Both took BSD & other open technology - both are using it - both only gave back what they legallly had to.
Wow, Microsoft is now just as cool as Apple in the Open Source World, so now will we see free ads for Microsoft's products like we do Apple, and a big microsoft.slashdot.com page?
I knew Microsoft would become as cool as Apple by cheating the open source world just like Apple, now lets get behind them like we have Apple...
More free ads for Apple, because we are an Open Source News and support community. And we all know there is nothing more Open than Apple and their proprietary codecs, hardware, and software that was once open source until they took it and gave back only the 'legal' requirement.
GO APPLE! - I'm about to wet myself waiting for the next Apple Ad to get posted here...
(When did this go from the open source community to supporting a company that makes Microsoft look open in comparison?)
There are plenty ways that Apple can make good without paying a fucking nickle to these assholes.
That is kind of the whole point of this lawsuit...
Apple has set back, told people to basically go F**k themselves and could care less about the scratches.
They didn't replace, or repair them. They even have been censoring their own boards to pretend like this and other problems don't exist.
If Apple was a company that gave a shit about customer more than the mighty dollar, then this WOULD NEVER OF HAPPENED.
Bottom line, last defective product I bought, the company replace it without question, and even compensated me for the trouble.
This is how good business is done, Apple apparently only knows Marketing. So ironically as their bean counters compute whether replacing or fixing these iPods will be more or less than a lawsuit, they will be hurt in the only area they are good, marketing=public opinion.
This is NOT good press, and their bean counters should have added that number to their formula when deciding to fix the units or not.
I think it is funny and a show of 'class' that Apple just doesn't have.
These scratches are not just cosmetic, but to the point they make the display unreadable - which pretty much makes the product worthless.
Bean counters again win for Apple, as the lawsuit will be less then actually fixing the product sold and making the new ones not crap.
Considering that by far, Microsoft uses XML more than any software company and in a wider variety of products...
So this would hurt Microsoft more than anyone else - so we should be anti-Microsoft SlashDot trolls and support this guy.
Nevermind that Microsoft co-authored XML, and was probably one of the first companies to use it commercially in IE4 before this patent was even applied for...
(Jokes and satire intentional, and if you don't get them, just move along)
just took a look at videohelp.com When I checked the HD WMV box, the only player to come up was:
I-O Data AVeL LinkPlayer2 AVLP2/DVDLA for $250 When I checked the WMV9 box, 3 standalone players came up, again no pioneer. Searching for the Sigma EM8620L chip which is apparently the one that has the potential to do the HD WMV, comes up with 9 hits. Still no pioneer. A brief browse over at http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ I dont seem to see any dvd players that mention WMV period, let alone wmv9 of HD WMV. Granted I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I checked the specs on the top models in the two dvd player categories they had, elite and pro. Maybe they just like to hide it, or I need to dig down more.
Maybe you should learn how to use google or MSN Search. Here is the first hit I got even...
Also if you do some further looking, many of the popular online Movie sources have just recently moved to WMV-HD - like AtomFilms.com etc.
I just did a quick google and pulled the first result and the second one that looked relevent. Interesting is that many of the newer IN-Car DVD players already support WMV-HD content as well.
So if you don't think this stuff exists, or I was making it up, sorry, take a reality check...
Sorry was reading some of your other posts... Mainly Troll or redundant, just as I expected...
I never CLAIMED to give an example of a 128-way NT system you could BUY. Notice key words...
However with R2 and Vista Server that will change.
And me mentioning Vista Server and you talking about Vista desktop changes is so laughable. They are not the same, and ironically WinFS and Monad will actually SHIP with Vista Server, THE ONE I BROUGHT up in the first place.
Too funny...
Vista has so many changes, there is no need to respond to Microsoft changing how they are implementing features, whethere they drop features or not. For every feature you can post a link to, I could break my NDA and give you 10 that nobody even knows exists yet, and some are beyond freaking impressive.
Into almost any search engine, Google is what I tested it on. You can also substitute client-server to help weed out some of the articles just talking about client server computing models and not the NT kernel and OS architecture itself.
Basically, NT has a client/server kernel and is a client/server OS architecture as well. It is not monolithic and serve multiple layers at the kernel level, but does so in a way that performance is not lost at the rate of other layered kernel designs like you would find in Linux.
It is just a different kernel concept that the people building NT came up with to give the best of both worlds, almost monolithic kernel speeds, and without the layered overhead. Cutler and his team were no fools, and if people remember came from the VMS and Unix world, not a Microsoft world.
Hmpf! Let me guess who conducted those benchmarks... was it MS? Wait, wait - even better, it was Mindcraft!
Then again, maybe Vista *will* out-perform everything there is, along with also providing a cool new scripting... no, wait - it was a file system, right... oh, no - sorry, it was a... oh, forget it. In the end, I'll claim it'll just bring us some more eye candy, requiring a DirectX 9 card, so I better stop here.
Look, you (MS) have already lost *all* the credibility you have ever had. Show me some repeatable, fair, real-world benchmark results, and you'll convince me. Empty marketing phrases ("is currently out benchmarking pretty much anything out, even in beta") won't buy you anything around here.
