995, IIRC) and the current RX-8 are rotary engine designs.
From the reading car enthusiast forums that I frequent, both are seen as great cars, but have their share of oil leaks. Additionally, it's rather difficult to find a mechanic that is willing to work on rotary engines, so most cars are maintained by shade-tree mechanics.
The Oil leaks are not leaks, the nature of the lubrication system of the rotary design intentionally burns a small amount of oil during operation as a part of the lubrication process. However it is only like a 1/2qt every 3000-4000 miles.
The older RX3 and RX5 vehicles made by Mazda in the 70s DID have oil leaks, but this was due to a faulty seal design that was overcome with the 12A Rotory engine introduced in the new 1979 RX7. The engine's size was increased and refined again in 1985 with the GXL-SE RX7, and this engine, the 13B, then became the standard engine of the new body style that ran from 1986.
Mazada redesigned the RX7 again in 1992, and it still holds as one of the top sports cars ever produced, with under 5sec 0-60sec times, over 1g skipad, etc. However the engine in the 1992 RX7 Was the same basic 13B engine introduced in 1985, but with an improved twin turbo system, giving this simple engine amazing horsepower and the lower end torque to move.
The RX8 is a new revision to the Rotary engine, giving it more horsepower without the need for turbo. (However if the earlier Twin-Turbo was added to this engine, it would be in the ranks of the fastest cars ever made, a decision I think Mazda skipped on due to the market of the RX8(too much power for the average buyer); however, rumors of it or a new RX7 with twin-turbo are going around.
As for working on the rotary engine, it is out of ingornance if mechanics won't work on them, they are a very simple design, much simplier than the more complex piston based combustion engine.
The biggest failure in RX7s were the transmissions, as the rotary engine normally runs at a higher RPM than other engines, as it just keeps spinning and doesn't have to reverse direction. So a 9K redline is nothing, in fact many street racers and modders in the late 80s early 90s used RX7s in racing because the standard engine could still perform reasonably well in the 15,000-18,000 rpm range, it was the transmission to hold up to this amount of speed and power that was the trick.
Rotary engines are quite interesting and surprising that they have not caught on more in the market. They can be more fuel efficient, and emmissions are often better as the engine does a more complete burn process of the fuel. They are also surpsingly small, and lightweight. An average person can lift the engine. Which is kind of cool seeing a tiny engine that back in 1992 and 1993 was basically a 2 cylinder engine and could out perform even the Corvette ZR1 at the time.
The light weight nature of the engine and lack of vibration were also benefits to the performance of the car, as the engine could be mounted futher back in the car giving the car a 50/50 weight distribution for great cornering, and unlike other cars in its class, no vibration problems that other companies like Nissan were plaqued with when they tried to compete with their 6cylinder engines of the time.
Another footnote on the Mazda/Rotary engine is that in the racing circuit, Mazda for years has used a 3cylinder version of the rotary engine in its racing cars, and unline competitors like GM/Corvette, Porche, Ferrari, etc - the Mazda team uses the SAME engine throughout the racing season because of its high durability, where the other competitors usually replace engines between each race.
I am somewhat of a car enthusiast, and have owned all 3 variations of the RX7. I actually miss them, they were fast, nimble cars that were easy to do things well in them.
In contrast to the Corvettes and other performance cars I ha
Why no PCI? Does WPF need texture acceleration to do compositing?
1) PCI (old PCI) is still in debate on whether chipset in that range will support glass, like a Geforce FX 5200 PCI version (non-PCI/Express).
2) WPF and Glass are NOT the same thing in terms of your video card requirements. That is why this post and article is VERY misleading. Glass is a series of effects that the Windows UI turns on for Windows Borders, flipping Windows, Animations, etc.
WPF is a whole replacement technology for the Windows GDI+. It is device independant, and will even display 3D applications on even the oldest non-3D graphics cards, in fact it transends displays and will render 3D scenes of your application on Printers, store them in documents, etc.
(For example you write an application in WPF and add in a 3D Scene with a Floating cube with charts on the cube updating in realtime that you can click on.) It will run on ANY video card, as this is WPF.
However if you have a Video Card that does not have a true Pixel Shader (pre-DirectX 9.0 level hardware 3D cards, the 'glass' effects in Windows will not turn on, as your video card could simply not keep up without slowing your system to a crawl due to the nature of what the 'Glass' effects do.
In other words, if your video card is old, you will get some acceleration features, your windows will look like WindowsXP but updated, and you will get some features of the new video system (think OSX level of Video in the UI)
- However you will not get all the 'Glass features that hardware supported DirectX 9.0 cards will have for the Windows UI, and this has nothing to do with the applications that use WPF for display.)
WPF will run on anything and applications using it will run on anything, but Microsoft has chosen not to make the whole Windows UI turn on GPU intensive tasks if your GPU(Video Card) can't do them.
Microsoft can't make your vide card do things it can't do with the performance needed for all applications, it is that simple.
Sure MS can do software rendering for WPF when your video card lacks, and give you good performance, but again, that has NOTHING to do with the 'Glass' effects in the Vista UI.
well, what they say does sound good... but then again, if you read up on Apple's "visions" you will find it just as impressive. All in all, this stuff is at the vaporware stage right now.
If you look at what MS and Apple actually implemented so far, you will find Apple somewhat ahead (probably partly because of all the "legacy" crap MS has to support, while Apple just cut and run, starting afresh with OS X).
Well considering our company is USING this stuff and has been for many months, you can call it vaporware if you want. The WPF and XPS was finaliazed in December, although not a tremdous amount has changed since September.
Strangely, we are still waiting for development kits from Apple to support 3D animations in their wonderful GUI, features they promised us as developers when OSX 10.0 was released, strangely, we can look at demos on their site, and write 'some of them' but for the most part it is crap that don't work.
As for the MS Vaporware, even YOU can download the WPF/Avalon/XPS for WindowsXP, and write or use programs TODAY using this technology. You don't even have to wait for Vista. Maybe I should ask, in your reality, is that still vaporware?
Since Windows is right now already pretty much everywhere, by only bundling Linux on consumer boxes you'd probably just attract a long tech support nightmare. On the other hand, by giving up the exclusive Windows deal but still bundling Windows you'd be at a profit disadvantage compared to several of your competitors. So no, nobody's being blatantly forced to anything, but there is that implied gun inside the jacket pocket.
You are missing the points...
A) IBM was doing this with OS/2 and DOS and other various software companies back in the 1980s even.
B) The cost difference is tiny, even in volume, by buying from companies that won't ship you a computer without Windows is your fault first, and the vendor second.
C) Even if these companies wanted to start shipping Linux, what distribution? And do you think they want to take on all the support and patches themselves?
Until a strong distribution emerges that handles this support like MS does for these companies, they won't do it. HOWEVER, they should ship you a box with NO OS, and let you choose, if they don't yell at them NOT MICROSOFT.
This is NOT Microsoft's fault. No matter how you want to manipulate reality, they did nothing different than IBM or any other Software vendor has been doing for 30 years.
Gateway and Dell and HP, etc love to keep the myth going that MS forces them to ship you a copy of Windows, this takes the heat off of them for people like you or me that want to buy a computer with no OS.
Yell at the OEMs, not Microsoft. I was the head of a leading OEM, and we didn't lock our customers into Windows, or MS Office, even though users chose it 99% of the time.
bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...
Considering the tremendous amount of drivers and the current level of stability found in WindowsXP.
Does this not make more people have a little bit more respect for Microsoft and what WindowsXP can actually do, even with infinite driver configurations possible?
So is OSX really better, or better just because of its limited hardware 'closed' architecture?
If nobody wants it, then why does Microsoft do the OEM "keep others out" deal anymore?
10 years and people still don't get it...
1) Bulk/Bundle licensing has been around for a long freaking time, pre-Windows even.
2) It is the OEM's decision to buy the bulk licensing to include Windows, NOT Microsoft. Blame Dell, or whoever is making the computer, not the OS Vendor.
I was the head of a very successful company in the late 90s that competed against the Dells, Gateways, etc. WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THE BULK BUNDLING DEAL WITH MICROSOFT. It cost as 3-5 dollars a copy more for OEM Windows (That is it), and Microsoft gave us all the benefits that Dell and any other company got. The only difference is we could choose to sell a BSD or Linux based computer, the trade off, we paid about $3 more for each OEM copy of Windows.
So when you talk about Microsoft keeping the 'market' from moving to Linux or BSD or anything else, you need to yell at Gateway and Dell and others for CONTINUING the myth that is a Microsoft thing, when it is their OWN thing and their OWN greed to save the $4 bucks instead of offer more choices for their users.
Everyone is mad at Microsoft for the Windows Bundling, but EVERY freaking company does it, and has offered it. Microsoft DOES NOT require ANY company to do it, nor do they get ANYTHING but a better price.
