No, the question is, why would you put voice-over-ip into a word processing document?
Very obvious you have not used OneNote, or any other Meeting Document creation applications that records and timelines the Audio from the meeting with the notes you take.
There are REASONS people would want this information in a Document. I use it everyday.
Your timeline is a bit messed up. Yes, Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time, but Microsoft licensed from Apple the rights to use the "visual displays" in their in-development Word and Excel for the Mac, for use in Windows 1.0. So, in fact, Apple had no problem with Windows 1.0 because they had licensed the tech to them. Windows 1.0 has nothing to do with the "stealing" you're talking about.
Per Andy Hertzfeld's folklore write-up: "Microsoft didn't manage to ship a version of Windows until almost two years later, releasing Windows 1.0 in the fall of 1985. It was pretty crude, just as Steve had predicted, with little of the Mac's thoughtful elegance. It didn't even have overlapping windows, preferring a simpler technique called "tiling". When its utter rejection became apparent a few months later, Bill Gates fired the implementation team and started a new version from scratch, led by none other than Neil Konzen. "
So, only after Windows 2.0 was released, which was based on an entirely new codebase, and contained many features similar to the Macintosh did Apple believe their ideas were stolen. Why? Because Apple thought the license was only for Windows 1.0, and not for future versions.
Thus the "look-and-feel" lawsuit was filed in 1988.
And Apple lost, not because the court found Apple didn't "own" the look-and-feel, but rather because the language in the contract did state that Microsoft had a license for future versions of Windows.
Actually my TIMELINE was correct. Even read your post above, you confirm exactly what I said.
Apple licensed interface elements that they COULD, other licenses Microsoft obtained from other companies like Xerox.
Apple was NOT SO STUPID to just assume there would only EVER be ONE version of Windows, just a 1.0. That is insane.
Apple tried to make it seem like they were that stupid, and it failed, but they truly didn't totaly lose the case, as it was still in appeal in mid 90s, when Microsoft invested in Apple with the agreement that Apple would drop the lawsuit. (Bascially bailing out the Mac, with 1) Money from Microsoft 2) Commitment that Office would still be released for it so consumers would still buy it.)
So all the Apple people that love to Bash Microsoft, need to stop for one second and realize that OSX and the current growing Mac success might not even be happening if it wasn't for Microsoft's money and Office application commitment.
And just as my post and your post states, Apple could only sue on the 'look and feel' as the basic GUI was NOT Apple's to sue for. This is why XEROX won their lawsuit against Apple in the first place.
In legal terms, it has been proven in court that Apple stole more for the Mac GUI than Microsoft ever took for their Windows GUI. (Fact)
As for the Word and Excel licensing issues, if it wasn't for Word and Excel in the first place, the Mac would not of had the limited success it did in moving into the business world during the 80s, and even continuing to be an alternative in the 90s. Again, something that Microsoft made, not Apple. Success for the Mac can also be credited to Aldus and Pagemaker. Those were the premire and mainstream applications that gave the Mac the credibility they worked so hard to obtain. (Look at the AtariST and Amiga if you don't believe the applicaitons make the success of the platform. - both were technically superior to any Apple product in the 80s. (For example color and full NTSC video production abilities like the Amiga did. - Back when Mac users made FUN of color, and touted how silly color was on a 'work' computer. (Go read the old articles from Mac User and Byte during this timeline if you personally don't remember the Mac crowd being the - anti-color people. Just like they have been the single mouse button champions recently.)
So to recap, Windows 1.0 WAS in development at the same time the GUI at Apple was in development.
Job and Gates both started this development at about the same exact time even. Apple ha
Nice, but apparently it'll only hold 100 songs. And if that is true, it is not nearly enough capacity to make me switch from carrying both an MP3 player and a mobile.
Then how is this even newsworthy? Even my old Motorola V710, has 200+ MP3 songs on it, and two movies.
Let alone my SmartPhone with Windows PocketPC, which can hold 1,000s of songs, and even do remote desktop to any server I manage from anywhere in the world.
Again, how is this going to be a great new innovation, other than them getting a big press release?
Apple's Marketing machine does deserve kuddos, I think they are far smarter than the Apple developers. They could market toliet paper and have the world believe Apple invented it as well.
Apple did not protect itself adequately before Microsoft created Windows. All of Apple's litigation regarding look and feel got tossed out of court, with MS able to continue without restraint. Apple's attorneys seem to be very good at reactive work, such as cease and desist orders, but not too good on the preventative side.
It really wasn't a timing issue with the Apple Lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple would have been unable to obtain patents on the things they were suing Microsoft over.
The UI concepts and specifically the GUI elements were something Apple themselves did not create or own, so they could only sue Microsoft on 'look and feel', not actually ideas or concepts.
If people actually follow this entire process, they will find that Xerox 'successfully' sued Apple for copying technology they DID NOT license for the Mac GUI. Additionally, other GUI competitive products were in the works before Lisa and the Mac, for example XWindows.
So all Apple had left was look and feel, and if Microsoft named the Trash Can 'Trash' or not, hence why it is called a Recycle Bin in Windows...
I find a lot of people that are mad at Microsoft because they somehow feel Windows stole the GUI from Apple. This is fairly far from the Truth, as Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time as the Apple GUI. Apple just found better hardware at the time and got it to market first. Secondly the GUI concept were not Apple's to steal in the first place.
RTFA. NOT games. Accessories. It took me less than 20 seconds to read your comment, hit reply, and tell you that.
And because I used games as an ANALOGY, you seem to think that there is always a difference in peripheral licensing and game licensing? They are of the same ilk. If the company is wanting full quality control of peripherals, JUST LIKE OTHER COMPANIES DO FOR GAMES, means this is not news, as peripherals have ALSO BEEN licensed and required approval for other platforms before.
I'm so glad you could read my post so fast and yet not comprehend anything out of it... Next you will demonstrate your amazing ability of how you cannot count to 10...
Ok, this has got to be one of the most insane posts, and ignorant perceptions of what the MS licensing entails.
Companies like Nintendo, Sony, and Atari have been doing this for YEARS. And this story is acting like Microsoft is the first one, and the big bully for doing it. It is called quality assurance.
This is done with MOST platform games, they must carry the 'official' licensing from Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft. This is also done with many accessories.
And this story is new how?
Even in 1983 Intellivision only allowed 'licensed' games to be played on their system. And when a company went ahead and produced a couple of titles like 'mousetrap' that were not licensed, Intellivision came out with the Intellivision II, and it specifically would not play any 'unlicensed' titles, leaving customers with 'mousetrap' unable to play the game.
The person with this post and the hype that is once again making Microsoft 'evil' absolutely has no knowledge of the industry and it frankly showing what level of stupidity people will go to 'create' a story, when it is just business as usual that almost all companies in these markets work under.
The address bar is not similar to the taskbar and quick launch toolbar at all. The quick launch toolbar is context-free; it doesn't display information on the current application and doesn't change status when you switch to another application.