On top of it all, your reply was a non-sequitur. The original poster said "no MS on 128-way machines." Then some troll came along, called him arrogant and posted a link which was supposed to prove him wrong (I guess). I pointed out the link explicitely said "128-way NOT with MS". Then you kicked in with some clumsy C&P from your PR folder, claiming stuff and providing zero evidence for it. If you want to stay on-topic, post a link to a commercially available 128-way systems running under Windows. If you want to change the topic - fine with me, but then at least try to provide some evidence for your claims
Are you crazy?
A) There are NO BENCHMARKS outside of Microsoft on the TPS of the R2 Server or Vista - They are not released products, specific performance tests and posting of is prohibited under the NDA. So yes, I guess they are done my Microsoft, and companies like mine. (This is one of the stupidest things I have had to respond to.)
B) My non-sequitur post? Go re-read my posts under the topics they were in response to and see if you can follow that logic. I never claimed that NT was available on the SPECIFIC HP 128-way product link from HP. Yes it will run on it, but it is NOT EVEN supported by Microsoft in this configuration.
Most companies are waiting for the R2 Server release to get full support from Microsoft on more than 64-way systems. However 128-way systems are running NT as we speak - go look it up yourself you lazy troll.
Did you miss the whole thing about how the development process of Windows Server 2003 was geared for 64-way SMP, hence the refocus on Microsoft's part with R2 Server and Vista Server? My original post about NT knowing how to support 128 CPUs was just that, IT DOES, go fact check it yourself. It is not a Toy OS or Toy Kernel technology by any means.
For the love of God you *nix trolls, it was the 'best of the best' *nix OS technology designers than designed the NT kernel, made it a hybrid to avoid the pitfalls of the two prodominate kernel technologies. Cutler was a VMS and Unix guru, not a freaking Windows person. If you hate Microsoft so much that you are willing to defame one of the best *nix and OS designers ever, then you are stepping on your own products just to bash Microsoft.
BTW, Windows 2003 is almost a 3 year old Server OS, and you and others are trying to box it into your view of what is acceptable for proof. What products it is shipping on, etc, etc. Why don't you go ask Microsoft or look it up yourself if this is too mind boggling for you to grasp.
Admit you are anti-Microsoft everything troll, you even had to take shots at Vista on a post about NT's Kernel architecture.
I should hold you to the same standard of hyperbole you want to hold others to, so comments about Vista like yours here will not fly, post us links that prove what you said about Vista is true.
- Oh you can't, they are opinion, go troll someone else - I wasted too much time on you.
Keep your damn toy OS, and your self-admitted assumption that "NT knows how to handle more than 2 processors", because there's no commercially-available system to support that assumption.
Since you also mentioned the IBM muti-core CPUs, it reminded me of a little product called the XBox 360... It is an NT based gaming system with a tri-core IBM based CPU.
So in your reality, this doesn't exist either then?
That page says "128-way requires HP-UX 11i v2". Not that I'd like to jump in into a flame war, but this doesn't look like that specific system you pointed at would support your position, at least as far as 128-way systems are concerned.
The 128 CPU version of Windows Server is available, but not on all hardware. That is why DataCenter carries a disclaimer about the utilization of 128-way SMP support.
Look for R2 of Windows Server 2003 and the Vista version of Windows Server to spread out further SMP support. One of the advancements in this tree of the NT platform is the SMP performance scalability, and is currently out benchmarking pretty much anything out, even in beta.
Microsoft did drop the SMP transitional ball a bit when dealing with SMP server beyond 64cpus, Server 2003's main performance goal for SMP was built around 64-way as high end, and market hardware with new multi-core cpus is pushing that envelope. That is one of the reasons R2 of Windows 2003 server was put into production.
Keep your damn toy OS, and your self-admitted assumption that "NT knows how to handle more than 2 processors", because there's no commercially-available system to support that assumption.
Are you really going to tell us and the world that Windows (NT) doesn't run on more than one processor?
Are you going to tell everyone that there is no such thing as 64cpu NT server out there, and even 128cpu servers?
Are you really that freaking stupid that you think you can tell the people running this stuff it doen't exist?
My freaking laptop is running a dual-core processor and WindowsXP, fully utilizing both processors... So tell us again that Windows NT can't do more than one processor.
Yes, people buy this in thousands... Itanium ??? I wonder what the uptime of such a beast would be. 2 days ? Hell m$ os is really damm leaky if you start putting pressure in the hw. Perhaps m$ is the customer... (that may suffice)
Why do you even take time to make a post like this, anonymous, none the less...
If you have the urge to comment so bad, just type in... "I'm a troll and can't think past my hatred or bias, so I will disagree and rip anythng you posted apart even if I have to make stuff up to do it."
Just make that your tag line, it will save you and us a lot of time...
I've never heard of such a thing. Neither has google. You probably mean microkernel, which is what MS was claiming NT was until they got tired of academic microkernel nuts telling them it wasn't (everyone except Tanenbaum who was busily claiming that Linux, with its unfashionable monolithic design, was obsolete) NT is a monolithic/microkernel hybrid.
Thankfully the poster above me knows how to do a simple search. Maybe look at the instructions for searching the internet before tackling a topic like kernel architecture.