And yet companies like Google are signing the same deals with Dell, and other companies in the past have as well, so that you can't order a freaking Dell without the Google desktop, or think back over the past 10 years and all the CRAP software that was bundled with your computer as 'feature'.
Heck even Corel's Wordperfect tried to get my company to exclusive bundle their prducts by offering a better a price.
Why do you think you see so many Wordperfect bundles on systems (especially over the past 8 years), do you think it is because the computer makers are trying to get back at Microsoft? They could give a crap, plain and simple, Wordperfect is cheap, and exclusive bundles are even cheaper.
Yet everyone thinks Microsoft is the only one doing this, or is doing it in a way that no one else is doing it.
So go yell at Dell, HP, Gateway, NEC, Toshiba, etc. They are ones that have limited your OS choices, not Microsoft...
I think OS X will always be faster and use much less memory since it's going to be running natively and not in an arbitrary intermediate binary layer like.NET.
How do you know so much in basic concepts, yet run back to a really bad assumption? Why do you think.NET has anything to do with this?
How does an XML graphics foundation automatically become 'managed.NET'?
Why do you assume that everything in Windows is written in.NET?.NET is a managed environment, but the entire OS is not written in it, in fact very little of the OS or the core technologies are managed.NET, instead most everything is much like other OSes and good old C and C++ in optimized compilers, just as any applicaiton developer can and does do when developing an application for Windows..NET is there for many reasons, but it is an application development level technology, not something OSes or OS technologies are built in.
What you are saying is as crazy as telling us not to trust or use Sun's Solaris as the Window Manager is built in slow JAVA(Which is NOT true). So you can see why I find your assumptions and statements a bit absurd?
As of right now, Quartz is still fantastic and matches Avalon
Really? You can design user controls in a 3D workspace, really? I missed the development memo from Apple on this, you can design 3D workspace animations, but WITHOUT interactive UI and Control elements. At least according to Apple, unless you know something Apple hasn't even hinted at or released to its developers.
Additionally, there are also tons of inherent graphics effects, filters, etc that is supported in WPF(Avalon) that Quartz has NO CONCEPT of even how to handle.
And the kicker here would be, WPF(Avalon) even has 3D collision detection built in. Show me where Quartz can not only define a cube with User UI Controls on it spinning in front of you, but also inherently be able to detect and model collision for the space occupied by the spinning cube?
You have an above average understanding, I will give you that, but your understanding falls short of complete when it comes to what is in the WPF and Vista graphical technologies.
OSX is nothing to sneeze at, but just to say it is on par with WPF when you don't even realize half of what is in WPF is a gross mistake.
This is obviously an area of interest to you, go look up some of the stuff I mentioned, don't even take my words for it. You are the type of person that would probably enjoy checking some of this stuff out.
Well, at least I didn't post an ad-hominem attack with no facts whatsoever.
*wink*
Fine, even if you believe my post has no real facts... Then if this interesed you enough to respond, go look up what I was talking about, and 'fact-check' what I was saying.
Even if you do this quietly for yourself, prove yourself right or wrong. I agree, don't take my word, I could be a nut living under a bridge.
Trust yourself, go to www.microsoft.com or do some searches on the Internet about Vista and WPF technologies. Especially check out reactions from developers from the September PDC that got a chance to see what is different and novel.
You might discover something that you find interesting.
Hmm. And how much money will businesses pay for that particular feature? Will the CIO sign off new PCs with spiffy graphics cards on every desk on that basis?
Ok, and did you read my original post?
Vista and WPF will do this type of 3D technology on a NON-3D 1996 1MB Video Card. Sure it won't be as freaking fast as a NVidia 7800, but it will run respectibly.
The 3D framework of WPF is NOT hardware dependant, as it translates to DirectX and DirectX software rendering if necessary based on the level of acceleration the GPU(Video) has.
And considering that 10 year old video cards will run WPF type of applications, we can pretty much assume most people won't have to upgrade 'anything'. Understand?
The whole buzz about needing new video is the current FUD of the anti-MS crowd or crap articles written by journalists that have no concept of what WPF even is.
Glass and WPF are the same technologies but independant in implementation.
If this interests you enough to post on it, or concerns, go to www.microsoft.com or a real 'developer' or tech site that has a clue about the technologies and 'got' what Microsoft presented at the PDC in September.
Don't sit back and listen to me or anyone else, truly read up on this stuff, it is quite interesting in what is unique about it and what it will do that truly hasn't been done before. Even if you hate Microsoft, you will learn something from this journey and might find ideas to build applications or implement ideas in the OS you use and support.
Trust me, there are ideas and some impressing things they are doing that will surprise just about anyone.
soooo, isn't teh whole point of.net that of internet based application development?
Um, no..NET is about managed code, langauge independance, messaging technologies inside a closed network or across the internet, and about 50 other things not related to Internet Applications.
However, this really has no relevance, as this article is crap...
Maybe I should write an article about monkey DNA, and devote ten pages to how Windows is perfect, Linux is the devil and then put in the last paragraph, "Monkeys have DNA." Then I could get an insightful article on Monkey DNA posted on Slashdot.
What has happened to this site? It used to stand for something, now it is becoming the Enquirer of the Internet world.
What next, "Two headed Linux user from Mars proclaims Windows obsolete?"
Shall we even note this is '2D' Extreme? The WPF in Vista is a full 3D rendering environment.
Create a scene, add light sources, add reflection, add textures, put user controls on a floating cube in a sky, and have it be a real application that a person could click on information on the cube and store phone numbers for example, and then pick up the cube and throw it ot the back of the application 3D scene.
No tricks to 'look 3D' - REAL 3D rendered environments, with user controls for applications, using reall GPU '3D' acceleration.
Oh, and about 30 lines of code to create tihs application, no gaming engine or other abstraction layer needed to traverse the complexity of DirectX that the WPF call through to.
Seriously, I am really not trying to dog Apple, I use OSX daily. It is damn good in a lot of areas. But what Microsoft is doing with their new technologies are pretty 'amazing' from a developer viewpoint, and what it will enable for applications and users in the next few years. Stuff Apple either 'doesn't get' or don't want their users to 'get' yet.
So I plead, go look this stuff up, instead of just posting about what you know. I don't even know everything about the WPF and Vista technologies, but the portions I do get and know about are jaw dropping, and I have been involved in Windows and Mac development for over 20 years.
This is not a copy of OSX, nor even an attempt to copy OSX, this is the next generation of the API display technologies Microsoft Hinted about back in 1995 when Win95 was released. This is stuff, as exclusive testers at that time, got to see a glimpse of, way before OSX.
It is in your interest to 'understand' what Microsoft is doing right, and even if you don't use or develop for Windows, understand what is good about this on the Windows/Vista platform and either get this technology or a form of it over to your Mac or *nix box. Or poke Apple to get this level of technology to their users and you as well.
I really didn't mean to come off as an ass on this, I just become impatient when people really don't know much about Vista or WPF other than some non-tech journalist source, or the myth buzz words that they are copying Postscript, or copying OSX, or copying Flash. It is SO not even close to this, that if you knew what I did, you would want to literally go ARGH!!!!.
I have not run the beta's so I would like someone who has run them to fill me in here.
But the interface needed to handle the I/O and commands from the CPU to video card so all the graphics can run off the GPU require PCIExpress since AGP is too limited.
I have an athlonXP 2400 and I plan to put in 2gigs of 333mgz ddram and upgrade the processor to an Athlon3000XP. However I dont know if my geforce6600 can handle it because its only pci based. -- better !pout !cry better watchout lpr why mv/etc/northpole/santaclaus ~/town cat
Your system is way above what Vista requires.
Vista will run on a 300mhz Pentium II, and a 1Mb Video Card. Performance will be inline with WindowsXP.
The only thing Vista requires, for technical reasons, is that to get the 'glass' effect in the UI, you need a video card that has been made in the past 3 years. Basically any Card that has DirectX 9.0 Pixel Shader Hardware support.
And PCI/Express which is what your card is probably using as the 6600 comes in both AGP and PCI/Express is far above requirements. We have test systems with Video cards that are 1/10 the speed of your card, and using Glass effects in Vista.
All other acceleration and advances like with the WPF will work fine on basically any system that is currently running Win2k or WinXP.
AGP is more than fast enough for what Vista requires, in fact, with the LDDM (WDDM) model, even the older PCI (non-express) will do suprising well, and that is the slowest display interface technology still around at all.
Don't buy into the myths, people here love to run the myth lines like they are fact, when most of these people have not only not even used the technology, developed for it, or have architectural backgrounds to comprehend what is really happening in Vista.
Even 'tech' Journalists so often 'don't' get the technology, so they report what they know, and don't put it in terms everyone can understand.