The address bar, on the other hand, is directly linked to the current tab - when you perform an operation on the current tab, the address bar changes, and when you perform an operation on the address bar, the current tab changes, but no others do. There's a 1:1 correspondence between the address bar and the current tab. You simply can't say the same thing about the quick launch toolbar. The only way in which they are remotely similar is that you can click stuff.
Yes I can, because the Quick Launch toolbar is a PART of the taskbar, that DOES display information about current Running applicaitons. (Ok, stay with me here, think of the running applications on the Taskbar as 'tabs'.) That doesn't mean the address bar on the 'taskbar' or the quick launch buttons are NOT launchers, and it also doesn't preclude the taskbar itself from listing information about the current 'TABS - or Running applications'
This is a simple concept, sorry I complicated it even more. Just because a UI element is a launcher, does not mean it cannot display context sensitive information about a click on, or selected process, or tab. Nor does it make it a part of the process or tab. PERIOD.
What's your point? That you can't possibly be wrong?
My point is these are easily understood concepts in the world of people that do know a bit about usability and UI design. If you don't understand where I am coming from, then you have two options, go educate yourself on UI and usability, or accept my answer since I do have an extensive background in this area. So if you don't want to educate yourself and keep adding stupid posts, then stop, and accept my answer, even if there is a possiblity of it being wrong.
Who paid $199 for an NES? That was the mega-package with the robot that Nintendo put together to sneak their game console into stores that remembered The Great Video Game Crash of 1983. I bet most people bought the cheaper bundle; I know my NES console cost $80.
Probably people that bought it in the 1985-1988 time frame. I bought mine in 1989 for 119.00, and that was the cutting edge price.
No, it's part of the page. If it's merely a launcher, then the address wouldn't change when you switched tabs
So if the TaskBar display the currently running programs in Windows, you can't click on a shortcut in the Quick Launch toolbar to launch a new application?
Same concept. Just because it is a 'launcher' does not mean it can't display information about the current process or 'tab'...
Again, been doing usability for a long time, there is consistency to this. Go find some other aspect to pick at...
Why doesn't Microsoft scrap the current Windows kernel and write a completely new one instead of trying to add on to an existing kernel? I know they do this for backward compatibility,
Um, bad idea, and no...
The Windows Kernel is the NT Kernel that was developed by the current LEADING *nix and OS Engineers at the time in 1990-1993.
Windows itself as most people get confused about is truly the Win32 Subsystem that sits on top of the NT Kernel. So the compatibility you speak of is in the Win32 subsystem for the most part, and that is why the transition from the 'old' Win3.1-WinME kernel technologies were not a big issues when users moved to the new kernel with Windows2000 and WindowsXP.
The NT Kernel itself is VERY well designed, and is actually more advanced than most mach and micro kernels. For example, it is not monolithic, but yet yields the speed and benefits of a monolithic kernel.
Many OS engineers, regard the NT kernel as being fairly advanced in its design, besides it was designed by some of the BEST *nix and other OS Designers at the time it was originally created. (So if you really want to hate NT and Microsoft, you would have to hate some of the pioneers of the *nix models you are currently using, as they purposely broke from *nix concepts in designing NT - and it was their choice, as Microsoft owned a *nix at the time, and the designers had full reign to make NT a *nix style OS if they wanted to.)
The NT Kernel that sits under Windows is one of the few client/server kernel models, and is the only one in any widely used OS. The NT Kernel is one of the truly GOOD and Strong Things about Windows, ripping it out and 'downgrading' to a Linux or BSD style kernel would severely cripple a lot of performance and abilities it was designed to circumvent.
The designers however, as they wrote at the time, wanted to surpass the *nix model and with regard to the kernel offer features that no other OS technology had ever tried to obtain.
Oh, and as for your comment about 'easily' adding a new interface with a different kernel, that is in fact one of the 'unique' abilities of the NT Kernel under Windows. The Win32 interface is a 'subsystem', and NT has the ability to run multiple 'subsystems' on the same kernel, and even offer interoperability between the subsystems.
Microsoft in fact already does this, as there is a *nix subsystem already available for NT, and it is a free download from Microsoft. Also in the past, Windows NT included an OS/2 and a basic POSIX subsystem, which all ran along side the Win32 subsystem. So if Microsoft wanted to make a new UI, or if for example Linux exploded and became the standard OS of the world, Microsoft could even release a version of Windows NT with a full Linux subsystem to run all Linux applications, and still take advantage of all the NT kernel features and even the vast amount of drivers Windows users currently have. So, no matter where the market heads, Microsoft can easily follow and possibly even make a better version of Linux than Linux itself. Like I said, the NT kernel design can do things other OS kernels cannot, the subsystems is a good example.
So ripping out the kernel in Windows would be the last thing to do to improve Windows. And you should read up on this, and stop comparing the Win9x kernel to the current NT based kernel underneath the Win32 subsystem of Windows.
Yeah, but then, should not the address bar also be under the tabs?
Actually no, in terms of usability, you have to follow a consistent concept. The address bar is NOT a part of the page or the TAB. The Address bar is a 'launcher' or way to open a TAB or Page.
Sorry if I'm a bit anal over this, worked in usability and UI design for too many years.
I mean, it's stupid. It "disassociates" tabs from the page, and it puts that menu in the middle. Why put in such relevant place a menu that it's so rarely used?
This is a simple answer... Microsoft, in order to maintain compatibility with plug ins like Google bar, and other add on toolbars and functions had to separate out each instance of the tab interface, so that the toolbars and plug ins would be specific to the TAB, not specific to the whole browser.
That is why using a MSN search toolbar for example that highlights searched terms on a page, show only the highlighted terms on the 'TAB' that is open and NOT all open TABs in teh browser.
This was a smart move, and the Menu Bar is a part of this customization, so it too had to be based on each TAB not the BROWSER.
And this makes perfect sense, the toolbar and Menu Bar should be relevant and specific to the TAB or page open, not all the TABS.
So pick it apart all you want, it is the NATURAL flow of how Tabbed browsing should be down when there is customizaiton features built into the browser for third parties.
Basically Each TAB has a menu, and specific toolbars, even if they don't seem to change to you when flipping between tabs.
Yes, and what's worse: MS' anti-phishing technique involves sending each link you click to Microsoft for verification against a blacklist. Scary, if you ask me.
Um, but it only does this after asking the user if they want to use this feature, and even then if a site is blacklisted, the users still has control on whether to go to it or not.
So Microsoft is tackling a problem, giving users full control over it, and still you find a way to bitch about it.
If Microsoft gave every one $1,000 - you would complain it was in the wrong denomination of bills. Geesh.
Again, MS marketing likes to imply that super competent admins are needed for Linux but that any slobbering idiot can manage a Windows server. Neither are true of course but they'll do anything to "prove" that Linux is much more difficult to manage than Windows.
I agree... However think back yourself how many IT departments and IT managers are truly morons. Understanding simple stuff scares me sometimes when they have no clue and look at you like a deer in the headlights.
So I pretty much can't imagine them doing a good *nix installation, especially when you think about them having to open a terminal/command shell and change config files by hand. I know Mac Server administrators that hate OSX because they don't understand changing something in a text file for serivce operations, or replacing a secured file in the System...
