you're missing the point, the ipod pretty much defined what a portable mp3 player was supposed to be like.
the stuff that came before was "proof of concept".. basically a hard drive (or tiny expensive RAM) and an mpeg decoder.. no firewire, no small size, no good design.
apple doesn't "copy", they "redefine".
why do all the new music players look like ipods these days??
Actually, I think you have missed something. The Creative Jukebox not only was feature for feature in tune with what the iPOD offered, it also supported more audio controls and more file formats, far before the iPod was a twinkle in Apple's eye.
The reason new "Hard Drive" based players look more like the IPOD? Maybe because technology and drive size have shrunk, so have the chassis that these units ship in.
Not every one even resembles the regtangular (outline of a harddirve -some innovation here) that the iPod is based on. And the ones that do have the 'harddrive' size feel and look is probably because the HARD DRIVE in the unit is the form they HAVE TO ALL WORK AROUND. Duh?
They are not trying to look like iPods, the are just smaller now that the technology is there with smaller drives with higher capacities.
If you love Steve Jobs this much, maybe you should send him roses or just ask him out.:)
Nobody knows under what conditions WVG will finally be made public. And if Microsoft has no ulterior motives, then why don't they just use SVG?
Read the posts... SVG does not have the features that are needed for WVG, so Microsoft would have to EXTEND SVG to make it usable for what they are doing. And this would still make everyone mad, because BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
Get a clue, Microsoft needs to have a full vector interface and protocol that supports things SVG does not, from animation to other aspects of document display.
Mcrosoft stays in control of the "standard" by explicitly forbidding derivations. Not my definition of an open specification.
Yeah, just like Adobe's PDF. I never said the Office file format was an OPEN standard. Get your terms straight. It is a published specification in an OPEN STANDARD (XML) FILE FORMAT.
Again, this subject only applies to Longhorn and the UI of Longhorn and applications that run on Longhorn and Windows, so if you consider this changing the subject, I will do so again.
This DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SVG, FLASH, THE WEB, OR MICROSOFT BASTARDIZING OPEN STANDARDS.
If you are running OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OpenBSD or any other OS, WVG really has no more of an impact on your life than the DIB API calls in Windows Itself, they are not something that has anything to do with ANYTHING outside of Windows.
Everyone seems to have fallen for the old 1998 MS lie, that anything sold with the OS and some integration is a necessary part of the OS itself.
And yet, Microsoft never said this...
IE - Integrated HTML rendering engine (IE was the browser that was the front end of the engine, but applications did not have to use the IE browser and still could use the full features of the HTML rendering engine.)
Media Player (WMP7-9 just the front end to WMA and WMV codec technologies)
However, telling Microsoft that they need to cripple the OS by removing not only IE and WMP7-9, but ALSO the HTML rendering engine and the inherent sound codecs that ARE a part of the OS, is just silly and DOES break applications.
It would be like asking Microsoft not only to remove MSPAINT, but requiring them to remove the ability for Applications to call the BMP APIs in addition to removing MSPAINT.
Developers that use these technologies in Windows get this, how come no one else seems to do so?
Microsoft never said they would not Remove IE, they just said the HTML engine behind IE was a PIECE of the OS. Microsoft never said that it wouldn't remove WMP7-9, but requiring the removal the sound and video codecs does take away from the OS.
(Windows Server for example installs just fine without the Media Player, but leaves the Codecs so applications that use them are not broken).
There is a DIFFERENCE between the IE browser and the HTML rendering engine IE uses. The HTML Rendering engine was designed to be component based so that application developers could just tell the OS to display any HTML code/pages and it would know how to do it. Just like if the developer tells the OS to draw a BMP at 0,0 or a Font at 0,0.
If Microsoft is a Monopoly because of companies like Dell that sold out for the contracts to force their users to get Windows with every system bought, and DELL still does this for most of their computers.