So OS X does use GPU and (falls back to CPU) for pretty much everything, except for old QuickDraw apps. If fact, on Tiger with CoreImage you could even make it do all common image manipulation tasks on GPU, if it's available. And if your app uses standard frameworks (Cocoa, QuickTime), it will automatically use Quartz2D.
Oh, and we Mac users actually get laid, too.
Love your Mac I see, and glad you are having sex with it. However there is quite a difference between a 2D display technology using GPU funtions and a true 3D architecture presentation technology. Simulating 3D effects and actually knowing how to draw 3D effects are TWO different things. (Understand?)
I get so tired of trying to explain this. Go look this stuff up instead of just assuming that Apple is the most awesome thing ever invented.
OSX is basically doing little more than Win2K/XP with GDI+ and off screen drawing to the GPU RAM. As for accelerated functions from the GPU, Windows has been doing 2D GPU accelerations since Win 2.0/386 and cards like the 8514 and ATI Vantage, oh like 15 freaking years ago.
WPF is the layer between basic application display models and DirectX. i.e., using DirectX technology beyond gaming and exposing the interfaces and acceleration in a model that allows all applications to tap into it at any time, including the Windows UI.
There is no splitting between OpenGL, Quartz, QuickDraw, etc... It is the replacement for the GDI API in Windows and is not just a way to display cute 'postscript' images on the screen, but inherently does everything from vector level image rendering, to full 3D scene rendering with even collision detection.
And don't even start into the OSX has OpenGL, THESE ARE NOT EVEN THE SAME TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY or level of abstraction. Windows also has OpenGL and DirectX, that is not the freaking point.
If you actually understood anything about the Vista display model and WPF you would have one hell of a laught at your post and others like yours.
Why did you just post, "I am a Mac fanatic that knows nothing of these big words the others are using, but I have do say something to show everyone I am cool and love my Mac."
It would have been more factual and a bit more honest.
1. take something like postscript 2. come up with the standard that does the same thing, but which you can make closed-source, and closed-spec. 4. "enhance" the performance by programming it in Indian code 5.... 6. profit
PS Brownie points to those who guess what such Microsofted postscript is called in Vista!
1. Go actually read about the WPF 2. GO actually read about the LDDM and WDDM technology in Vista 3. Go actually read the difference between using Video RAM to buffer the onscreen image (as in OSX) and using all of the GPU for 3D applications and interaction. 4. Go lookup the word, bloviate and hold the definition next your face in mirror three times.
Just because the software is installed doesn't mean it automatically runs. I believe you have to "opt-in".
Actually it is pretty much hidden from the user, I know people that didn't even know the Google crap was on their system. In theory, I'm sure they did 'opt-in' by placing the Dell order or some other item, but that is different than them know it is there and also knowing what is is doing with the information.
So google is different from every? other search engine how? If you can't answer this yourself, maybe you haven't read the terms of Google or some of the other web sites.
There is a difference between counting the popular serach terms, or using the search terms to display an ad on the results page, and what Google does by tracing your search terms via your IP (or cookie) and them correlating this informaitn with any GMail that is brought in or out of the Google system to see who you are and associate your searches to you specficially.
So do a search on "Donkey Farming" on google, then email your friend at GMail, Google now has your IP, what you search for, and your email address.
Now add in the kicker, since Google admitted they are 'data mining' all GMail for marketing, if you typed your name or address or phone number, they also have that as well now.
Do you see that all mentioned on the Google Search Page? If so, show me. Do you see this on the Google search box in your favorite broswer? Nope again... Do you think the average Googler actually researches all this to see how they are being tracked?
There is something really wrong with a company, when Microsoft looks at them and goes, 'wow' that is just 'freaking' wrong, they are so screwing over people and collecting information they have no business seeing.
If Google makes Microsoft gasp at how users are treated, don't that give you a bit pause yourself?
Do they really not make it clear? Or are people just lazy and apathetic? I know where I would place my money....
Answer this question for yourself, did you know all the facts I posted above, like them data mining all in and out GMail, and associating that to email and IPs to correlate it to searches on the main site?
If you didn't, and assuming you didn't or you wouldn't be defending them, can I call you lazy and apathetic then also for not know this?
Truly, think about this, it is a bit over the top, no matter how you try to paint what Google is doing.
all Aero Glass is mostly based on developments seen quite a while ago in OS X [apple.com].
Um... No... There is quite a level of difference between OSX's Graphics and what Vista is bringing to the table. Even Video cards that don't support Glass will be able to do amazing 3D application and animation effects that OSX STILL can't do without the application being written for OpenGL.
I know this is a common myth, but truly, trust me. There is a big difference between Vista's graphics and OSX. And I am not so much talking about the UI, the the driver model, the WPF technologies and all the other things OSX or any other OS will simply just not do.
This is NOT true, do the Slashdot editors even know people that are in the Vista Beta or have a MSDN subscription?
Vista scales its graphics to three levels, the basic level which still supports all of the WPF applications, scales the OS UI back to look like Windows 2000. This level however does not use WPF effects for the UI, such as transparent 'glass' Window Frames, etc.
The second level is a cross between WindowsXP and the Vista Interface. Again it supports all the WPF applicaitons, however the UI, visually is themed and looks somewhat like the higher level 3D 'Glass' Vista UI.
The third level is the 'high' level 'glass' and basically works on any Video Card that has basic DirectX 9.0 features built in. This level brings the WPF and 3D effects to the UI.
You get Glassy WIndow Frames that not only are transparent but also do a blur effect on the Windowsw Frames with Shading. This level also takes full advantage of your cards 3D Acceleration features throughout the basic Windows UI.
However even in the 'basic' mode Vista will run on ANY video card, Vista will still do amazing looking 3D effects on a crap card with the WPF, and if possible take advantage of any 3D GPU acceleration features in your video card.
For example if you are running a 1998 ATI Rage 128 32MB Video card, you are going to run in the seconde level of quality, and can turn it down to the basic level if you choose. (See, even old cards run in the second level, just like they would be themed in WindowsXP.)
Now even if your video card is only able to run in the second level or lets say, it has no 3D acceleration features, Vista will still properly run WPF and 3D WPF designed applications.
For example the WPF Chess game that comes with Vista, has reflective tile, smooth lines, is a full 3D applciaiton workspace, and runs with or without a 3D GPU in the computer. (The power of software rendering of WPF and DirectX.)
What Vista won't do on older video Cards is map the UI to 3D RAM on the GPU, and slow down your computer interface to display cute animations or glass if your Video card is not fast enough to do that.
So if you are running a computer with a video diplay older than a Geforce FX 5200, then you won't get the pretty UI, but if you have an old FX 5200 you will, and most people can pick this level of card up for almost any computer for like 30-50 US. (You can even buy a PCI version for your 500mhz system that has no AGP port, get the pretty Vista high level Glass.)
There are some recent 'cheap' Intel onboard chipsets that don't support enough 3D to the high level 3D display mode, and there are also some onboard Video that uses shared Memory, etc that won't support the high level Vista display mode.
Sure these people won't get the 'glass' effect, but they will be able to do everything else. And if they want the prettier interface, buying a video card that is considered 'low level' by today's standards is not such a big thing. If these people are playing WoW or any other game released in the past few years, they already have had to buy a newer video card anyway.
And Vista without Glass is not ugly or losing a lot for people, all it means is that Windows itself won't be sucking your GPU power and RAM for 'pretty' effects, when it is not necessary.
This not much different than people turning off themes in XP, expect there is a new level of UI themes in Vista that is a full 3D UI implementation that Windows itself uses for displaying runing applicaitons and the Windows Shell Interface.
If anyone has any doubts or questions go to the WinSuperSite, he seems to have the ability to release information on Vista without breaking an NDA. http://www.winsupersite.com/ (You can even see him explain this, screen shots of the different modes, and why and how it works.) -It is actually pretty slick and smart of Microsoft.
One thing Microsoft if introducing with Vista is a new Display Driver Model Called the LDDM an
I think the difficult part is that MS bundles so much garbage with their OS. IE often gets counted in when the common folk count up errors, but IE often gets counted as non OS when "objectively evaluated". But then things like xterm problems get counted in with the lump "linux" vulnerabilites. Where the hell is the line for determining what counts towards the OS and what doesn't? It doesn't seem to matter how obscure the project is for it to count against the number of linux vulnerabilities either. Ok so what, you can use Firefox instead of IE, which "removes" Windows vulnerabilities...but Firefox vulnerabilities get added to the linux total? Where is the sense in lumping every project capable of running on linux together as "linux vulnerabilities". Hell, it seems like the solution is to port every OSS app to Windows and make it count against Windows too...not that it never gets counted on that side.
You make a lot of valid points and a good place to begin a debate the security community should be having as a whole.