So in this regard that 99.9% of a Windows Server Installation can be done with a mouse and cute help files, Microsoft does have a slight point.
Not everyone in the world is on par to drive a bus let alone manage a large IT installation, and in that respect Windows is so easy, it makes clueless computer users appear to be IT pros.
MS' own recommended strategy for servers is one box for each function. AD tree that's a box. An IIS server? That's a box. A SQL server? Yet another box.
I can and have run DNS, Samba, Apache, Netatalk, MySQL and others on the same machine and it just sits in the corner and does it's job. I think MS doesn't want to start throwing stones in this particular glass house
Microsoft's own strategy? Really...
Our company manages one of the LARGEST HIT, and BANDWIDTH web site in the WORLD. And we host it on a Single Server, that is running Mail, SQL Server, IIS, and auxiallary applications.
It is a Dual processor Xeon with 2G of RAM, and Raid0.
That is it period...
Not to mention the site is fully dynamic, based on ASP and ASP.NET, and highly uses the SQL server.
We also receive and send about 10gb of email from this server a day...
So tell me again, how you can do all this on Linux and you can't on Windows Server?
We could get a bit better performance if we need it by moving the SQL and Mail to a different server, but to this point, even with 500,000 - 1,000,000 hits per day, it doesn't seem to be a performance problem.
So quit assuming and talking out of your butt, unless you are really running a LARGE scale site that does exactly what you assume Windows can't do.
Ok, NOT JUST KERNEL ADJUSTMENTS... The entire CODE BASE was optimized between Win2k, and WinXP.
Win2K established the next level of functionality, XP added a few new features, and used the optimized CODE BASE that originated from Windows2k. Just like Windows 2003 Server is an optimized CODE BASE, and is faster than XP.
These OSes are designed with a COMMON code base, that forks off for each release. As Win2k was being put out to meet deadlines, the developers were optimizing the BASE CODE along the tree. At one point the developers took XP as 'fork' from the optimized CODE BASE and put it out.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how this software development model works.
In addition to optimization to the BASIC CODE BASE, they added in tons of new security concepts, abilities like complete DLL isolation, that was first touched on in the Win2k Code Fork, etc.
So every BIT of code from Win2k's Code Base (or tree) was worked over, optimized, and reocmpiled before it was even forked off into WindowsXP.
Now if you want proof, here go read an independant Test Microsoft had run that put XP up to previous versions of Windows. What kills me is this is basic IT knowledge, and yet people ramble on here like it is some new idea by crack pots.
You will also notice XP IS faster than even Win98, which many people here still don't seem to grasp. That is why people in the real IT world, even with older 1997 computers, install XP on them to IMPROVE end user performance over the original Win98 that shipped on them.
Open word processor, it asks, do you want to open a new document, open a spreadsheet, create a poster... For God's sake, if I opened the word processor, maybe that is what I wanted to use.
Shall I go on and on and on? You respond like I'm some nut that doesn't use a Mac every freaking day.
Get over it, Macs BABY STEP users FAR more than Windows does, call them Wizards, REMINDERS, Annoying Crap on the screen, whatever you want.
I personally don't have a BIG problem with them, as I just ignore them and think, well this is the mentally Apple is designing their products for. So maybe you don't realize it is holding your hand when you just want to get work done, because you are in the marketshare that THEY focus the 'hand holding' at.
Oh, as for the 'hardware' specific point of the Wizards in your post, you mean that YOUR Mac is special and never asks you a question when connecting to a new secure wireless network? Really? Or do you just not consider it a 'WIZARD'?
W2K drivers actually worked better and had more options then the XP version (was true for both the wireless card and processor speed control).
This might be because in WindowsXP you have AN OPTION... Of letting WIndows XP (the default) control wireless settings, or telling it NOT to control the wireless settings, and then the Network Card 'config' utility becomes the mechanism for controlling your wireless card.
WindowsXP uses the 'manufacturer' specified optimized settings for the Wireless card, and if you unclick the checkbox that says "Let Windows Manage my Wireless" you get to access all these features JUST LIKE IN WINDOWS2K, as the drivers are usually the SAME!!!
Additionally, WindowsXP Wireless management is designed to be fully automatic, because not everyone is a tech user, they just want to connect to their wireless, type in a key and be online.
Oh and BTW, even with WindowsXP controlling the network settings, you can still get to them via the Wireless cards properties, if the manufacturer don't turn them off, and 90% of them don't. So those 'extra' features, were probably already there, you just had to look if you wanted the techie stuff.
This is one of the craziest posts I have found in a while.
Oh, I don't like the cute XP Wizards, so instead of turning them off, I just installed an OS that is less performance tuned, has less features, less drivers available, and runs less programs.
You are either living in the Win2k myth world, or just an old timer that don't like new things...
If you think the wizards in WindowsXP were driving you crazy, try MacOSX for a couple of days, you will go crazy then scream.
Wizards are great for new users, but you will find that 90% of the reminders and Wizards in WindowsXP either turn themselves off after an amount of time if not used, or you can select, DON'T SHOW ME THIS AGAIN.
XP is to 2000 as ME is to 98SE. The former in each case being a product with more "widget" features, but less usability.
WindowsME Sucked so bad, this is really a nasty comparison...
WindowsXP does have a lot of NEW features, but it is also the PERFORMANCE optimized version of Win2k's core and services. That is why it truly does RUN faster, even with the EXTRA features.
BTW, when you install a 'fabulous' driver on your Win2k system and have no way to fully recover the OS without doing Admin level work, think about how easy it is on WindowsXP.
On XP you just boot to Safe Mode and tell system restore to roll the computer back to before the driver was installed. Or even better, you install an application that takes control of crap and drives you nuts, you can just Roll back an XP box, even several days (without affecting your user data).
This is kind of a good thing, even for us techies that don't want to do a recovery console, we can even walk Grandma through a full system rollback on the phone in less than one keystroke and 4 clicks. This is wonders when a friend or another grandkid install crap that nukes her system.
So yes, some of the 'new widgets and features' in WindowsXP are not only nice, but quite handy.
Truly don't live in the XP is slow and evil world. (Oh and yes, our company does test and evaluate most OSes on different hardware configurations that the average users don't have access to).
Largely illusion - MS only kicks on PART of Windows networking beforehand is why, whereas Windows 2000 kicked it ALL on @ bootup... takes time!
(Yes, you can make XP/2003 like 2000 in that regard using gpedit.msc iirc somewhere in its tree of config items, but the point is the faster boot of XP/2003 is an "illusion" in a way of looking @ it).
It is NOT an illusion. The drivers load differently and self optimized to load concurrently as needed.
Yes the desktop does appear a 'bit' before the networking is fully initialized on WinXP, but this is so MINIMAL it isn't the reason XP Boots faster.
Additional, do you understand the Security Risks that Microsoft has had to work around because of Networking services coming online in Win2k before the Security controls for them?
Even in SP2, Microsoft delayed the Network load in XP specifically to allow UPPER level OSI security layers to fire before the network becomes live.