Smart Computer retailer (like our company for example) never signed a deal to sell Windows with every PC, and our users could choose what they wanted.
So if Microsoft is a Monopoly, then no one can use a computer without using Microsoft products? Funny, I know a Lot of Linux and Mac Users that would disagree with that argument.
They could easily have extended SVG in a backwards-compatible, standards-compliant way (using additional XML elements declared in separate namespaces, for example). The didn't. Instead, they chose to represent even those features that are supported by SVG as well in a slightly different, incompatible way (altered attribute/element names, etc.)
And yet the XML behind WVG is published so that anyone, company, or entitity can also use the technology to implement a version of WVG or a SVG WVG compatibile version.
It would be different if they had the door closed on the WVG specifications, but you can read tag and ability for yourself.
Just like people bitched they wouldn't let the XML structure of Office out, and yet they have also published it.
Pick something else to bitch about. If you are not using Windows (Longhorn specifically) it really has NO impact on you. If you are using Windows, then it is your choice to make apps using the WVG interface or not. Period.
This has nothing to do with specifications or standards or the WEB unless the app is being deployed over the web for a WINDOWS user RUNNING Longhorn with the WVG rendering engine.
Now, if Micro$oft were attempting to redo their entire interface in SVG, you'd hear raves about it with a few cautious twitters that they might be subtlely embracing (gack) and extending (ughn) again, and our backsides might be in danger.
That would be wonderful in an ideal world, but SVG has MANY limitations that Longhorn WILL support. From animations and effects that SVG cannot handle.
Sure. Because it's PDF-based and PDF is a...wait for it...STANDARD.
PDF, Standard? Um... Ok, and who owns this standard, defines it, and 'licenses' it?
Oh wait, you surely didn't mean an 'Open Standard' did you?:)
Ok, so Microsoft is coming out with a product that is 90% the same as an existing product from another vender, but 10% optimized for windows only, and probably *just* different enough that it's easy to get in to, but hard to switch back. It'll be included with every copy of windows (when it's released sometime towards the end of the decade).
Good theory, expect Microsoft was one of the original developers involved in the creation of SVG. Oh, how soon everyone forgets...
"SVG is currently a working draft at the W3C, with working group members coming from key industry leaders such as Adobe, HP, IBM, Macromedia, Microsoft, Netscape, Quark, Sun and Visio." (Source)
I'd say the only reason the speckle engine is getting any buzz is because Microsoft is using the same marketing machine to create buzz for an idea they stole from someone else.
Good theory, but the buzz isn't coming from Microsoft, it is coming from the anti-Microsoft world.
Other than visiting the Longhorn development sites to prep developers for what is coming in the new OS, Microsoft has said very little about 'Sparkle'.
Especially considering the complete implementation and design specifications of Sparkle are not even finalized. Microsoft's only sparkle PR campaign is with developers to get feedback on its final implementation.
Well, if you actually read anything about Longhorn, you would know that there is no difference between a native app and a web app in Longhorn. IE will support avalon rendering, so if you go to a website that uses MS's proprietary document/app format, you WILL see a Sparkle rendered page.
Read anything about it, does USING and developing on it count?
You are right that Web Applications will use also be able to use the rendering engine in Longhorn; however, you still don't get it.
You are taking about features of the distributed application model that allows web and client side applications to be synonymous to the OS.
The fact still remains that 'Sparkle' is the rendering engine of Longhorn, just as the GDI of Windows today uses a Bitmap based engine.
Using your analogy is ridiculous when you consider that Web pages of today are displayed in IE window on a Windows computer rendered as a Bitmap image. This is no different than it being rendered in the future as a vector image in Longhorn.
Using your messed up analogy you could also say that because the current Windows GDI uses DIB technology to display a Web Page in IE then Microsoft is trying to take over the JPEG and other Bitmap technologies. (Sound ridiculous yet?)
You are confusing the two concepts, and using that to establish that the Vector engine or Longhorn is designed to be a WEB standard.