It is hard to determine what is part of what, and who is responsible for what, etc. I would like to see even levels of granularity beyond even just the OS or product.
For example, use Windows as an example. MS should report NT Kernel and Win32 Kernel vulerabilities separately, and as the OS is layered, so shall the security vulnerabilities be defined as well.
For example, IE is a part of the Windows OS, not so much Internet Explorer, but the IE HTML rendering engine that many applications not made by Microsoft utiilze. This should be classified as an OS level security issue, as we should also be tracking what are security issues and stability issues when patches are released as well.
The more we think about the need for this level of information the more we realize how and why we need it, and how complex it is to define initially.
Where do we classify a security hole in XWindows, that affect KDE,Motif,GNOME, and then where do we classify a security hole that exists only in KDE and GNOME but not other Desktop Managers?
Without this information, if a security hole pops up in a portion of code taht is shared by 60% of a particular ditribution, how do we or the distribution even know if they are affected, or if the company producing the distribution ever patches it.
The complexity grows...
Companies with single distributions are going to be easier to pin down, MS, Apple, Sun, etc. But even with them, what about BSD fixes, has Apple fully applied them to OSX and properly, and not exposed others through their closed Window Manager? Even Microsoft is once again shipping non-Microsoft components with Windows, Windows 2003 Server R2 has a full *nix subsystem, so a common *nix component flaw could come back and be a flaw in the Windows *nix subsystem as well.
We need to poke the 'security' people in our field to set some 'real' standards and require companies to report (even if automated) all patched and unpatched flaws and security holes. And this would work in the Open Source world as well, just as patches propagate through the community, reporting on the fixes could as well.
But until then... We only know what we know, and none of us can take any OS seriously for complete security, until we have real facts, we have to do our jobs and keep the word out and all our OS companies on their toes, and keep our OSes locked and patched, taking no chances.
If you're worried about what Google will do with your data, it ought to be your responsbility not to hand it over to them.
I agree, however the average joe blow that is buying a new dell that has Google desktop installed when it arrives, don't get the option to choose, nor are very many people informed about the data collection they perform.
This is kind of like the tiny fine print on a contract. Also there isn't an 'I Agree' button on the Google Search website, people think they are just looking up information.
We definately have the right and responsibility to not use a service if we don't agree with it, but we also owe it to others to alert them to facts about the service when the company offering the service fails to MAKE IT CLEAR.
Google is legally borderlining on misuse, non-disclosure and many other avenues that could eventually put them in the hot seat with a lot of people. It could also be the basis that the government uses to rip Google apart and get the information they requested.
Everyone on/. is so busy watching companies like Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc, and yet 'information' is the gold of the 21st century and we don't seem to have the same eye to the companies mining it right out from underneath us.
Me, I just swore to avoid Windows XP because it doesn't offer much over Windows 2000, and so far I've had no issues with that. Now, Vista I will probably buy, but not because it supports Halo 2 (couldn't care less). I'll buy it because its an excellent upgrade for Windows 2000. When you skip an entire release, Microsoft's OS products are a lot more enticing:D
Actually this is a sad myth in the Windows world, a lot did change with WindowsXP, stuff that would be important to almost everyuser, and from your level of knowledge especially you.
Things from several fairly big performance, but also stability changes are in WindowsXP, and were worth the upgrade, sorry that you didn't ever move over. However at this point, I agree you should just wait for Vista if XP would cost you to upgrade in the meantime.
However for people that think XP is only Win2K with crayon buttons, do a bit of reading, there are things that would surprised a lot of people.
Win2k was a massive milestone in the Windows world, so XP got overlooked, and this is where you will note a lot of things that the 'average' journalist just don't get or didn't understand well enough to report on. Also remember than WindowsXP is basically the newer Windows 2003 Server code base, (as long as you have SP2 installed).
PS To add to the above thread about Halo2 being used to FORCE users to upgrade to Vista, that is about insane. If that was MS's intent then the WPF and all the other Vista technologies they are making available for XP would not be available for XP users. Why would Microsoft bother?
Secondly, Bungie is the developer of Halo2, they actually make the decisions on the platform and graphics requirements, Microsoft doesn't micro manage their work.
So all the people with the conspiracies need to get a life.
You pretty much are hitting the nail on the head. What information can any of us trust, when the security agencies and companies that we use to trust on matters of security themselves are either biased or use outdated methods of security reporting.
There has to be a way to set a 'required' reporting that breaks down security information that doesn't get lumped into any bias, just numbers.
When you look at security reports and see the 'experts' don't even properly discern the differences between OS level potential risks and risks in 3rd party software that run on the OS.
Why should Linux or even Windows get another mark for insecure by their name because a two bit programmer wrote an application that exposed the OS to attack.
It would be easier to show the strengths of every OS if a well defined secuirty body could accurate require all security information be reported.
The reports also need to discern between, potential exploits, and exploits used by viruses or hackers. For example OSX had more 'security' exploits patch last year than MS Windows, however, Windows was compromised via their exploits more often. Both points are important to the industry, and this is information we all need, and need to be accurate.
I, like you and many ohters here, have read reports saying Linux is great, Linux is horrible, blah blah blah... We can find these for every OS, and there is always some 'expert' noted in the article that you can tell knows less about the OSes than some of our Grandmothers.
A good step in helping this is to do our own part in killing perceptions of religion and ideal based OS allegiance in this industry.
Who cares if Joe likes BSD better than Linux, or if Sue likes OSX better than Windows, or Jane likes Windows better than Solaris.
We can't assume that each person that doesn't use the same OSes we use are stupid or ill informed, but instead approach the fact they may have valid reasons and positive points for their choice of OS.
As long as we let ideals and personal bias influnce the computing world, creating OS religions, we may never get accurate information.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, sorry. "Wankel engines are criticized for poor fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions."
"Just as the shape of the Wankel combustion chamber prevents preignition, it also leads to incomplete combustion of the air-fuel charge, with the remaining unburned hydrocarbons released into the exhaust."
"A related cause for unexpectedly poor fuel economy involves an inherent weakness of the Wankel rotor design when used with conventional fuels. Some studies have indicated that at high speeds, the rate at which the volume of the combustion chamber increases in the moments after ignition actually outpaces the expansion of the burning fuel. The result is that, at high speeds, less useful energy is extracted from the same volume of fuel"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_rotary
Nope sorry...
You need to rely on more than wikipedia my friend. Originally the Wankel design was less efficient at both the full usage of the fuel, resulting in lower fuel efficiency and extra pollution.
However if you would have looked up some of the Work Mazda specifically did with the design, these concerns were virtually gone at the 12A engine, and with the 13B engine were better than a comperable performing regular cylinder engine.
Remember you have to contrast the performance of the Engine. A 1987 (13B) Mazda RX7's fuel efficiency was better than a 6 Cylinder Nissan, yet the Mazda produced more horsepower.
Additionally, with the Mazda designs, the combustion chamber DOES Burn the fuel more completely, and there are considerable less emmissions when comparing the engine to the same performing engine.
Here is where people get confused. The Mazda Rotary engines were 'classified as 4cylinder engines because they had 4 spark plugs - lead and trail on each of the two chambers'. However the engine is in the performance class of V6 and V8 engines.
So yes, if you were to compare a 2 chamber Rotary engine with an average 4 cylinder engine, the fuel economy looked bad. However, when compared to the same performance level 6 cylinder engine, the rotary was far ahead of it.
So these are false stats, as you can't truly call the Mazda Rotary a 4 cylinder engine, when it outperforms 6 cylinder engines. (And technically it is a two chamber engine.)
Even look at the new rotary in the RX8, it is technically classified as a 4 cylinder engine for insurance purposes or in common car classifications; however, it outperforms the Mitsubishi Eclipse 6 cylinder engine, and gets the same or better fuel efficiency. So in terms of power, it is a 6 or 8 cylinder engine.
Here think about it like this, a 1985 Corvette had 230hp, with the new tuned port V8, and yet the new Mazda RX8 has better horsepower and better fuel efficiency.
If you want to call the 2 chamber rotary a 4 cylinder engine, and try to compare it to an engine that produces about 1/2 the HP, then sure, the fuel efficiency doesn't look so great.
But doing so would be a bit 'insane'...
PS WikiPedia is only as good as the person that felt like an expert the day before you looked up the article, do some real research next time.
I may not do cars for a living, but I know my way around them, owned every type of RX7 and many other sports cars, outside of computers, it is my passion. I also did an engineering paper on the Wankel when I was in University, so I have did a bit more than just drive and work on them.
wonder when people will realize that hydrogen is merely an energy currency?
Do they realize that electricity (a.k.a. Fossil Fuels) must still be used to break apart the water?
Do they further realize that any compressed gas is a pain to transfer anywhere?