Bascially WindowsXP not only BOOTS faster, but truly is faster. We have test systems that are 200mhz 80mb Laptops from 1997, and even with Eye Candy turned on WindowsXP consistently benchmarks (RW Applications) 5-10% faster.
So once and for all, and for all the people sticking with Win2k because they think it is faster, let's dispell the myth and inform the world that WindowsXP IS faster than Windows2K. PERIOD.
If you want to know exactly whan and how this is possible, take a look at the optimization and kernel changes from Win2k to WinXP. Win2k was a major NT overhaul, WinXP was the Pretty and PERFORMANCE enhanced version.
Just like as the OS base code fork continues forward, you will find that even on a desktop Windows 2003 Server performs better than WindowsXP.
This is because of FURTHER optimiation of the core OS, kernel and services.
I however DO understand the users that STAY with Win2K to avoid paying the $100 upgrade cost of WinXP - that makes sense at least.
But to stay with Win2k Because you think it is faster is just silly and pure non-sense.
Oh also on the DRM rant... DRM is something that is enforce by content providers because they like the concept of 'closed box' technologies like a DVD player that hooks directly up to your TV, not a Computer or a device that has the ability to MANIPULATE the data.
This is like the HDCP specifications. Even if your new plasma screen doesn't have HDCP compliance (designed BY REQUEST by Intel in 1999) and written into Law in August of 2004, you won't be able to access any of this DRM or HD protect content no matter if you stay with Win2k, Linux, MacOSX, or ANY OTHER OS that DOES NOT SUPPORT THEM. PERIOD.
HDCP is a FCC regulated REQUIREMENT BY LAW, and just because Linux or Win2k has no mechanisms for it, doesn't mean they will get to play this content. PERIOD.
So you can pout, and blame Microsoft for DRM, but without DRM, the DRM content would not be playable on a COMPUTER. PERIOD.
And if you really want to 'complain' about companies and their DRM extremism, go look at Apple iTunes and their music store.
Apple has the MOST restrictive DRM technologies for their Music and also have EXCLUSIVE rights to it and its distribution.
At least Microsoft's DRM is something they provide to developers and companies as a CONVIENCE of Windows Media, and is not something MICROSOFT ITSELF REQUIRES. IF the content provider wants to use DRM, they can use the DRM built in Windows Media if they want, but they don't have to.
Apple on the other hand, to even play a iTune song or play it on anything BUT an iPod is deemed ILLEGAL by Apple.
Microsoft on the other hand has a fairly open DRM developement strategy and requires NO locks unless the content provider puts it in.
This is why you can download Music from 99% of all non-iTunes stores and play them on 100s of MP3 and WMA portable players.
Apple's iPod has an advantage with the 'coolness' of the iPod in the mark
Now that Win2000 is being kicked to the curb by M$, I imagine they'll enforce an OS check in DirectX and cut off any DirectX updates for it going forward. That would really suck.
I hate to be the one to say this, but TRULY WindowsXP does run faster than Windows 2000.
There are many kernel adjustments, and other things that the average geek and press ignore.
It kills me when people say they are staying with Windows 2000 for speed, when even on our 1997 laptops, WindowsXP runs 5-10% faster. (And even runs faster with 80mb of RAM and Eye Candy turned on.)
XGA card I had as an XGA card, so I was stuck with setting it to be an 8514 -- 1024/768/16colors
I would guess the limited 16 colors was maybe due to RAM or some other problem.
I had an ATI Vantage at this time, and was able to use the 8514 drivers at 1024x786 with 256 colors, which was the 'specification' of the 8514 XGA card.
16 colors must have really sucked, even back then.
This is a good theory, but the journalist truly doesn't get the Trusted topic, nor even ties it to a company making a MASSIVE transistion to a new platform.
I don't even want to waste my time with explaining how wrong the assertions in the article are.
If the PowerPC (CPU) Architecture was UNABLE to implement TNC, then all NON Intel networked devices would also not be TNC compatible. This is NOT how it works or would work.
Microsoft is NOT tied to the Intel platform, nor did they force TNC on manufacturers, this is insane. Anyone use a PocketPC lately? Many of them have NO Intel chips what so ever.
So if you believe this article, you would also have to believe that Microsoft fought against technologies it OWNS as well, like the new CPU in the XBOX 360.
If anyone out there thinks Microsoft wants to or is going to cut off access to Network Content to their precious XBox 360 as well, then you will easily believe this crap article.
1) Processor Don't Matter 2) Microsoft didn't Push for TNC like article suggests. 3) Intel has more (under the hood) projects that are SCREWING consumers than people realize. Look up HDCP, and realize if your Plasma display doesn't support the FCC regulated INTEL technology, you won't be able to watch HD content at over 480p.
-But this DOES NOT MEAN that the devices have to use Intel Silicon to support HDCP, as this journalist suggests for TNC as well.
I for one would never buy another ATI graphics card. I won't even consider getting an XBOX 360 because it has ATI graphics.
And everyone in the world should just assume all other aspects of your system were perfect and you are the best hardware technician in the world, so therefore it HAS to be the fault of the ATI boards.
Come on... Nobody is that silly.
We have tons of both ATI and NVidia cards in our desktops and laptops here. The infrequent problems we have are not all ATI or all NVidia.
Both companies produce some really great products and it is good that they both exist to keep the other one on the cutting edge.
Even at home I have a 9800 Pro in my Theater system, never a hiccup or a problem, from SWG, Matrix Online, Doom3, Halo, FarCry, or any weird video codec I have thrown at it.
And again on my laptop, GeforceFX 6800 Ultra, not a single glitch, and it obviously is faster than the ATI card by 2 to 3 fold, but at the time the 9800 was a better bang for the buck.
I get so tired of people with their proverbially lemon stories, and how that is how EVERY thing from a single company is bad.
ATI and NVidia BOTH have had great and donkey Cards. ATI Donkeys range from the 7000-8000 Radeon series, and NVidia Donkeys range from their 5200-5600 series for example.
I'm sorry you had problem with your ATI card, but it could be other things than just the video card, and even if it was, what brand did you buy, as both company farm out the chipsets to Manufactures that over clock and do some weird crap to the boards. Even the same ATI or NVidia chipset from manufacturer to manufacture can be a major difference.
Also with regard the XBox 360, it is going to havepretty tight hardware integration, random component problems would not be a problem.
Dont assume MS will make it compatible so quick yet. If history teaches us anything, other browsers won't be perfectly compatible, with the occassional system crashes. Maybe you better eat the hat instead.
Did you miss the part where I said I was ALREADY testing and using the server controls it will be using?
As for your FUD about MS track record on compatibility and crashes you apprently can't get over WindowsME which was the last of the hybrid nightmare OSes from MS. Try a NT based Windows OS....
Slashdot Mirror
No, the question is, why would you put voice-over-ip into a word processing document?
Very obvious you have not used OneNote, or any other Meeting Document creation applications that records and timelines the Audio from the meeting with the notes you take.
There are REASONS people would want this information in a Document. I use it everyday.
PERIOD.
(Ignorance leads all at one time or another.)