Just to Clarify NT is NOT a monolithic microkernel.
Now, for the love of God(again), actually lookup NT's client/server kernel design...
That's like saying OpenOffice wouldn't want access to the.doc format if they knew they had a better product. They want the MS codecs for compatibility, that's all.
This is what kills me... The Microsoft Word Doc format is not as closed as people think it is.
The problems other companies have when trying to implement what the.doc file contains is another story. They don't know what do to with technologies in the.doc file they don't support.
Take INK, embedded ActiveX objects, etc. This is where other companies have problems, not that the.doc format is so closed no one has access to what is in it.
If the.doc format was as closed as EVERYONE seems to think it is, then Microsoft would be suing the pants off of everyone that is using it... PERIOD.
Just go to MSDN and do a bit of research, everything you need to know about how a.doc is made, and what it contains is made public by Microsoft.
Win32 subsystem is TOO much tied to NT kernel and closely coupled to achieve the performance it has today. That is why NT 3.51/3.53 was more robust than NT 4,0 which moved major parts of the UI code to kernel mode.
Please actually read Inside Windows NT 3.51 by Helen Custer and THEN read Inside Windows NT 4.0 to know the difference.
Sorry, hun, read both and even had this discussion with a key kernel developer at Microsoft a few years ago. (1997 in fact, as we were starting to work with Beta 1 of Windows 2000)
NT 4.0 ONLY moved video to a lower ring. It had NOTHING to do with moving the Win32 subsystem INTO NT - that did not happen.
That is why Windows NT Embedded exists, and also why even the WinCE is a version of the NT kernel with NO Win32 ties.
Microsoft can STILL produce NT without any Win32, and just throw a *nix subsystem on it if they wanted to, but yet have the robustness of NT. Win32 is the just the default interface because of the common API and success of Windows applications.
I think you are confusing Ring dropping of the video driver with something completely different.
NT is a client/server kernel... Go look up what that means, please for the love of God.
Win32 is a subsystem, plain and simple. Yes it is a subsystem that has tools to control the NT kernel under it, but that is just because that is the default subsystem interface. You could build these control tools in any subsystem you want to stack on NT. PERIOD.
They wanted to test a real OS, one that can scale to more than 2 processors.
Wow, a troll on slashdot, how novel. And an intelligent one as well, again how novel... *gag
Considering NT was scaling multi-processors before Linux even existed, this is a bit of a rich statement. (Especially since Linux didn't even consider SMP until 1996, when it was a mature feature of NT by then.)
Considering there is 128-way SMP version of Windows (running on NT) available, I would assume NT knows how to handle more than 2 processors, just a guess though.
Also considering the desktop versions of WindowsXP support 2 processors standard - and NT has for years and years, I might suggest that it even has an edge on some OSes that SMP is just becoming realistic. (XP does Dual Processors with HT, effectively managing 4 virtual CPUs and this is the desktop edition for the average Joe.)
Now should we talk about how it hasn't been until later versions 2.4 of Linux that in an SMP world, process affinity even become stable. (According to Intel, AMD and other people trying to create real world Linux SMP solutions.)
Or we could talk about hotplug of memory and processors with Linux - which is still not supported as it is with NT and Solaris. (And Linux you even get the fun of reconfiguring if you want to flip processors in downtime even.)
Call NT a Toy OS all you want, if you actually knew a little about the NT architecture and not just the 'windows buzz', that RUNS ON NT, then you probably wouldn't be laughed at so easily.
Can one really see how the NT kernel works, with all the stuff stuck together like Windows is?
Saying that the NT kernel and Windows (the Win32 Subsystem) have any relation would be like asking how you can compare any *nix kernel with all the XWindows stuff stuck together...
NT is NOT what most people consider Windows, however it does POWER windows.
Also the NT kernel is not too shabby, considering its design age, and it came from Microsoft. Go pick up Inside NT or a current version that deals directly with the NT kernel and not the Win32 subsystem.
Maybe you should find an example where JAVA has replaced OpenGL for graphics output, and then you would have a comparable argument, until then. Bzzz....
here is an example:
Swerve client.
It is a 3D engine for mobile devices. It implements a Java standard for mobile 3D (M3G). There are two versions: OpenGL accelerated, and a Java-software-only version.
This is funny, thanks for the laugh...
Strange they have to have an OpenGL 'accelerated' version #1, and secondly, this is for low quality games. Again, you could write this type of performance in ANY crap language.
I want to see where JAVA is 'such' the performance leader, that they are actually using it in place of C because of its speed and managed code.
You are NEVER going to see this, as the sandbox Java runs in is slow and bloated even in today's world.
When you see ATI or the OpenGL people say, hey what the heck, to make this game run faster, we NEED to use JAVA. Instead of writing 5 versions of our drivers and games for the platforms.
Instead it is too slow and these companies are still producing 'multiple' versions because JAVA (the one solution) simply cannot handle this level of performance, nor even access or address hardware efficiently on this level of communication.