When will people realize that ethanol, until it can be produced in extremely massive quantities (30 gallons per vehicle per week, minimum ), is merely a short-term solution to a long-term problem?
Why are people nowdays programmed to think just like the media wants them to think?
Energy Currency? Wow, I wonder when people will actually do a bit of research instead of reciting the oil industry taglines...
Ya in your senerio alternative energies don't look so great, as the coal plant producing the electricity, etc etc...
However, go lookup Humboldt State University, there are also several other programs that are in testing production processes that PRODUCE hydrogen from either Solar/water processes or simplistic chemcial reactions. Go do a search on this, the information is out there and is feasible.
And that is the key and ticket out of the cycle of the energy currency that goes back to fossil fuels.
Also hydrogen is a great starting point, in production of hydrogen the pollution you get is Oxygen and resulting pollution from consumption is water. Also Elec-hydro based vehicles would not only be fossil fuel independant, but imagine a car with 4 independant motor assemblies at each wheel. It would have the control, stability and performance that exceeds a race car, and be pollution free, quiet, and even safer.
Also we don't have the density to energy concerns of the previous generation of cars. A car that needs to be refueled every 200-300 miles is not a problem, even driving across Utah and Nevada if the alternative fuel as available as Gas is now. We don't need the extended range we did even 30 years ago.
Now consider, a small US based public works project to decide on a fuel, subsidize it, and create a new market would cost maybe what, 8 or 10 billion dollars to change the face of both the Fueling stations and auto industry to produce and convert vehicles in the US. Do you realize how tiny of an amount of money that is for the US? Heck even say 50 billion to start this new industry and move vehicles alone to non-fossil fuels. Is that really so much? We spend that kind of money on crap and lies....
By the way, what is probably the most advanced vehicle ever made? Space Shuttle by chance? Past the solid fuel boosters, what is the fuel of the Space Shuttle? So why if fossil is the end game of all energy currency do you think NASA would be so stupid to use hydrogen?
Or maybe they aren't buying the oil company tag lines and are using what is best for the job.
232HP in the Renesis (RX-8 engine) is no more efficient than the 13B's found in later model RX-7's? Considering it took a twin turbo to hit the 255HP stock in the 7? The engine itself is incredible and has a 9500RPM redline that's mostly in place to keep from destroying the transmission. Seems like a technology / efficiency improvement to me...
Agree, however the 9500RPM isn't much different than the 9000RPM redline in many of the 13B RX7s.
But the new version of the Rotary is quite a bit more advanced than the 13B, considering like you said it nearly has the same performance without any turbo assistance.
Now just imagine a twin-turbo version of the new Renesis engine in the RX8 or even a RX7.... It would be in the performance class of the low 3sec 0-60 performance cars of today like the Z06 Vette.
Mazda has been the main user of the rotary engine for the past decade or so. Both their RX-7 (which ended it's lifespan in 1995, IIRC) and the current RX-8 are rotary engine designs.
From the reading car enthusiast forums that I frequent, both are seen as great cars, but have their share of oil leaks. Additionally, it's rather difficult to find a mechanic that is willing to work on rotary engines, so most cars are maintained by shade-tree mechanics.
The Oil leaks are not leaks, the nature of the lubrication system of the rotary design intentionally burns a small amount of oil during operation as a part of the lubrication process. However it is only like a 1/2qt every 3000-4000 miles.
The older RX3 and RX5 vehicles made by Mazda in the 70s DID have oil leaks, but this was due to a faulty seal design that was overcome with the 12A Rotory engine introduced in the new 1979 RX7. The engine's size was increased and refined again in 1985 with the GXL-SE RX7, and this engine, the 13B, then became the standard engine of the new body style that ran from 1986.
Mazada redesigned the RX7 again in 1992, and it still holds as one of the top sports cars ever produced, with under 5sec 0-60sec times, over 1g skipad, etc. However the engine in the 1992 RX7 Was the same basic 13B engine introduced in 1985, but with an improved twin turbo system, giving this simple engine amazing horsepower and the lower end torque to move.
The RX8 is a new revision to the Rotary engine, giving it more horsepower without the need for turbo. (However if the earlier Twin-Turbo was added to this engine, it would be in the ranks of the fastest cars ever made, a decision I think Mazda skipped on due to the market of the RX8(too much power for the average buyer); however, rumors of it or a new RX7 with twin-turbo are going around.
As for working on the rotary engine, it is out of ingornance if mechanics won't work on them, they are a very simple design, much simplier than the more complex piston based combustion engine.
The biggest failure in RX7s were the transmissions, as the rotary engine normally runs at a higher RPM than other engines, as it just keeps spinning and doesn't have to reverse direction. So a 9K redline is nothing, in fact many street racers and modders in the late 80s early 90s used RX7s in racing because the standard engine could still perform reasonably well in the 15,000-18,000 rpm range, it was the transmission to hold up to this amount of speed and power that was the trick.
Rotary engines are quite interesting and surprising that they have not caught on more in the market. They can be more fuel efficient, and emmissions are often better as the engine does a more complete burn process of the fuel. They are also surpsingly small, and lightweight. An average person can lift the engine. Which is kind of cool seeing a tiny engine that back in 1992 and 1993 was basically a 2 cylinder engine and could out perform even the Corvette ZR1 at the time.
The light weight nature of the engine and lack of vibration were also benefits to the performance of the car, as the engine could be mounted futher back in the car giving the car a 50/50 weight distribution for great cornering, and unlike other cars in its class, no vibration problems that other companies like Nissan were plaqued with when they tried to compete with their 6cylinder engines of the time.
Another footnote on the Mazda/Rotary engine is that in the racing circuit, Mazda for years has used a 3cylinder version of the rotary engine in its racing cars, and unline competitors like GM/Corvette, Porche, Ferrari, etc - the Mazda team uses the SAME engine throughout the racing season because of its high durability, where the other competitors usually replace engines between each race.
I am somewhat of a car enthusiast, and have owned all 3 variations of the RX7. I actually miss them, they were fast, nimble cars that were easy to do things well in them.
In contrast to the Corvettes and other performance cars I ha
Why no PCI? Does WPF need texture acceleration to do compositing?
1) PCI (old PCI) is still in debate on whether chipset in that range will support glass, like a Geforce FX 5200 PCI version (non-PCI/Express).
2) WPF and Glass are NOT the same thing in terms of your video card requirements. That is why this post and article is VERY misleading. Glass is a series of effects that the Windows UI turns on for Windows Borders, flipping Windows, Animations, etc.
WPF is a whole replacement technology for the Windows GDI+. It is device independant, and will even display 3D applications on even the oldest non-3D graphics cards, in fact it transends displays and will render 3D scenes of your application on Printers, store them in documents, etc.
(For example you write an application in WPF and add in a 3D Scene with a Floating cube with charts on the cube updating in realtime that you can click on.) It will run on ANY video card, as this is WPF.
However if you have a Video Card that does not have a true Pixel Shader (pre-DirectX 9.0 level hardware 3D cards, the 'glass' effects in Windows will not turn on, as your video card could simply not keep up without slowing your system to a crawl due to the nature of what the 'Glass' effects do.
In other words, if your video card is old, you will get some acceleration features, your windows will look like WindowsXP but updated, and you will get some features of the new video system (think OSX level of Video in the UI)
- However you will not get all the 'Glass features that hardware supported DirectX 9.0 cards will have for the Windows UI, and this has nothing to do with the applications that use WPF for display.)
WPF will run on anything and applications using it will run on anything, but Microsoft has chosen not to make the whole Windows UI turn on GPU intensive tasks if your GPU(Video Card) can't do them.
Microsoft can't make your vide card do things it can't do with the performance needed for all applications, it is that simple.
Sure MS can do software rendering for WPF when your video card lacks, and give you good performance, but again, that has NOTHING to do with the 'Glass' effects in the Vista UI.
well, what they say does sound good... but then again, if you read up on Apple's "visions" you will find it just as impressive. All in all, this stuff is at the vaporware stage right now.
If you look at what MS and Apple actually implemented so far, you will find Apple somewhat ahead (probably partly because of all the "legacy" crap MS has to support, while Apple just cut and run, starting afresh with OS X).
Well considering our company is USING this stuff and has been for many months, you can call it vaporware if you want. The WPF and XPS was finaliazed in December, although not a tremdous amount has changed since September.
Strangely, we are still waiting for development kits from Apple to support 3D animations in their wonderful GUI, features they promised us as developers when OSX 10.0 was released, strangely, we can look at demos on their site, and write 'some of them' but for the most part it is crap that don't work.
As for the MS Vaporware, even YOU can download the WPF/Avalon/XPS for WindowsXP, and write or use programs TODAY using this technology. You don't even have to wait for Vista. Maybe I should ask, in your reality, is that still vaporware?