Your timeline is a bit messed up. Yes, Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time, but Microsoft licensed from Apple the rights to use the "visual displays" in their in-development Word and Excel for the Mac, for use in Windows 1.0. So, in fact, Apple had no problem with Windows 1.0 because they had licensed the tech to them. Windows 1.0 has nothing to do with the "stealing" you're talking about.
Per Andy Hertzfeld's folklore write-up:
"Microsoft didn't manage to ship a version of Windows until almost two years later, releasing Windows 1.0 in the fall of 1985. It was pretty crude, just as Steve had predicted, with little of the Mac's thoughtful elegance. It didn't even have overlapping windows, preferring a simpler technique called "tiling". When its utter rejection became apparent a few months later, Bill Gates fired the implementation team and started a new version from scratch, led by none other than Neil Konzen. "
So, only after Windows 2.0 was released, which was based on an entirely new codebase, and contained many features similar to the Macintosh did Apple believe their ideas were stolen. Why? Because Apple thought the license was only for Windows 1.0, and not for future versions.
Thus the "look-and-feel" lawsuit was filed in 1988.
And Apple lost, not because the court found Apple didn't "own" the look-and-feel, but rather because the language in the contract did state that Microsoft had a license for future versions of Windows.
Actually my TIMELINE was correct. Even read your post above, you confirm exactly what I said.
Apple licensed interface elements that they COULD, other licenses Microsoft obtained from other companies like Xerox.
Apple was NOT SO STUPID to just assume there would only EVER be ONE version of Windows, just a 1.0. That is insane.
Apple tried to make it seem like they were that stupid, and it failed, but they truly didn't totaly lose the case, as it was still in appeal in mid 90s, when Microsoft invested in Apple with the agreement that Apple would drop the lawsuit. (Bascially bailing out the Mac, with 1) Money from Microsoft 2) Commitment that Office would still be released for it so consumers would still buy it.)
So all the Apple people that love to Bash Microsoft, need to stop for one second and realize that OSX and the current growing Mac success might not even be happening if it wasn't for Microsoft's money and Office application commitment.
And just as my post and your post states, Apple could only sue on the 'look and feel' as the basic GUI was NOT Apple's to sue for. This is why XEROX won their lawsuit against Apple in the first place.
In legal terms, it has been proven in court that Apple stole more for the Mac GUI than Microsoft ever took for their Windows GUI. (Fact)
As for the Word and Excel licensing issues, if it wasn't for Word and Excel in the first place, the Mac would not of had the limited success it did in moving into the business world during the 80s, and even continuing to be an alternative in the 90s. Again, something that Microsoft made, not Apple. Success for the Mac can also be credited to Aldus and Pagemaker. Those were the premire and mainstream applications that gave the Mac the credibility they worked so hard to obtain. (Look at the AtariST and Amiga if you don't believe the applicaitons make the success of the platform. - both were technically superior to any Apple product in the 80s. (For example color and full NTSC video production abilities like the Amiga did. - Back when Mac users made FUN of color, and touted how silly color was on a 'work' computer. (Go read the old articles from Mac User and Byte during this timeline if you personally don't remember the Mac crowd being the - anti-color people. Just like they have been the single mouse button champions recently.)
So to recap, Windows 1.0 WAS in development at the same time the GUI at Apple was in development.
Job and Gates both started this development at about the same exact time even. Apple ha
Nice, but apparently it'll only hold 100 songs. And if that is true, it is not nearly enough capacity to make me switch from carrying both an MP3 player and a mobile.
Then how is this even newsworthy? Even my old Motorola V710, has 200+ MP3 songs on it, and two movies.
Let alone my SmartPhone with Windows PocketPC, which can hold 1,000s of songs, and even do remote desktop to any server I manage from anywhere in the world.
Again, how is this going to be a great new innovation, other than them getting a big press release?
Apple's Marketing machine does deserve kuddos, I think they are far smarter than the Apple developers. They could market toliet paper and have the world believe Apple invented it as well.
Apple did not protect itself adequately before Microsoft created Windows. All of Apple's litigation regarding look and feel got tossed out of court, with MS able to continue without restraint. Apple's attorneys seem to be very good at reactive work, such as cease and desist orders, but not too good on the preventative side.
It really wasn't a timing issue with the Apple Lawsuit against Microsoft. Apple would have been unable to obtain patents on the things they were suing Microsoft over.
The UI concepts and specifically the GUI elements were something Apple themselves did not create or own, so they could only sue Microsoft on 'look and feel', not actually ideas or concepts.
If people actually follow this entire process, they will find that Xerox 'successfully' sued Apple for copying technology they DID NOT license for the Mac GUI. Additionally, other GUI competitive products were in the works before Lisa and the Mac, for example XWindows.
So all Apple had left was look and feel, and if Microsoft named the Trash Can 'Trash' or not, hence why it is called a Recycle Bin in Windows...
I find a lot of people that are mad at Microsoft because they somehow feel Windows stole the GUI from Apple. This is fairly far from the Truth, as Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time as the Apple GUI. Apple just found better hardware at the time and got it to market first. Secondly the GUI concept were not Apple's to steal in the first place.
RTFA. NOT games. Accessories. It took me less than 20 seconds to read your comment, hit reply, and tell you that.
And because I used games as an ANALOGY, you seem to think that there is always a difference in peripheral licensing and game licensing? They are of the same ilk. If the company is wanting full quality control of peripherals, JUST LIKE OTHER COMPANIES DO FOR GAMES, means this is not news, as peripherals have ALSO BEEN licensed and required approval for other platforms before.
I'm so glad you could read my post so fast and yet not comprehend anything out of it... Next you will demonstrate your amazing ability of how you cannot count to 10...
How about next time you, RTFP...
Ok, this has got to be one of the most insane posts, and ignorant perceptions of what the MS licensing entails.
Companies like Nintendo, Sony, and Atari have been doing this for YEARS. And this story is acting like Microsoft is the first one, and the big bully for doing it. It is called quality assurance.
This is done with MOST platform games, they must carry the 'official' licensing from Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft. This is also done with many accessories.
And this story is new how?
Even in 1983 Intellivision only allowed 'licensed' games to be played on their system. And when a company went ahead and produced a couple of titles like 'mousetrap' that were not licensed, Intellivision came out with the Intellivision II, and it specifically would not play any 'unlicensed' titles, leaving customers with 'mousetrap' unable to play the game.
The person with this post and the hype that is once again making Microsoft 'evil' absolutely has no knowledge of the industry and it frankly showing what level of stupidity people will go to 'create' a story, when it is just business as usual that almost all companies in these markets work under.
The address bar is not similar to the taskbar and quick launch toolbar at all. The quick launch toolbar is context-free; it doesn't display information on the current application and doesn't change status when you switch to another application.
The address bar, on the other hand, is directly linked to the current tab - when you perform an operation on the current tab, the address bar changes, and when you perform an operation on the address bar, the current tab changes, but no others do. There's a 1:1 correspondence between the address bar and the current tab. You simply can't say the same thing about the quick launch toolbar. The only way in which they are remotely similar is that you can click stuff.