Give it up, JAVA is never going to be fast enough. If you don't believe me, go ask some of the Solaris developers that have been pissed about Sun FORCING them to put crap JAVA support in their OS and 'encouraging' them to write applets in Java. They think Java is about the biggest and slowest crap to date, and they work for Sun. (Do a google if you don't have access to the developers, they went public with this info at one point)
As for the post above wanting me to 'violate' an NDA just to post benchmarks for them, I will just say, ya - right...
Then why couldn't MS have beaten them by playing fair? Say what you like about them, Real were wronged here and deserve compensation, no matter how bad whatever else they've done.
Then why in the deal would Real want access to Microsoft's Media technologies and codecs? If Real knew they had the best product, they wouldn't have even requested this in the settlement.
Quote from article on MSNBC, "RealNetworks will also get licenses and commitments that give it long-term access to Windows Media technologies to enhance the Real Player software."
Think People, Real was not the ONLY competing product, they just had enough money to sue the easy cash cow. What about tons of other pieces of software that 'should' have been affected and weren't. Like Winamp? Winamp is a popular as it has EVER been. They made a product a lot of people liked better, period.
I work for a company that also makes products that 'compete' with Microsoft, yet their developer resources and even their support people are willing to help our company at any time.
Real knew their products were crap, the guy that started Real was 'from Microsoft' taking some Microsoft technology with him, and in the end, Real told Microsoft to spit and step in it when Real had the popularity.
Microsoft said, ok, fine we will... Real all but died.
(See if people did think, they would REMEMBER that Real Player WAS BUNDLED with Microsoft Windows Prior to 1999. - Real screwed themselves.)
Everybody knows this. You can read about more here [wikipedia.org].
A lot of people beleve in the easter bunny too.
This is opinion and is NOT based on fact. To get fact, pull the document surrounding these matters, there are plenty of the on the Internet.
Don't rely on some opinion piece that has the nerve to 'denote' the hiding of file extensions as one of the 'big problems' with the spreding of viruses. (Other OSes hide or have no file extensions as well - where is their evil article?)
No offense, but that is not the current.NET technologies that developers like myself are using, nor the technologies they are being used in Vista, nor are these even the.NET technologies that are being used on the XBox 360.
I was kind of excited, until you actually fact check the program. "Jake2 uses jogl for OpenGL graphics and joal for 3D sound."
This is a front end application using OpenGL for graphics and jaol.
I could write a Visual Basic application using OpenGL or DirectX as well that would perform just as well, this is NOT JAVA handling graphics, this is JAVA using OpenGL for graphics.
Do you not realize there is a 'difference'?
Part of the DirectX foundations and 'video' access itself is writeen in Managed.NET, This is NOT.NET just calling DirectX, but.NET is a part of what.NET is build with.
Using OpenGL or DirectX from any language does not mean the language itself is fast. I could actually harness DirectX from a very simple Visual Basic application, and do some incredible game processsing, does this mean Visual Basic is the best performaning development environment also?
Maybe you should find an example where JAVA has replaced OpenGL for graphics output, and then you would have a comparable argument, until then. Bzzz....
Even at that datarate the examples are not as sharp as they should be at that resolution, apparently even higher data rates are really required
PS, the codecs Microsoft is using are actually higher quality than the codecs that DirectTV/DishNetwork and some cable providers are moving to in order to provide digital High Definition content to their providers.
So if these are not 'crisp' enough for you, then you have a sad reality coming when some of the HD MPEG4 content gets streamed to your home entertainment system.
The XBOX 360 plays HD just fine - as MOST Studios have already backed and plan to distribute HD DVD Content on regular DVDs using WMV format, just like the "T2 Extreme Edition" that was released two years or more ago. That makes no sense. By that logic, you can claim that a VCR can play DVDs, or a cassette can play CDs. After all, the contents the same...
Excuse me? Do you even have a clue what WMV-HD content is, and it fits on standard Dual-DVD formats now? And it is fully 1080p HD content?
How can someone not get this?
Instead of using the very OLD MPEG2 compression, Microsoft is using an advanced form of their WMV compression format so that HD content fits just fine on regular DVD media.
There are even Pioneer and other DVD players that play WMV-HD (High Definition) content without the need for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray 'capacity' Discs.
Since you don't seem to know how to google something like this, start here: http://www.wmvhd.com/ and then google WMV-HD or WMVHD.
This is now an 'industry' support standard of High Definition content distribution, and even Microsoft released the codecs for this to 'open' sources so that any manufacturer could implment the playback of this content. (Look up VC1 if I remember the corrent open term given to it)
Yes it is true High Definition, and yes it fits on standard Dual Layer DVDs.
So your analogy is borderline crazy, and I suggest you actually look this up before jumping off the cliff of ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
where does it say it /. is an open source community? it says NEWS FOR NERDS.
i'm a nerd and am hyped up for Itunes Au.
You must be new here, but true... This isn't the Slashdot it once was... Very Sad....
Doesn't this make Microsoft cool like Apple now?
Both took BSD & other open technology - both are using it - both only gave back what they legallly had to.
Wow, Microsoft is now just as cool as Apple in the Open Source World, so now will we see free ads for Microsoft's products like we do Apple, and a big microsoft.slashdot.com page?
I knew Microsoft would become as cool as Apple by cheating the open source world just like Apple, now lets get behind them like we have Apple...