Since Windows is right now already pretty much everywhere, by only bundling Linux on consumer boxes you'd probably just attract a long tech support nightmare. On the other hand, by giving up the exclusive Windows deal but still bundling Windows you'd be at a profit disadvantage compared to several of your competitors. So no, nobody's being blatantly forced to anything, but there is that implied gun inside the jacket pocket.
You are missing the points...
A) IBM was doing this with OS/2 and DOS and other various software companies back in the 1980s even.
B) The cost difference is tiny, even in volume, by buying from companies that won't ship you a computer without Windows is your fault first, and the vendor second.
C) Even if these companies wanted to start shipping Linux, what distribution? And do you think they want to take on all the support and patches themselves?
Until a strong distribution emerges that handles this support like MS does for these companies, they won't do it. HOWEVER, they should ship you a box with NO OS, and let you choose, if they don't yell at them NOT MICROSOFT.
This is NOT Microsoft's fault. No matter how you want to manipulate reality, they did nothing different than IBM or any other Software vendor has been doing for 30 years.
Gateway and Dell and HP, etc love to keep the myth going that MS forces them to ship you a copy of Windows, this takes the heat off of them for people like you or me that want to buy a computer with no OS.
Yell at the OEMs, not Microsoft. I was the head of a leading OEM, and we didn't lock our customers into Windows, or MS Office, even though users chose it 99% of the time.
GET IT?
bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...
Considering the tremendous amount of drivers and the current level of stability found in WindowsXP.
Does this not make more people have a little bit more respect for Microsoft and what WindowsXP can actually do, even with infinite driver configurations possible?
So is OSX really better, or better just because of its limited hardware 'closed' architecture?
Hmm....
If nobody wants it, then why does Microsoft do the OEM
"keep others out" deal anymore?
10 years and people still don't get it...
1) Bulk/Bundle licensing has been around for a long freaking time, pre-Windows even.
2) It is the OEM's decision to buy the bulk licensing to include Windows, NOT Microsoft. Blame Dell, or whoever is making the computer, not the OS Vendor.
I was the head of a very successful company in the late 90s that competed against the Dells, Gateways, etc. WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THE BULK BUNDLING DEAL WITH MICROSOFT. It cost as 3-5 dollars a copy more for OEM Windows (That is it), and Microsoft gave us all the benefits that Dell and any other company got. The only difference is we could choose to sell a BSD or Linux based computer, the trade off, we paid about $3 more for each OEM copy of Windows.
So when you talk about Microsoft keeping the 'market' from moving to Linux or BSD or anything else, you need to yell at Gateway and Dell and others for CONTINUING the myth that is a Microsoft thing, when it is their OWN thing and their OWN greed to save the $4 bucks instead of offer more choices for their users.
Everyone is mad at Microsoft for the Windows Bundling, but EVERY freaking company does it, and has offered it. Microsoft DOES NOT require ANY company to do it, nor do they get ANYTHING but a better price.
And yet companies like Google are signing the same deals with Dell, and other companies in the past have as well, so that you can't order a freaking Dell without the Google desktop, or think back over the past 10 years and all the CRAP software that was bundled with your computer as 'feature'.
Heck even Corel's Wordperfect tried to get my company to exclusive bundle their prducts by offering a better a price.
Why do you think you see so many Wordperfect bundles on systems (especially over the past 8 years), do you think it is because the computer makers are trying to get back at Microsoft? They could give a crap, plain and simple, Wordperfect is cheap, and exclusive bundles are even cheaper.
Yet everyone thinks Microsoft is the only one doing this, or is doing it in a way that no one else is doing it.
So go yell at Dell, HP, Gateway, NEC, Toshiba, etc. They are ones that have limited your OS choices, not Microsoft...
I think OS X will always be faster and use much less memory since it's going to be running natively and not in an arbitrary intermediate binary layer like .NET.
.NET has anything to do with this?
.NET'?
.NET? .NET is a managed environment, but the entire OS is not written in it, in fact very little of the OS or the core technologies are managed .NET, instead most everything is much like other OSes and good old C and C++ in optimized compilers, just as any applicaiton developer can and does do when developing an application for Windows. .NET is there for many reasons, but it is an application development level technology, not something OSes or OS technologies are built in.
How do you know so much in basic concepts, yet run back to a really bad assumption? Why do you think
How does an XML graphics foundation automatically become 'managed
Why do you assume that everything in Windows is written in
What you are saying is as crazy as telling us not to trust or use Sun's Solaris as the Window Manager is built in slow JAVA(Which is NOT true). So you can see why I find your assumptions and statements a bit absurd?
As of right now, Quartz is still fantastic and matches Avalon
Really? You can design user controls in a 3D workspace, really? I missed the development memo from Apple on this, you can design 3D workspace animations, but WITHOUT interactive UI and Control elements. At least according to Apple, unless you know something Apple hasn't even hinted at or released to its developers.
Additionally, there are also tons of inherent graphics effects, filters, etc that is supported in WPF(Avalon) that Quartz has NO CONCEPT of even how to handle.
And the kicker here would be, WPF(Avalon) even has 3D collision detection built in. Show me where Quartz can not only define a cube with User UI Controls on it spinning in front of you, but also inherently be able to detect and model collision for the space occupied by the spinning cube?
You have an above average understanding, I will give you that, but your understanding falls short of complete when it comes to what is in the WPF and Vista graphical technologies.
OSX is nothing to sneeze at, but just to say it is on par with WPF when you don't even realize half of what is in WPF is a gross mistake.
This is obviously an area of interest to you, go look up some of the stuff I mentioned, don't even take my words for it. You are the type of person that would probably enjoy checking some of this stuff out.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
Well, at least I didn't post an ad-hominem attack with no facts whatsoever.
*wink*
Fine, even if you believe my post has no real facts... Then if this interesed you enough to respond, go look up what I was talking about, and 'fact-check' what I was saying.
Even if you do this quietly for yourself, prove yourself right or wrong. I agree, don't take my word, I could be a nut living under a bridge.
Trust yourself, go to www.microsoft.com or do some searches on the Internet about Vista and WPF technologies. Especially check out reactions from developers from the September PDC that got a chance to see what is different and novel.
You might discover something that you find interesting.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
Hmm. And how much money will businesses pay for that particular feature? Will the CIO sign off new PCs with spiffy graphics cards on every desk on that basis?
Ok, and did you read my original post?
Vista and WPF will do this type of 3D technology on a NON-3D 1996 1MB Video Card. Sure it won't be as freaking fast as a NVidia 7800, but it will run respectibly.
The 3D framework of WPF is NOT hardware dependant, as it translates to DirectX and DirectX software rendering if necessary based on the level of acceleration the GPU(Video) has.
And considering that 10 year old video cards will run WPF type of applications, we can pretty much assume most people won't have to upgrade 'anything'. Understand?
The whole buzz about needing new video is the current FUD of the anti-MS crowd or crap articles written by journalists that have no concept of what WPF even is.
Glass and WPF are the same technologies but independant in implementation.
If this interests you enough to post on it, or concerns, go to www.microsoft.com or a real 'developer' or tech site that has a clue about the technologies and 'got' what Microsoft presented at the PDC in September.
Don't sit back and listen to me or anyone else, truly read up on this stuff, it is quite interesting in what is unique about it and what it will do that truly hasn't been done before. Even if you hate Microsoft, you will learn something from this journey and might find ideas to build applications or implement ideas in the OS you use and support.
Trust me, there are ideas and some impressing things they are doing that will surprise just about anyone.
soooo, isn't teh whole point of .net that of internet based application development?
.NET is about managed code, langauge independance, messaging technologies inside a closed network or across the internet, and about 50 other things not related to Internet Applications.
Um, no.
However, this really has no relevance, as this article is crap...
Maybe I should write an article about monkey DNA, and devote ten pages to how Windows is perfect, Linux is the devil and then put in the last paragraph, "Monkeys have DNA." Then I could get an insightful article on Monkey DNA posted on Slashdot.
What has happened to this site? It used to stand for something, now it is becoming the Enquirer of the Internet world.
What next, "Two headed Linux user from Mars proclaims Windows obsolete?"
Quartz 2D Extreme
Shall we even note this is '2D' Extreme? The WPF in Vista is a full 3D rendering environment.
Create a scene, add light sources, add reflection, add textures, put user controls on a floating cube in a sky, and have it be a real application that a person could click on information on the cube and store phone numbers for example, and then pick up the cube and throw it ot the back of the application 3D scene.
No tricks to 'look 3D' - REAL 3D rendered environments, with user controls for applications, using reall GPU '3D' acceleration.
Oh, and about 30 lines of code to create tihs application, no gaming engine or other abstraction layer needed to traverse the complexity of DirectX that the WPF call through to.