Yes I can, because the Quick Launch toolbar is a PART of the taskbar, that DOES display information about current Running applicaitons. (Ok, stay with me here, think of the running applications on the Taskbar as 'tabs'.) That doesn't mean the address bar on the 'taskbar' or the quick launch buttons are NOT launchers, and it also doesn't preclude the taskbar itself from listing information about the current 'TABS - or Running applications'
This is a simple concept, sorry I complicated it even more. Just because a UI element is a launcher, does not mean it cannot display context sensitive information about a click on, or selected process, or tab. Nor does it make it a part of the process or tab. PERIOD.
What's your point? That you can't possibly be wrong?
My point is these are easily understood concepts in the world of people that do know a bit about usability and UI design. If you don't understand where I am coming from, then you have two options, go educate yourself on UI and usability, or accept my answer since I do have an extensive background in this area. So if you don't want to educate yourself and keep adding stupid posts, then stop, and accept my answer, even if there is a possiblity of it being wrong.
Who paid $199 for an NES? That was the mega-package with the robot that Nintendo put together to sneak their game console into stores that remembered The Great Video Game Crash of 1983. I bet most people bought the cheaper bundle; I know my NES console cost $80.
Probably people that bought it in the 1985-1988 time frame. I bought mine in 1989 for 119.00, and that was the cutting edge price.
No, it's part of the page. If it's merely a launcher, then the address wouldn't change when you switched tabs
So if the TaskBar display the currently running programs in Windows, you can't click on a shortcut in the Quick Launch toolbar to launch a new application?
Same concept. Just because it is a 'launcher' does not mean it can't display information about the current process or 'tab'...
Again, been doing usability for a long time, there is consistency to this. Go find some other aspect to pick at...
Why doesn't Microsoft scrap the current Windows kernel and write a completely new one instead of trying to add on to an existing kernel? I know they do this for backward compatibility,
Um, bad idea, and no...
The Windows Kernel is the NT Kernel that was developed by the current LEADING *nix and OS Engineers at the time in 1990-1993.
Windows itself as most people get confused about is truly the Win32 Subsystem that sits on top of the NT Kernel. So the compatibility you speak of is in the Win32 subsystem for the most part, and that is why the transition from the 'old' Win3.1-WinME kernel technologies were not a big issues when users moved to the new kernel with Windows2000 and WindowsXP.
The NT Kernel itself is VERY well designed, and is actually more advanced than most mach and micro kernels. For example, it is not monolithic, but yet yields the speed and benefits of a monolithic kernel.
Many OS engineers, regard the NT kernel as being fairly advanced in its design, besides it was designed by some of the BEST *nix and other OS Designers at the time it was originally created. (So if you really want to hate NT and Microsoft, you would have to hate some of the pioneers of the *nix models you are currently using, as they purposely broke from *nix concepts in designing NT - and it was their choice, as Microsoft owned a *nix at the time, and the designers had full reign to make NT a *nix style OS if they wanted to.)
The NT Kernel that sits under Windows is one of the few client/server kernel models, and is the only one in any widely used OS. The NT Kernel is one of the truly GOOD and Strong Things about Windows, ripping it out and 'downgrading' to a Linux or BSD style kernel would severely cripple a lot of performance and abilities it was designed to circumvent.
The designers however, as they wrote at the time, wanted to surpass the *nix model and with regard to the kernel offer features that no other OS technology had ever tried to obtain.
Oh, and as for your comment about 'easily' adding a new interface with a different kernel, that is in fact one of the 'unique' abilities of the NT Kernel under Windows. The Win32 interface is a 'subsystem', and NT has the ability to run multiple 'subsystems' on the same kernel, and even offer interoperability between the subsystems.
Microsoft in fact already does this, as there is a *nix subsystem already available for NT, and it is a free download from Microsoft. Also in the past, Windows NT included an OS/2 and a basic POSIX subsystem, which all ran along side the Win32 subsystem. So if Microsoft wanted to make a new UI, or if for example Linux exploded and became the standard OS of the world, Microsoft could even release a version of Windows NT with a full Linux subsystem to run all Linux applications, and still take advantage of all the NT kernel features and even the vast amount of drivers Windows users currently have. So, no matter where the market heads, Microsoft can easily follow and possibly even make a better version of Linux than Linux itself. Like I said, the NT kernel design can do things other OS kernels cannot, the subsystems is a good example.
So ripping out the kernel in Windows would be the last thing to do to improve Windows. And you should read up on this, and stop comparing the Win9x kernel to the current NT based kernel underneath the Win32 subsystem of Windows.
Take Care...
Yeah, but then, should not the address bar also be under the tabs?
Actually no, in terms of usability, you have to follow a consistent concept. The address bar is NOT a part of the page or the TAB. The Address bar is a 'launcher' or way to open a TAB or Page.
Sorry if I'm a bit anal over this, worked in usability and UI design for too many years.
The Net Avenger
I mean, it's stupid. It "disassociates" tabs from the page, and it puts that menu in the middle. Why put in such relevant place a menu that it's so rarely used?
This is a simple answer... Microsoft, in order to maintain compatibility with plug ins like Google bar, and other add on toolbars and functions had to separate out each instance of the tab interface, so that the toolbars and plug ins would be specific to the TAB, not specific to the whole browser.
That is why using a MSN search toolbar for example that highlights searched terms on a page, show only the highlighted terms on the 'TAB' that is open and NOT all open TABs in teh browser.
This was a smart move, and the Menu Bar is a part of this customization, so it too had to be based on each TAB not the BROWSER.
And this makes perfect sense, the toolbar and Menu Bar should be relevant and specific to the TAB or page open, not all the TABS.
So pick it apart all you want, it is the NATURAL flow of how Tabbed browsing should be down when there is customizaiton features built into the browser for third parties.
Basically Each TAB has a menu, and specific toolbars, even if they don't seem to change to you when flipping between tabs.
Yes, and what's worse: MS' anti-phishing technique involves sending each link you click to Microsoft for verification against a blacklist. Scary, if you ask me.
Um, but it only does this after asking the user if they want to use this feature, and even then if a site is blacklisted, the users still has control on whether to go to it or not.
So Microsoft is tackling a problem, giving users full control over it, and still you find a way to bitch about it.
If Microsoft gave every one $1,000 - you would complain it was in the wrong denomination of bills. Geesh.
When Vista is released, most (maybe all) new Intel notebooks will still have 32-bit processors
Actually you will find that a large percentage of Notebook sales are not just the 32bit Mobile CPU.
In fast in the last 6mos, the 3-3.8ghz range laptops have all been EMT64 notebooks. In fact, typing this from one now.
Also for people in this thread, Microsoft has stated that the 32bit and 64bit versions of Longhorn will ship together and not be seperate products.
Again, MS marketing likes to imply that super competent admins are needed for Linux but that any slobbering idiot can manage a Windows server. Neither are true of course but they'll do anything to "prove" that Linux is much more difficult to manage than Windows.
I agree... However think back yourself how many IT departments and IT managers are truly morons. Understanding simple stuff scares me sometimes when they have no clue and look at you like a deer in the headlights.