Woo Hoo - Go Microosft!
Hypocrites...
More free ads for Apple, because we are an Open Source News and support community. And we all know there is nothing more Open than Apple and their proprietary codecs, hardware, and software that was once open source until they took it and gave back only the 'legal' requirement.
GO APPLE! - I'm about to wet myself waiting for the next Apple Ad to get posted here...
(When did this go from the open source community to supporting a company that makes Microsoft look open in comparison?)
Hypocrites....
There are plenty ways that Apple can make good without paying a fucking nickle to these assholes.
That is kind of the whole point of this lawsuit...
Apple has set back, told people to basically go F**k themselves and could care less about the scratches.
They didn't replace, or repair them. They even have been censoring their own boards to pretend like this and other problems don't exist.
If Apple was a company that gave a shit about customer more than the mighty dollar, then this WOULD NEVER OF HAPPENED.
Bottom line, last defective product I bought, the company replace it without question, and even compensated me for the trouble.
This is how good business is done, Apple apparently only knows Marketing. So ironically as their bean counters compute whether replacing or fixing these iPods will be more or less than a lawsuit, they will be hurt in the only area they are good, marketing=public opinion.
This is NOT good press, and their bean counters should have added that number to their formula when deciding to fix the units or not.
I think it is funny and a show of 'class' that Apple just doesn't have.
These scratches are not just cosmetic, but to the point they make the display unreadable - which pretty much makes the product worthless.
Bean counters again win for Apple, as the lawsuit will be less then actually fixing the product sold and making the new ones not crap.
We should support his lawsuit...
Considering that by far, Microsoft uses XML more than any software company and in a wider variety of products...
So this would hurt Microsoft more than anyone else - so we should be anti-Microsoft SlashDot trolls and support this guy.
Nevermind that Microsoft co-authored XML, and was probably one of the first companies to use it commercially in IE4 before this patent was even applied for...
(Jokes and satire intentional, and if you don't get them, just move along)
just took a look at videohelp.com
. aspx
When I checked the HD WMV box, the only player to come up was:
I-O Data AVeL LinkPlayer2 AVLP2/DVDLA for $250
When I checked the WMV9 box, 3 standalone players came up, again no pioneer.
Searching for the Sigma EM8620L chip which is apparently the one that has the potential to do the HD WMV, comes up with 9 hits. Still no pioneer.
A brief browse over at http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ I dont seem to see any dvd players that mention WMV period, let alone wmv9 of HD WMV. Granted I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I checked the specs on the top models in the two dvd player categories they had, elite and pro. Maybe they just like to hide it, or I need to dig down more.
Maybe you should learn how to use google or MSN Search. Here is the first hit I got even...
http://msmvps.com/chrisl/archive/2005/07/17/57932
And here is a link from last December on units available then as well.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000427023177/
Also if you do some further looking, many of the popular online Movie sources have just recently moved to WMV-HD - like AtomFilms.com etc.
I just did a quick google and pulled the first result and the second one that looked relevent. Interesting is that many of the newer IN-Car DVD players already support WMV-HD content as well.
So if you don't think this stuff exists, or I was making it up, sorry, take a reality check...
Sorry was reading some of your other posts... Mainly Troll or redundant, just as I expected...
I never CLAIMED to give an example of a 128-way NT system you could BUY. Notice key words...
However with R2 and Vista Server that will change.
And me mentioning Vista Server and you talking about Vista desktop changes is so laughable. They are not the same, and ironically WinFS and Monad will actually SHIP with Vista Server, THE ONE I BROUGHT up in the first place.
Too funny...
Vista has so many changes, there is no need to respond to Microsoft changing how they are implementing features, whethere they drop features or not. For every feature you can post a link to, I could break my NDA and give you 10 that nobody even knows exists yet, and some are beyond freaking impressive.
Take Care....
Here to get you started, here is a article I send Linux friends, since this was written by a Linux fan - it is several years old though.
9 /04-apr/security.html
http://www.cosc.brocku.ca/~cspress/HelloWorld/199
Secondly, just put in: nt kernel client server
Into almost any search engine, Google is what I tested it on. You can also substitute client-server to help weed out some of the articles just talking about client server computing models and not the NT kernel and OS architecture itself.
Basically, NT has a client/server kernel and is a client/server OS architecture as well. It is not monolithic and serve multiple layers at the kernel level, but does so in a way that performance is not lost at the rate of other layered kernel designs like you would find in Linux.
It is just a different kernel concept that the people building NT came up with to give the best of both worlds, almost monolithic kernel speeds, and without the layered overhead. Cutler and his team were no fools, and if people remember came from the VMS and Unix world, not a Microsoft world.
Take Care...
Hmpf! Let me guess who conducted those benchmarks... was it MS? Wait, wait - even better, it was Mindcraft!
Then again, maybe Vista *will* out-perform everything there is, along with also providing a cool new scripting... no, wait - it was a file system, right... oh, no - sorry, it was a... oh, forget it. In the end, I'll claim it'll just bring us some more eye candy, requiring a DirectX 9 card, so I better stop here.
Look, you (MS) have already lost *all* the credibility you have ever had. Show me some repeatable, fair, real-world benchmark results, and you'll convince me. Empty marketing phrases ("is currently out benchmarking pretty much anything out, even in beta") won't buy you anything around here.