Seriously, I am really not trying to dog Apple, I use OSX daily. It is damn good in a lot of areas. But what Microsoft is doing with their new technologies are pretty 'amazing' from a developer viewpoint, and what it will enable for applications and users in the next few years. Stuff Apple either 'doesn't get' or don't want their users to 'get' yet.
So I plead, go look this stuff up, instead of just posting about what you know. I don't even know everything about the WPF and Vista technologies, but the portions I do get and know about are jaw dropping, and I have been involved in Windows and Mac development for over 20 years.
This is not a copy of OSX, nor even an attempt to copy OSX, this is the next generation of the API display technologies Microsoft Hinted about back in 1995 when Win95 was released. This is stuff, as exclusive testers at that time, got to see a glimpse of, way before OSX.
It is in your interest to 'understand' what Microsoft is doing right, and even if you don't use or develop for Windows, understand what is good about this on the Windows/Vista platform and either get this technology or a form of it over to your Mac or *nix box. Or poke Apple to get this level of technology to their users and you as well.
I really didn't mean to come off as an ass on this, I just become impatient when people really don't know much about Vista or WPF other than some non-tech journalist source, or the myth buzz words that they are copying Postscript, or copying OSX, or copying Flash. It is SO not even close to this, that if you knew what I did, you would want to literally go ARGH!!!!.
Take care,
The Net Avenger
I have not run the beta's so I would like someone who has run them to fill me in here.
/etc/northpole/santaclaus ~/town cat
But the interface needed to handle the I/O and commands from the CPU to video card so all the graphics can run off the GPU require PCIExpress since AGP is too limited.
I have an athlonXP 2400 and I plan to put in 2gigs of 333mgz ddram and upgrade the processor to an Athlon3000XP. However I dont know if my geforce6600 can handle it because its only pci based.
--
better !pout !cry better watchout lpr why mv
Your system is way above what Vista requires.
Vista will run on a 300mhz Pentium II, and a 1Mb Video Card. Performance will be inline with WindowsXP.
The only thing Vista requires, for technical reasons, is that to get the 'glass' effect in the UI, you need a video card that has been made in the past 3 years. Basically any Card that has DirectX 9.0 Pixel Shader Hardware support.
And PCI/Express which is what your card is probably using as the 6600 comes in both AGP and PCI/Express is far above requirements. We have test systems with Video cards that are 1/10 the speed of your card, and using Glass effects in Vista.
All other acceleration and advances like with the WPF will work fine on basically any system that is currently running Win2k or WinXP.
AGP is more than fast enough for what Vista requires, in fact, with the LDDM (WDDM) model, even the older PCI (non-express) will do suprising well, and that is the slowest display interface technology still around at all.
Don't buy into the myths, people here love to run the myth lines like they are fact, when most of these people have not only not even used the technology, developed for it, or have architectural backgrounds to comprehend what is really happening in Vista.
Even 'tech' Journalists so often 'don't' get the technology, so they report what they know, and don't put it in terms everyone can understand.
So OS X does use GPU and (falls back to CPU) for pretty much everything, except for old QuickDraw apps. If fact, on Tiger with CoreImage you could even make it do all common image manipulation tasks on GPU, if it's available. And if your app uses standard frameworks (Cocoa, QuickTime), it will automatically use Quartz2D.
Oh, and we Mac users actually get laid, too.
Love your Mac I see, and glad you are having sex with it. However there is quite a difference between a 2D display technology using GPU funtions and a true 3D architecture presentation technology. Simulating 3D effects and actually knowing how to draw 3D effects are TWO different things. (Understand?)
I get so tired of trying to explain this. Go look this stuff up instead of just assuming that Apple is the most awesome thing ever invented.
OSX is basically doing little more than Win2K/XP with GDI+ and off screen drawing to the GPU RAM. As for accelerated functions from the GPU, Windows has been doing 2D GPU accelerations since Win 2.0/386 and cards like the 8514 and ATI Vantage, oh like 15 freaking years ago.
WPF is the layer between basic application display models and DirectX. i.e., using DirectX technology beyond gaming and exposing the interfaces and acceleration in a model that allows all applications to tap into it at any time, including the Windows UI.
There is no splitting between OpenGL, Quartz, QuickDraw, etc... It is the replacement for the GDI API in Windows and is not just a way to display cute 'postscript' images on the screen, but inherently does everything from vector level image rendering, to full 3D scene rendering with even collision detection.
And don't even start into the OSX has OpenGL, THESE ARE NOT EVEN THE SAME TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY or level of abstraction. Windows also has OpenGL and DirectX, that is not the freaking point.
If you actually understood anything about the Vista display model and WPF you would have one hell of a laught at your post and others like yours.
Wow, you really know your stuff.. *wink...
Why did you just post, "I am a Mac fanatic that knows nothing of these big words the others are using, but I have do say something to show everyone I am cool and love my Mac."
It would have been more factual and a bit more honest.
How to "Microsoft" a technology standard.
...
1. take something like postscript
2. come up with the standard that does the same thing, but which you can make closed-source, and closed-spec.
4. "enhance" the performance by programming it in Indian code
5.
6. profit
PS Brownie points to those who guess what such Microsofted postscript is called in Vista!
1. Go actually read about the WPF
2. GO actually read about the LDDM and WDDM technology in Vista
3. Go actually read the difference between using Video RAM to buffer the onscreen image (as in OSX) and using all of the GPU for 3D applications and interaction.
4. Go lookup the word, bloviate and hold the definition next your face in mirror three times.
8)
Just because the software is installed doesn't mean it automatically runs. I believe you have to "opt-in".
Actually it is pretty much hidden from the user, I know people that didn't even know the Google crap was on their system. In theory, I'm sure they did 'opt-in' by placing the Dell order or some other item, but that is different than them know it is there and also knowing what is is doing with the information.
So google is different from every? other search engine how?
If you can't answer this yourself, maybe you haven't read the terms of Google or some of the other web sites.
There is a difference between counting the popular serach terms, or using the search terms to display an ad on the results page, and what Google does by tracing your search terms via your IP (or cookie) and them correlating this informaitn with any GMail that is brought in or out of the Google system to see who you are and associate your searches to you specficially.
So do a search on "Donkey Farming" on google, then email your friend at GMail, Google now has your IP, what you search for, and your email address.
Now add in the kicker, since Google admitted they are 'data mining' all GMail for marketing, if you typed your name or address or phone number, they also have that as well now.
Do you see that all mentioned on the Google Search Page? If so, show me. Do you see this on the Google search box in your favorite broswer? Nope again... Do you think the average Googler actually researches all this to see how they are being tracked?
There is something really wrong with a company, when Microsoft looks at them and goes, 'wow' that is just 'freaking' wrong, they are so screwing over people and collecting information they have no business seeing.
If Google makes Microsoft gasp at how users are treated, don't that give you a bit pause yourself?
Do they really not make it clear? Or are people just lazy and apathetic? I know where I would place my money....
Answer this question for yourself, did you know all the facts I posted above, like them data mining all in and out GMail, and associating that to email and IPs to correlate it to searches on the main site?
If you didn't, and assuming you didn't or you wouldn't be defending them, can I call you lazy and apathetic then also for not know this?
Truly, think about this, it is a bit over the top, no matter how you try to paint what Google is doing.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
all Aero Glass is mostly based on developments seen quite a while ago in OS X [apple.com].
Um... No... There is quite a level of difference between OSX's Graphics and what Vista is bringing to the table. Even Video cards that don't support Glass will be able to do amazing 3D application and animation effects that OSX STILL can't do without the application being written for OpenGL.
I know this is a common myth, but truly, trust me. There is a big difference between Vista's graphics and OSX. And I am not so much talking about the UI, the the driver model, the WPF technologies and all the other things OSX or any other OS will simply just not do.
This is NOT true, do the Slashdot editors even know people that are in the Vista Beta or have a MSDN subscription?
Vista scales its graphics to three levels, the basic level which still supports all of the WPF applications, scales the OS UI back to look like Windows 2000. This level however does not use WPF effects for the UI, such as transparent 'glass' Window Frames, etc.
The second level is a cross between WindowsXP and the Vista Interface. Again it supports all the WPF applicaitons, however the UI, visually is themed and looks somewhat like the higher level 3D 'Glass' Vista UI.
The third level is the 'high' level 'glass' and basically works on any Video Card that has basic DirectX 9.0 features built in. This level brings the WPF and 3D effects to the UI.
You get Glassy WIndow Frames that not only are transparent but also do a blur effect on the Windowsw Frames with Shading. This level also takes full advantage of your cards 3D Acceleration features throughout the basic Windows UI.
However even in the 'basic' mode Vista will run on ANY video card, Vista will still do amazing looking 3D effects on a crap card with the WPF, and if possible take advantage of any 3D GPU acceleration features in your video card.