So I pretty much can't imagine them doing a good *nix installation, especially when you think about them having to open a terminal/command shell and change config files by hand. I know Mac Server administrators that hate OSX because they don't understand changing something in a text file for serivce operations, or replacing a secured file in the System...
So in this regard that 99.9% of a Windows Server Installation can be done with a mouse and cute help files, Microsoft does have a slight point.
Not everyone in the world is on par to drive a bus let alone manage a large IT installation, and in that respect Windows is so easy, it makes clueless computer users appear to be IT pros.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
MS' own recommended strategy for servers is one box for each function. AD tree that's a box. An IIS server? That's a box. A SQL server? Yet another box.
I can and have run DNS, Samba, Apache, Netatalk, MySQL and others on the same machine and it just sits in the corner and does it's job. I think MS doesn't want to start throwing stones in this particular glass house
Microsoft's own strategy? Really...
Our company manages one of the LARGEST HIT, and BANDWIDTH web site in the WORLD. And we host it on a Single Server, that is running Mail, SQL Server, IIS, and auxiallary applications.
It is a Dual processor Xeon with 2G of RAM, and Raid0.
That is it period...
Not to mention the site is fully dynamic, based on ASP and ASP.NET, and highly uses the SQL server.
We also receive and send about 10gb of email from this server a day...
So tell me again, how you can do all this on Linux and you can't on Windows Server?
We could get a bit better performance if we need it by moving the SQL and Mail to a different server, but to this point, even with 500,000 - 1,000,000 hits per day, it doesn't seem to be a performance problem.
So quit assuming and talking out of your butt, unless you are really running a LARGE scale site that does exactly what you assume Windows can't do.
just because there are kernel adjustments etc
/ whyupgrade/performance.mspx
Ok, NOT JUST KERNEL ADJUSTMENTS... The entire CODE BASE was optimized between Win2k, and WinXP.
Win2K established the next level of functionality, XP added a few new features, and used the optimized CODE BASE that originated from Windows2k. Just like Windows 2003 Server is an optimized CODE BASE, and is faster than XP.
These OSes are designed with a COMMON code base, that forks off for each release. As Win2k was being put out to meet deadlines, the developers were optimizing the BASE CODE along the tree. At one point the developers took XP as 'fork' from the optimized CODE BASE and put it out.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how this software development model works.
In addition to optimization to the BASIC CODE BASE, they added in tons of new security concepts, abilities like complete DLL isolation, that was first touched on in the Win2k Code Fork, etc.
So every BIT of code from Win2k's Code Base (or tree) was worked over, optimized, and reocmpiled before it was even forked off into WindowsXP.
Now if you want proof, here go read an independant Test Microsoft had run that put XP up to previous versions of Windows. What kills me is this is basic IT knowledge, and yet people ramble on here like it is some new idea by crack pots.
You will also notice XP IS faster than even Win98, which many people here still don't seem to grasp. That is why people in the real IT world, even with older 1997 computers, install XP on them to IMPROVE end user performance over the original Win98 that shipped on them.
Here read for yourself:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation
So, please respond, WHAT annoying wizards?
Open word processor, it asks, do you want to open a new document, open a spreadsheet, create a poster... For God's sake, if I opened the word processor, maybe that is what I wanted to use.
Shall I go on and on and on? You respond like I'm some nut that doesn't use a Mac every freaking day.
Get over it, Macs BABY STEP users FAR more than Windows does, call them Wizards, REMINDERS, Annoying Crap on the screen, whatever you want.
I personally don't have a BIG problem with them, as I just ignore them and think, well this is the mentally Apple is designing their products for. So maybe you don't realize it is holding your hand when you just want to get work done, because you are in the marketshare that THEY focus the 'hand holding' at.
Oh, as for the 'hardware' specific point of the Wizards in your post, you mean that YOUR Mac is special and never asks you a question when connecting to a new secure wireless network? Really? Or do you just not consider it a 'WIZARD'?
For the love of God...
W2K drivers actually worked better and had more options then the XP version (was true for both the wireless card and processor speed control).
This might be because in WindowsXP you have AN OPTION... Of letting WIndows XP (the default) control wireless settings, or telling it NOT to control the wireless settings, and then the Network Card 'config' utility becomes the mechanism for controlling your wireless card.
WindowsXP uses the 'manufacturer' specified optimized settings for the Wireless card, and if you unclick the checkbox that says "Let Windows Manage my Wireless" you get to access all these features JUST LIKE IN WINDOWS2K, as the drivers are usually the SAME!!!
Additionally, WindowsXP Wireless management is designed to be fully automatic, because not everyone is a tech user, they just want to connect to their wireless, type in a key and be online.
Oh and BTW, even with WindowsXP controlling the network settings, you can still get to them via the Wireless cards properties, if the manufacturer don't turn them off, and 90% of them don't. So those 'extra' features, were probably already there, you just had to look if you wanted the techie stuff.
This is one of the craziest posts I have found in a while.
Oh, I don't like the cute XP Wizards, so instead of turning them off, I just installed an OS that is less performance tuned, has less features, less drivers available, and runs less programs.
You are either living in the Win2k myth world, or just an old timer that don't like new things...
If you think the wizards in WindowsXP were driving you crazy, try MacOSX for a couple of days, you will go crazy then scream.
Wizards are great for new users, but you will find that 90% of the reminders and Wizards in WindowsXP either turn themselves off after an amount of time if not used, or you can select, DON'T SHOW ME THIS AGAIN.
XP is to 2000 as ME is to 98SE. The former in each case being a product with more "widget" features, but less usability.
WindowsME Sucked so bad, this is really a nasty comparison...
WindowsXP does have a lot of NEW features, but it is also the PERFORMANCE optimized version of Win2k's core and services. That is why it truly does RUN faster, even with the EXTRA features.
BTW, when you install a 'fabulous' driver on your Win2k system and have no way to fully recover the OS without doing Admin level work, think about how easy it is on WindowsXP.
On XP you just boot to Safe Mode and tell system restore to roll the computer back to before the driver was installed. Or even better, you install an application that takes control of crap and drives you nuts, you can just Roll back an XP box, even several days (without affecting your user data).
This is kind of a good thing, even for us techies that don't want to do a recovery console, we can even walk Grandma through a full system rollback on the phone in less than one keystroke and 4 clicks. This is wonders when a friend or another grandkid install crap that nukes her system.
So yes, some of the 'new widgets and features' in WindowsXP are not only nice, but quite handy.
Truly don't live in the XP is slow and evil world. (Oh and yes, our company does test and evaluate most OSes on different hardware configurations that the average users don't have access to).
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
BUT that faster bootup in XP?
Largely illusion - MS only kicks on PART of Windows networking beforehand is why, whereas Windows 2000 kicked it ALL on @ bootup... takes time!
(Yes, you can make XP/2003 like 2000 in that regard using gpedit.msc iirc somewhere in its tree of config items, but the point is the faster boot of XP/2003 is an "illusion" in a way of looking @ it).
It is NOT an illusion. The drivers load differently and self optimized to load concurrently as needed.