On top of it all, your reply was a non-sequitur. The original poster said "no MS on 128-way machines." Then some troll came along, called him arrogant and posted a link which was supposed to prove him wrong (I guess). I pointed out the link explicitely said "128-way NOT with MS". Then you kicked in with some clumsy C&P from your PR folder, claiming stuff and providing zero evidence for it. If you want to stay on-topic, post a link to a commercially available 128-way systems running under Windows. If you want to change the topic - fine with me, but then at least try to provide some evidence for your claims
Are you crazy?
A) There are NO BENCHMARKS outside of Microsoft on the TPS of the R2 Server or Vista - They are not released products, specific performance tests and posting of is prohibited under the NDA. So yes, I guess they are done my Microsoft, and companies like mine. (This is one of the stupidest things I have had to respond to.)
B) My non-sequitur post? Go re-read my posts under the topics they were in response to and see if you can follow that logic. I never claimed that NT was available on the SPECIFIC HP 128-way product link from HP. Yes it will run on it, but it is NOT EVEN supported by Microsoft in this configuration.
Most companies are waiting for the R2 Server release to get full support from Microsoft on more than 64-way systems. However 128-way systems are running NT as we speak - go look it up yourself you lazy troll.
Did you miss the whole thing about how the development process of Windows Server 2003 was geared for 64-way SMP, hence the refocus on Microsoft's part with R2 Server and Vista Server? My original post about NT knowing how to support 128 CPUs was just that, IT DOES, go fact check it yourself. It is not a Toy OS or Toy Kernel technology by any means.
For the love of God you *nix trolls, it was the 'best of the best' *nix OS technology designers than designed the NT kernel, made it a hybrid to avoid the pitfalls of the two prodominate kernel technologies. Cutler was a VMS and Unix guru, not a freaking Windows person. If you hate Microsoft so much that you are willing to defame one of the best *nix and OS designers ever, then you are stepping on your own products just to bash Microsoft.
BTW, Windows 2003 is almost a 3 year old Server OS, and you and others are trying to box it into your view of what is acceptable for proof. What products it is shipping on, etc, etc. Why don't you go ask Microsoft or look it up yourself if this is too mind boggling for you to grasp.
Admit you are anti-Microsoft everything troll, you even had to take shots at Vista on a post about NT's Kernel architecture.
I should hold you to the same standard of hyperbole you want to hold others to, so comments about Vista like yours here will not fly, post us links that prove what you said about Vista is true.
- Oh you can't, they are opinion, go troll someone else - I wasted too much time on you.
Keep your damn toy OS, and your self-admitted assumption that "NT knows how to handle more than 2 processors", because there's no commercially-available system to support that assumption.
Since you also mentioned the IBM muti-core CPUs, it reminded me of a little product called the XBox 360... It is an NT based gaming system with a tri-core IBM based CPU.
So in your reality, this doesn't exist either then?
*smile
That page says "128-way requires HP-UX 11i v2". Not that I'd like to jump in into a flame war, but this doesn't look like that specific system you pointed at would support your position, at least as far as 128-way systems are concerned.
The 128 CPU version of Windows Server is available, but not on all hardware. That is why DataCenter carries a disclaimer about the utilization of 128-way SMP support.
Look for R2 of Windows Server 2003 and the Vista version of Windows Server to spread out further SMP support. One of the advancements in this tree of the NT platform is the SMP performance scalability, and is currently out benchmarking pretty much anything out, even in beta.
Microsoft did drop the SMP transitional ball a bit when dealing with SMP server beyond 64cpus, Server 2003's main performance goal for SMP was built around 64-way as high end, and market hardware with new multi-core cpus is pushing that envelope. That is one of the reasons R2 of Windows 2003 server was put into production.
Keep your damn toy OS, and your self-admitted assumption that "NT knows how to handle more than 2 processors", because there's no commercially-available system to support that assumption.
Are you really going to tell us and the world that Windows (NT) doesn't run on more than one processor?
Are you going to tell everyone that there is no such thing as 64cpu NT server out there, and even 128cpu servers?
Are you really that freaking stupid that you think you can tell the people running this stuff it doen't exist?
My freaking laptop is running a dual-core processor and WindowsXP, fully utilizing both processors... So tell us again that Windows NT can't do more than one processor.
You my friend are a moron...
Yes, people buy this in thousands ... Itanium ??? I wonder what the uptime of such a beast would be. 2 days ? Hell m$ os is really damm leaky if you start putting pressure in the hw. Perhaps m$ is the customer ... (that may suffice)
Why do you even take time to make a post like this, anonymous, none the less...
If you have the urge to comment so bad, just type in...
"I'm a troll and can't think past my hatred or bias, so I will disagree and rip anythng you posted apart even if I have to make stuff up to do it."
Just make that your tag line, it will save you and us a lot of time...
I've never heard of such a thing. Neither has google. You probably mean microkernel, which is what MS was claiming NT was until they got tired of academic microkernel nuts telling them it wasn't (everyone except Tanenbaum who was busily claiming that Linux, with its unfashionable monolithic design, was obsolete) NT is a monolithic/microkernel hybrid.