Admittedly there is more to "Sparkle" than just the Vector engine of Longhorn by incorporating the UI in a XML style that is network friendly, but that does not mean it is designed to take over anything that already exists, it is simply just the evolution of display technology in Longhorn.
If you look hard enough, you will see that "Sparkle" has concepts from other networking GUI models as well, does XWindows ring a bell? Making an open light protocol interface for the Vector engine is a great idea, much better than shoving massive chunks of bitmaps over the network for remote applications.
- But again, this does not mean it is designed to replace the internet with a Windows only world - Microsoft is NOT that stupid, nor do they have that much control on the internet.
Look at his posting history, all he does is spew microsoft propaganda
And funny, I also write a lot of code for Linux. Makes you rethink how safe this whole Open Source thing is, ah?
Just kidding, although I do write a lot of things for Linux...
I abhor the lynching of any company when it isn't based on fact. Pick on Apple or Linux for the wrong reason, and you will get a response from me as well. However, Linux and Apple are seldom bashed at SlashDot or 20 people have already responded to defend them. Microsoft seems to be the kicking boy around here, and sometimes they deserve it, but not EVERY TIME.
I am no serious fan of any specific OS, I just want the competition to continue so that future OSes will be far beyond what is conceived and rambled on in many of these posts.
It amazes me that OS fans(especially here) get so complacent with what the current development cycles are producing and the lack of vision of what is around the corner.
Microsoft may be fools in a lot of regard, but they are not losing any R&D ground by being 'happy' with how things currently are with their OS.
Apple is also starting to lead innovation again after a 10 year dead cycle.
Solaris just keeps moving the old model forward, Linux is maturing, and the BSD variants are setting some security standards, but there is nothing revolutionary coming from these OS groups.
Where is the next thing? If I had to bet now, it will be from Microsoft or Apple - they at least get that catching up is not good enough, creating something that never existed before is the real brass ring.
Just like the 2.6 kernel, what is really great and new in it that doesn't exist already in some other OS already available? And it kills me that people are so 'happy' about what is new in the 2.6 kernel, like the new scheduler - other *nixes have had better schedulers for a long time; Linux is once again just catching up. Even the original NT kernel scheduler is more advanced than pre-2.6 Linux kernels.
It is time to take theories and start putting them into products, and then creating new OS theories and implementing them as well.
That is one of the few things Microsoft did do right with the NT project - take un-implemented OS theories and put them together in a cohesive OS model. Seems everyone is so busy hating them they have missed their angle that gives them the edge even today.
'Sparkle' is a vector designed drawing engine for APPLICATIONS inside longhorn, it is NOT being billed as a WEB standard.
'Sparkle' is the transitional replacement of the GDI model of the Windows interface. Moving from a Bitmap model to a true Vector model for the Windows UI.
It has NOTHING to do with SVG, Flash, or Web standards.
If you need to compare it to something, compare it to 'Quartz' - and I don't see people jumping on Apple for replacing SVG or Flash by using the PDF based Quartz engine.
The only reason the 'Sparkle' vector engine of Longhorn is getting buzz in this area is that unlike Quartz, it supports a wide array of animation standards within the vector drawing engine.
So, yes it functions somewhat like Flash of today, but that DOES NOT mean it is meant to replace Flash. Instead, it should be the new OS UI rendering engine that FLASH itself uses to draw FLASH applets in a browser window. (Get it, it is the vector engine under applications and things like Flash will use to render on screen.)
The same for SVG, there is no mention that SVG will not be supported in the new IE of Longhorn, in fact, SVG will probably be supported, but be drawn in the UI by the 'Sparkle' Engine.
This is an application/OS level vector rendering engine with animation, it is not a Web standard, nor does it purport to be.
Please stop with Microsoft is abandoning standards and trying to take over the world because they are moving their OS UI model from bitmap to vector based. That is all, get over it.