For example if you are running a 1998 ATI Rage 128 32MB Video card, you are going to run in the seconde level of quality, and can turn it down to the basic level if you choose. (See, even old cards run in the second level, just like they would be themed in WindowsXP.)
Now even if your video card is only able to run in the second level or lets say, it has no 3D acceleration features, Vista will still properly run WPF and 3D WPF designed applications.
For example the WPF Chess game that comes with Vista, has reflective tile, smooth lines, is a full 3D applciaiton workspace, and runs with or without a 3D GPU in the computer. (The power of software rendering of WPF and DirectX.)
What Vista won't do on older video Cards is map the UI to 3D RAM on the GPU, and slow down your computer interface to display cute animations or glass if your Video card is not fast enough to do that.
So if you are running a computer with a video diplay older than a Geforce FX 5200, then you won't get the pretty UI, but if you have an old FX 5200 you will, and most people can pick this level of card up for almost any computer for like 30-50 US. (You can even buy a PCI version for your 500mhz system that has no AGP port, get the pretty Vista high level Glass.)
There are some recent 'cheap' Intel onboard chipsets that don't support enough 3D to the high level 3D display mode, and there are also some onboard Video that uses shared Memory, etc that won't support the high level Vista display mode.
Sure these people won't get the 'glass' effect, but they will be able to do everything else. And if they want the prettier interface, buying a video card that is considered 'low level' by today's standards is not such a big thing. If these people are playing WoW or any other game released in the past few years, they already have had to buy a newer video card anyway.
And Vista without Glass is not ugly or losing a lot for people, all it means is that Windows itself won't be sucking your GPU power and RAM for 'pretty' effects, when it is not necessary.
This not much different than people turning off themes in XP, expect there is a new level of UI themes in Vista that is a full 3D UI implementation that Windows itself uses for displaying runing applicaitons and the Windows Shell Interface.
If anyone has any doubts or questions go to the WinSuperSite, he seems to have the ability to release information on Vista without breaking an NDA. http://www.winsupersite.com/ (You can even see him explain this, screen shots of the different modes, and why and how it works.) -It is actually pretty slick and smart of Microsoft.
One thing Microsoft if introducing with Vista is a new Display Driver Model Called the LDDM an
I think the difficult part is that MS bundles so much garbage with their OS. IE often gets counted in when the common folk count up errors, but IE often gets counted as non OS when "objectively evaluated". But then things like xterm problems get counted in with the lump "linux" vulnerabilites. Where the hell is the line for determining what counts towards the OS and what doesn't? It doesn't seem to matter how obscure the project is for it to count against the number of linux vulnerabilities either. Ok so what, you can use Firefox instead of IE, which "removes" Windows vulnerabilities...but Firefox vulnerabilities get added to the linux total? Where is the sense in lumping every project capable of running on linux together as "linux vulnerabilities". Hell, it seems like the solution is to port every OSS app to Windows and make it count against Windows too...not that it never gets counted on that side.
You make a lot of valid points and a good place to begin a debate the security community should be having as a whole.
It is hard to determine what is part of what, and who is responsible for what, etc. I would like to see even levels of granularity beyond even just the OS or product.
For example, use Windows as an example. MS should report NT Kernel and Win32 Kernel vulerabilities separately, and as the OS is layered, so shall the security vulnerabilities be defined as well.
For example, IE is a part of the Windows OS, not so much Internet Explorer, but the IE HTML rendering engine that many applications not made by Microsoft utiilze. This should be classified as an OS level security issue, as we should also be tracking what are security issues and stability issues when patches are released as well.
The more we think about the need for this level of information the more we realize how and why we need it, and how complex it is to define initially.
Where do we classify a security hole in XWindows, that affect KDE,Motif,GNOME, and then where do we classify a security hole that exists only in KDE and GNOME but not other Desktop Managers?
Without this information, if a security hole pops up in a portion of code taht is shared by 60% of a particular ditribution, how do we or the distribution even know if they are affected, or if the company producing the distribution ever patches it.
The complexity grows...
Companies with single distributions are going to be easier to pin down, MS, Apple, Sun, etc. But even with them, what about BSD fixes, has Apple fully applied them to OSX and properly, and not exposed others through their closed Window Manager? Even Microsoft is once again shipping non-Microsoft components with Windows, Windows 2003 Server R2 has a full *nix subsystem, so a common *nix component flaw could come back and be a flaw in the Windows *nix subsystem as well.
We need to poke the 'security' people in our field to set some 'real' standards and require companies to report (even if automated) all patched and unpatched flaws and security holes. And this would work in the Open Source world as well, just as patches propagate through the community, reporting on the fixes could as well.
But until then... We only know what we know, and none of us can take any OS seriously for complete security, until we have real facts, we have to do our jobs and keep the word out and all our OS companies on their toes, and keep our OSes locked and patched, taking no chances.
If you're worried about what Google will do with your data, it ought to be your responsbility not to hand it over to them.
/. is so busy watching companies like Sun, Microsoft, Apple, etc, and yet 'information' is the gold of the 21st century and we don't seem to have the same eye to the companies mining it right out from underneath us.
I agree, however the average joe blow that is buying a new dell that has Google desktop installed when it arrives, don't get the option to choose, nor are very many people informed about the data collection they perform.
This is kind of like the tiny fine print on a contract. Also there isn't an 'I Agree' button on the Google Search website, people think they are just looking up information.
We definately have the right and responsibility to not use a service if we don't agree with it, but we also owe it to others to alert them to facts about the service when the company offering the service fails to MAKE IT CLEAR.
Google is legally borderlining on misuse, non-disclosure and many other avenues that could eventually put them in the hot seat with a lot of people. It could also be the basis that the government uses to rip Google apart and get the information they requested.
Everyone on
Me, I just swore to avoid Windows XP because it doesn't offer much over Windows 2000, and so far I've had no issues with that. Now, Vista I will probably buy, but not because it supports Halo 2 (couldn't care less). I'll buy it because its an excellent upgrade for Windows 2000. When you skip an entire release, Microsoft's OS products are a lot more enticing :D
K ernel/default.aspx
r nel.mspx
Actually this is a sad myth in the Windows world, a lot did change with WindowsXP, stuff that would be important to almost everyuser, and from your level of knowledge especially you.
Things from several fairly big performance, but also stability changes are in WindowsXP, and were worth the upgrade, sorry that you didn't ever move over. However at this point, I agree you should just wait for Vista if XP would cost you to upgrade in the meantime.
However for people that think XP is only Win2K with crayon buttons, do a bit of reading, there are things that would surprised a lot of people.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/kernel/xp_ke
Win2k was a massive milestone in the Windows world, so XP got overlooked, and this is where you will note a lot of things that the 'average' journalist just don't get or didn't understand well enough to report on. Also remember than WindowsXP is basically the newer Windows 2003 Server code base, (as long as you have SP2 installed).
PS To add to the above thread about Halo2 being used to FORCE users to upgrade to Vista, that is about insane. If that was MS's intent then the WPF and all the other Vista technologies they are making available for XP would not be available for XP users. Why would Microsoft bother?
Secondly, Bungie is the developer of Halo2, they actually make the decisions on the platform and graphics requirements, Microsoft doesn't micro manage their work.
So all the people with the conspiracies need to get a life.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
You pretty much are hitting the nail on the head. What information can any of us trust, when the security agencies and companies that we use to trust on matters of security themselves are either biased or use outdated methods of security reporting.
There has to be a way to set a 'required' reporting that breaks down security information that doesn't get lumped into any bias, just numbers.
When you look at security reports and see the 'experts' don't even properly discern the differences between OS level potential risks and risks in 3rd party software that run on the OS.
Why should Linux or even Windows get another mark for insecure by their name because a two bit programmer wrote an application that exposed the OS to attack.
It would be easier to show the strengths of every OS if a well defined secuirty body could accurate require all security information be reported.
The reports also need to discern between, potential exploits, and exploits used by viruses or hackers. For example OSX had more 'security' exploits patch last year than MS Windows, however, Windows was compromised via their exploits more often. Both points are important to the industry, and this is information we all need, and need to be accurate.
I, like you and many ohters here, have read reports saying Linux is great, Linux is horrible, blah blah blah... We can find these for every OS, and there is always some 'expert' noted in the article that you can tell knows less about the OSes than some of our Grandmothers.
A good step in helping this is to do our own part in killing perceptions of religion and ideal based OS allegiance in this industry.
Who cares if Joe likes BSD better than Linux, or if Sue likes OSX better than Windows, or Jane likes Windows better than Solaris.
We can't assume that each person that doesn't use the same OSes we use are stupid or ill informed, but instead approach the fact they may have valid reasons and positive points for their choice of OS.
As long as we let ideals and personal bias influnce the computing world, creating OS religions, we may never get accurate information.