Thankfully the poster above me knows how to do a simple search. Maybe look at the instructions for searching the internet before tackling a topic like kernel architecture.
Just to Clarify NT is NOT a monolithic microkernel.
Now, for the love of God(again), actually lookup NT's client/server kernel design...
That's like saying OpenOffice wouldn't want access to the .doc format if they knew they had a better product. They want the MS codecs for compatibility, that's all.
.doc file contains is another story. They don't know what do to with technologies in the .doc file they don't support.
.doc format is so closed no one has access to what is in it.
.doc format was as closed as EVERYONE seems to think it is, then Microsoft would be suing the pants off of everyone that is using it... PERIOD.
.doc is made, and what it contains is made public by Microsoft.
This is what kills me... The Microsoft Word Doc format is not as closed as people think it is.
The problems other companies have when trying to implement what the
Take INK, embedded ActiveX objects, etc. This is where other companies have problems, not that the
If the
Just go to MSDN and do a bit of research, everything you need to know about how a
Pick a better example...
Win32 subsystem is TOO much tied to NT kernel and closely coupled to achieve the performance it has today.
That is why NT 3.51/3.53 was more robust than NT 4,0 which moved major parts of the UI code to kernel mode.
Please actually read Inside Windows NT 3.51 by Helen Custer and THEN read Inside Windows NT 4.0 to know the difference.
Sorry, hun, read both and even had this discussion with a key kernel developer at Microsoft a few years ago. (1997 in fact, as we were starting to work with Beta 1 of Windows 2000)
NT 4.0 ONLY moved video to a lower ring. It had NOTHING to do with moving the Win32 subsystem INTO NT - that did not happen.
That is why Windows NT Embedded exists, and also why even the WinCE is a version of the NT kernel with NO Win32 ties.
Microsoft can STILL produce NT without any Win32, and just throw a *nix subsystem on it if they wanted to, but yet have the robustness of NT. Win32 is the just the default interface because of the common API and success of Windows applications.
I think you are confusing Ring dropping of the video driver with something completely different.
NT is a client/server kernel... Go look up what that means, please for the love of God.
Win32 is a subsystem, plain and simple. Yes it is a subsystem that has tools to control the NT kernel under it, but that is just because that is the default subsystem interface. You could build these control tools in any subsystem you want to stack on NT. PERIOD.
They wanted to test a real OS, one that can scale to more than 2 processors.
Wow, a troll on slashdot, how novel. And an intelligent one as well, again how novel... *gag
Considering NT was scaling multi-processors before Linux even existed, this is a bit of a rich statement. (Especially since Linux didn't even consider SMP until 1996, when it was a mature feature of NT by then.)
Considering there is 128-way SMP version of Windows (running on NT) available, I would assume NT knows how to handle more than 2 processors, just a guess though.
Also considering the desktop versions of WindowsXP support 2 processors standard - and NT has for years and years, I might suggest that it even has an edge on some OSes that SMP is just becoming realistic. (XP does Dual Processors with HT, effectively managing 4 virtual CPUs and this is the desktop edition for the average Joe.)
Now should we talk about how it hasn't been until later versions 2.4 of Linux that in an SMP world, process affinity even become stable. (According to Intel, AMD and other people trying to create real world Linux SMP solutions.)
Or we could talk about hotplug of memory and processors with Linux - which is still not supported as it is with NT and Solaris. (And Linux you even get the fun of reconfiguring if you want to flip processors in downtime even.)
Call NT a Toy OS all you want, if you actually knew a little about the NT architecture and not just the 'windows buzz', that RUNS ON NT, then you probably wouldn't be laughed at so easily.
*Cheers.
Can one really see how the NT kernel works, with all the stuff stuck together like Windows is?
Saying that the NT kernel and Windows (the Win32 Subsystem) have any relation would be like asking how you can compare any *nix kernel with all the XWindows stuff stuck together...
NT is NOT what most people consider Windows, however it does POWER windows.
Also the NT kernel is not too shabby, considering its design age, and it came from Microsoft. Go pick up Inside NT or a current version that deals directly with the NT kernel and not the Win32 subsystem.
PS, In contrast, part of the ATI Drivers for Windows were actually written in .NET for over a year now...
Maybe you should find an example where JAVA has replaced OpenGL for graphics output, and then you would have a comparable argument, until then. Bzzz....
here is an example:
Swerve client.
It is a 3D engine for mobile devices. It implements a Java standard for mobile 3D (M3G). There are two versions: OpenGL accelerated, and a Java-software-only version.
This is funny, thanks for the laugh...
Strange they have to have an OpenGL 'accelerated' version #1, and secondly, this is for low quality games. Again, you could write this type of performance in ANY crap language.
I want to see where JAVA is 'such' the performance leader, that they are actually using it in place of C because of its speed and managed code.
You are NEVER going to see this, as the sandbox Java runs in is slow and bloated even in today's world.
When you see ATI or the OpenGL people say, hey what the heck, to make this game run faster, we NEED to use JAVA. Instead of writing 5 versions of our drivers and games for the platforms.