Everyone thought it was great stop forward in UI rendering models when Apple did this with Quartz, so how is Microsoft evil in developing their own rendering engine as well?
They aren't the only OS to have them, there are sloppy programmers everywhere. But two years ago Microsoft announced to the world that they were focusing on security. They supposedly stopped development on everything and put all of their programmers through new training to be security conscious. Yet a problem that a simple code review should have exposed still exists. And please keep in mind, Microsoft also maintains the compiler that builds all of their products. If they were really serious about security, they could have fixed it there.
We all need to make sure we aren't putting out code that is vulnerable to known exploits. And Microsoft shouldn't be preaching to the industry about security until they have at least addressed a common, well known flaw in their products.
Sure they could have changed the compiler, but moving a compiler like in Visual Studio for C++ to a compiler that 'manages' both buffer overflow and memory allocation would BREAK many applications because of the inherent nature of C++ programming model and compiler that is required.
Microsoft knew this, but also knew it couldn't be done at the time.
Microsoft has started moving to 'managed' code, even major parts of DirectX 9.0 have been moved to managed code, and Longhorn should be almost if not fully moved to managed code.
It isn't that Microsoft was ignorant of the circumstances of 'their' compiler, and what flaws this type of programming model left open, instead they realized it would take a major progressive moment away from non-managed code.
Microsoft's security revision two years ago was not to be an 'instant' fix, anyone that understands security realizes that such a prospect is ridiculous.
But they did identify where they needed to take their products to get away from security problems, and fix the current software in development at the time using the methodologies and technologies they had available at the time.
Windows 2003 Server, was a result of that movement, and had dramatic initial security changes from Win2k Server. However, even though it has a high rating of security, it is not, nor will ever be perfect. There is no such OS.
The fully 'managed' compilers that Longhorn will be built on are not even finalized, but they have been designed around the security shift that occurred 'two years' ago.
Without dismissing the usefulness of a GUI I would argue that an OS that does not have a simple yet powerful framework for scripting and command based interface is not a powerful OS. Although GUIs can be useful, there are many tasks that are much more cumbersome with a GUI then with a command based interface. Compare the MS Windows graphical Find Files facility, with the UNIX find(1) command.
Where have you been? Everything in Windows 2k, XP, and 2003 is fully scriptable via the command line, or even the GUI scripting engine. This was a major administrative revision in Win2k that was even taken further in XP.
There is virtually NOTHING that cannot be accesses, queried, or changed via administrative level scripting either via the command line scripting interface, or the GUI scripting technologies. (Check out MSDN, you will find what I am referring to.)
As I mentioned in another post, this is somehow a hidden secret to the non-Windows world.
Anyway, personally I feel the GUI of Windows XP sucks. It sucks up more screen real estate for no apparent enhancement in usability over its predecessors
Then turn off what you don't want, it is only a couple of mouse clicks to remove all the extra stuff. Besides, have you actually read the context level of assistance in the sidebars for example? There are features even 'power' users like, from printing photos, to starting music based on the albums selected. If that is not your bad, turn it off. Just like the colors, turn them off.
You show your ignorance by associating DOS and UNIX. The two have practically no historical connection and very little common philosophy. Where there is common ground, it is always a case of the later versions of DOS borrowing from UNIX (not the other way around).
Futhermore, GUI systems were developed on UNIX systems, including W and X, long before Mac OS and Windows.
I never said they had commonality, I just referenced that hard core UNIX zealots and MSDOS zealots (i.e. command line power users) continually dismissed all GUIs as silly, childlike and made up the WIMP acronym because most command line 'power users' thought a GUI was a waste of time for real productivity.
And I suggest that you do not lecture me on the start of W and X, I actually worked in the XWindow project at one time. I wasn't referring to this at all.
Maybe I should of just said 'command line OS' users instead of even mentioning MSDOS and UNIX so you wouldn't have been confused.