Yes the desktop does appear a 'bit' before the networking is fully initialized on WinXP, but this is so MINIMAL it isn't the reason XP Boots faster.
Additional, do you understand the Security Risks that Microsoft has had to work around because of Networking services coming online in Win2k before the Security controls for them?
Even in SP2, Microsoft delayed the Network load in XP specifically to allow UPPER level OSI security layers to fire before the network becomes live.
Bascially WindowsXP not only BOOTS faster, but truly is faster. We have test systems that are 200mhz 80mb Laptops from 1997, and even with Eye Candy turned on WindowsXP consistently benchmarks (RW Applications) 5-10% faster.
So once and for all, and for all the people sticking with Win2k because they think it is faster, let's dispell the myth and inform the world that WindowsXP IS faster than Windows2K. PERIOD.
If you want to know exactly whan and how this is possible, take a look at the optimization and kernel changes from Win2k to WinXP. Win2k was a major NT overhaul, WinXP was the Pretty and PERFORMANCE enhanced version.
Just like as the OS base code fork continues forward, you will find that even on a desktop Windows 2003 Server performs better than WindowsXP.
This is because of FURTHER optimiation of the core OS, kernel and services.
I however DO understand the users that STAY with Win2K to avoid paying the $100 upgrade cost of WinXP - that makes sense at least.
But to stay with Win2k Because you think it is faster is just silly and pure non-sense.
Oh also on the DRM rant... DRM is something that is enforce by content providers because they like the concept of 'closed box' technologies like a DVD player that hooks directly up to your TV, not a Computer or a device that has the ability to MANIPULATE the data.
This is like the HDCP specifications. Even if your new plasma screen doesn't have HDCP compliance (designed BY REQUEST by Intel in 1999) and written into Law in August of 2004, you won't be able to access any of this DRM or HD protect content no matter if you stay with Win2k, Linux, MacOSX, or ANY OTHER OS that DOES NOT SUPPORT THEM. PERIOD.
HDCP is a FCC regulated REQUIREMENT BY LAW, and just because Linux or Win2k has no mechanisms for it, doesn't mean they will get to play this content. PERIOD.
So you can pout, and blame Microsoft for DRM, but without DRM, the DRM content would not be playable on a COMPUTER. PERIOD.
And if you really want to 'complain' about companies and their DRM extremism, go look at Apple iTunes and their music store.
Apple has the MOST restrictive DRM technologies for their Music and also have EXCLUSIVE rights to it and its distribution.
At least Microsoft's DRM is something they provide to developers and companies as a CONVIENCE of Windows Media, and is not something MICROSOFT ITSELF REQUIRES. IF the content provider wants to use DRM, they can use the DRM built in Windows Media if they want, but they don't have to.
Apple on the other hand, to even play a iTune song or play it on anything BUT an iPod is deemed ILLEGAL by Apple.
Microsoft on the other hand has a fairly open DRM developement strategy and requires NO locks unless the content provider puts it in.
This is why you can download Music from 99% of all non-iTunes stores and play them on 100s of MP3 and WMA portable players.
Apple's iPod has an advantage with the 'coolness' of the iPod in the mark
Now that Win2000 is being kicked to the curb by M$, I imagine they'll enforce an OS check in DirectX and cut off any DirectX updates for it going forward. That would really suck.
I hate to be the one to say this, but TRULY WindowsXP does run faster than Windows 2000.
There are many kernel adjustments, and other things that the average geek and press ignore.
It kills me when people say they are staying with Windows 2000 for speed, when even on our 1997 laptops, WindowsXP runs 5-10% faster. (And even runs faster with 80mb of RAM and Eye Candy turned on.)
XGA card I had as an XGA card, so I was stuck with setting it to be an 8514 -- 1024/768/16colors
I would guess the limited 16 colors was maybe due to RAM or some other problem.
I had an ATI Vantage at this time, and was able to use the 8514 drivers at 1024x786 with 256 colors, which was the 'specification' of the 8514 XGA card.
16 colors must have really sucked, even back then.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
This is a good theory, but the journalist truly doesn't get the Trusted topic, nor even ties it to a company making a MASSIVE transistion to a new platform.
I don't even want to waste my time with explaining how wrong the assertions in the article are.
If the PowerPC (CPU) Architecture was UNABLE to implement TNC, then all NON Intel networked devices would also not be TNC compatible. This is NOT how it works or would work.
Microsoft is NOT tied to the Intel platform, nor did they force TNC on manufacturers, this is insane. Anyone use a PocketPC lately? Many of them have NO Intel chips what so ever.
So if you believe this article, you would also have to believe that Microsoft fought against technologies it OWNS as well, like the new CPU in the XBOX 360.
If anyone out there thinks Microsoft wants to or is going to cut off access to Network Content to their precious XBox 360 as well, then you will easily believe this crap article.
1) Processor Don't Matter
2) Microsoft didn't Push for TNC like article suggests.
3) Intel has more (under the hood) projects that are SCREWING consumers than people realize. Look up HDCP, and realize if your Plasma display doesn't support the FCC regulated INTEL technology, you won't be able to watch HD content at over 480p.
-But this DOES NOT MEAN that the devices have to use Intel Silicon to support HDCP, as this journalist suggests for TNC as well.
I for one would never buy another ATI graphics card. I won't even consider getting an XBOX 360 because it has ATI graphics.
And everyone in the world should just assume all other aspects of your system were perfect and you are the best hardware technician in the world, so therefore it HAS to be the fault of the ATI boards.
Come on... Nobody is that silly.
We have tons of both ATI and NVidia cards in our desktops and laptops here. The infrequent problems we have are not all ATI or all NVidia.
Both companies produce some really great products and it is good that they both exist to keep the other one on the cutting edge.
Even at home I have a 9800 Pro in my Theater system, never a hiccup or a problem, from SWG, Matrix Online, Doom3, Halo, FarCry, or any weird video codec I have thrown at it.
And again on my laptop, GeforceFX 6800 Ultra, not a single glitch, and it obviously is faster than the ATI card by 2 to 3 fold, but at the time the 9800 was a better bang for the buck.
I get so tired of people with their proverbially lemon stories, and how that is how EVERY thing from a single company is bad.
ATI and NVidia BOTH have had great and donkey Cards. ATI Donkeys range from the 7000-8000 Radeon series, and NVidia Donkeys range from their 5200-5600 series for example.
I'm sorry you had problem with your ATI card, but it could be other things than just the video card, and even if it was, what brand did you buy, as both company farm out the chipsets to Manufactures that over clock and do some weird crap to the boards. Even the same ATI or NVidia chipset from manufacturer to manufacture can be a major difference.
Also with regard the XBox 360, it is going to havepretty tight hardware integration, random component problems would not be a problem.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
Dont assume MS will make it compatible so quick yet. If history teaches us anything, other browsers won't be perfectly compatible, with the occassional system crashes. Maybe you better eat the hat instead.
Did you miss the part where I said I was ALREADY testing and using the server controls it will be using?
As for your FUD about MS track record on compatibility and crashes you apprently can't get over WindowsME which was the last of the hybrid nightmare OSes from MS. Try a NT based Windows OS....