Instead it is too slow and these companies are still producing 'multiple' versions because JAVA (the one solution) simply cannot handle this level of performance, nor even access or address hardware efficiently on this level of communication.
Give it up, JAVA is never going to be fast enough. If you don't believe me, go ask some of the Solaris developers that have been pissed about Sun FORCING them to put crap JAVA support in their OS and 'encouraging' them to write applets in Java. They think Java is about the biggest and slowest crap to date, and they work for Sun. (Do a google if you don't have access to the developers, they went public with this info at one point)
As for the post above wanting me to 'violate' an NDA just to post benchmarks for them, I will just say, ya - right...
Then why couldn't MS have beaten them by playing fair? Say what you like about them, Real were wronged here and deserve compensation, no matter how bad whatever else they've done.
Then why in the deal would Real want access to Microsoft's Media technologies and codecs? If Real knew they had the best product, they wouldn't have even requested this in the settlement.
Quote from article on MSNBC, "RealNetworks will also get licenses and commitments that give it long-term access to Windows Media technologies to enhance the Real Player software."
Think People, Real was not the ONLY competing product, they just had enough money to sue the easy cash cow. What about tons of other pieces of software that 'should' have been affected and weren't. Like Winamp? Winamp is a popular as it has EVER been. They made a product a lot of people liked better, period.
I work for a company that also makes products that 'compete' with Microsoft, yet their developer resources and even their support people are willing to help our company at any time.
Real knew their products were crap, the guy that started Real was 'from Microsoft' taking some Microsoft technology with him, and in the end, Real told Microsoft to spit and step in it when Real had the popularity.
Microsoft said, ok, fine we will... Real all but died.
(See if people did think, they would REMEMBER that Real Player WAS BUNDLED with Microsoft Windows Prior to 1999. - Real screwed themselves.)
Everybody knows this. You can read about more here [wikipedia.org].
A lot of people beleve in the easter bunny too.
This is opinion and is NOT based on fact. To get fact, pull the document surrounding these matters, there are plenty of the on the Internet.
Don't rely on some opinion piece that has the nerve to 'denote' the hiding of file extensions as one of the 'big problems' with the spreding of viruses. (Other OSes hide or have no file extensions as well - where is their evil article?)
Give me a break...
Well get the lawyers out. Here are some Java vs. Net bencharks from a year ago:
.NET technologies that developers like myself are using, nor the technologies they are being used in Vista, nor are these even the .NET technologies that are being used on the XBox 360.
.NET, This is NOT .NET just calling DirectX, but .NET is a part of what .NET is build with.
http://www.shudo.net/jit/perf/ [shudo.net]
No offense, but that is not the current
Sorry I don't have time to write it myself, but here is one:
http://www.bytonic.de/html/jake2.html. A version of Quake in Java.
I was kind of excited, until you actually fact check the program. "Jake2 uses jogl for OpenGL graphics and joal for 3D sound."
This is a front end application using OpenGL for graphics and jaol.
I could write a Visual Basic application using OpenGL or DirectX as well that would perform just as well, this is NOT JAVA handling graphics, this is JAVA using OpenGL for graphics.
Do you not realize there is a 'difference'?
Part of the DirectX foundations and 'video' access itself is writeen in Managed
Using OpenGL or DirectX from any language does not mean the language itself is fast. I could actually harness DirectX from a very simple Visual Basic application, and do some incredible game processsing, does this mean Visual Basic is the best performaning development environment also?
Maybe you should find an example where JAVA has replaced OpenGL for graphics output, and then you would have a comparable argument, until then. Bzzz....
Even at that datarate the examples are not as sharp as they should be at that resolution, apparently even higher data rates are really required
PS, the codecs Microsoft is using are actually higher quality than the codecs that DirectTV/DishNetwork and some cable providers are moving to in order to provide digital High Definition content to their providers.
So if these are not 'crisp' enough for you, then you have a sad reality coming when some of the HD MPEG4 content gets streamed to your home entertainment system.
The XBOX 360 plays HD just fine - as MOST Studios have already backed and plan to distribute HD DVD Content on regular DVDs using WMV format, just like the "T2 Extreme Edition" that was released two years or more ago.
That makes no sense. By that logic, you can claim that a VCR can play DVDs, or a cassette can play CDs. After all, the contents the same...
Excuse me? Do you even have a clue what WMV-HD content is, and it fits on standard Dual-DVD formats now? And it is fully 1080p HD content?
How can someone not get this?
Instead of using the very OLD MPEG2 compression, Microsoft is using an advanced form of their WMV compression format so that HD content fits just fine on regular DVD media.
There are even Pioneer and other DVD players that play WMV-HD (High Definition) content without the need for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray 'capacity' Discs.
Since you don't seem to know how to google something like this, start here: http://www.wmvhd.com/ and then google WMV-HD or WMVHD.
This is now an 'industry' support standard of High Definition content distribution, and even Microsoft released the codecs for this to 'open' sources so that any manufacturer could implment the playback of this content. (Look up VC1 if I remember the corrent open term given to it)
Yes it is true High Definition, and yes it fits on standard Dual Layer DVDs.
So your analogy is borderline crazy, and I suggest you actually look this up before jumping off the cliff of ignorance.