The use of the WIMP acronym dates back to Xerox and Apple. Its use was considered completely innocuous.
Yes it origins were playful, but it was a solid argument by 'command line' geeks and wannabes to dismiss GUIs, especially in the late 80's and early 90's. It became a strong acronym referencing that if you needed to or used a GUI you were not bright enough to use a command line interface. (Maybe you missed this era)
So What? I, and many others, have no vested interest in seeing Linux or *BSD succeed on the desktop (whatever that is). We use it because it works for us, nothing more. Anyway, Debian Linux has been used in my home (my non computer savvy family members) as what many would consider a Desktop operating system. As far as I'm concerned, Debian Linux is taken seriously on the desktop.
You still don't get it, and until you do and push your *nix variants to get it, they will never have the consistency model needed to bring usability and productivity to the levels already offered my MS and Apple. Not only will their OS GUIs be filled with inconsistency holes, but every application written for them will suffer the same fates.
I have no insecurity; I am trying to pry your eyes open a little bit. Does Plato's Cave allegory ring a bell?
Here is an opportunity for Linux to bring something entirely new to the table: UI consistency. The gratuitous UI changes from one windows flavor to another are deeply frustrating. Finding a particular admin applet is like playing whack-a-mole. As I recall in NT 3.51 the hard disk management applet was easily reached. Every generation hides it deeper.
I agree with the push for UI consistency completely. Open Source needs to really band to together and stop trying to 'invent' their own methods. The whole idea of Open Source is to share, and yet you see distributions and groups trying to create their own methods and NOT share them.
As for the Disk management reference, a lot of things changed in NT from then, as this was a part of the administrative consistency model added to Win2k that probably won't change for long time.
Everything you need in Win2k, WinXp, or Win 2003 is available from the MMC. From services and devices, to disk management, and effectively everything thing else that is an 'administrative' function is available in the MMC interface.
Even IIS, MS SQL, Exchange, and other 'administrative' level applications plug into the MMC. There is no longer a hunt to find any of these features.
The MMC may not be the end all of usability, but it removes the inconsistent behavior of NT4 and earlier where these features were scattered throughout the OS in different mechanisms. It also provides a standard mechanism for third parties to plug into as well, so even if the MMC interface changes, the plug ins will still work and be available.
In new OSes, you may find administrative functions moved to easier to use interfaces for novices (like the User Manager in XP), but that doesn't mean they are not still fully accessible for administrators or power users from the MMC interface.
An additional note to this is the scripting level of support that was added in Win2k for accessing all of these features. Virtually every part of the OS can be accessed via command line or GUI based scripting via the same interfaces. This is almost like a big secret somehow, everything in Windows 2k and newer is scriptable.
Win95 was just as navigable as XP with only a keyboard. They got some things right, at least
This is an example of UI Consistency that filters throughout the applications in Windows.
So even if the programmer is a fool, chances are their program inherits the basic concepts of using keyboard navigation from the Windows GUI model.
I don't think people that don't work with end-users realize how important consistency and a UI model that inherently defines this consistency are.
When working with new users, I also get SO tired of trying to explain the Delete and Backspace keys to Mac users. (Sometimes they do this, but in other programs they might not work, or do the opposite of what they did in a previous program.)
This is something you never have to deal with in Windows as well. The keys always work as expected, period.
I also dislike a lot of MS software, and a lot of things MS has done in the past, but that doesn't mean I think everything they have brought to the computing world is 'evil'.
Everything with MS doesn't have to be black and white. So you may see me defending some of the Microsoft technologies I think were good, or at least good ideas that the Open Source world should look at more closely, but you won't find me defending the first versions of Outlook or Bob.:)
Buffer overruns have been well understood for years, are easy to automate tools to search source code for and any that leak through are easily tested for
If you think buffer overruns are a Microsoft OS only problem, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I've heard (and mine) are about the damned cartoonish color scheme and the total waste of screen space in each and every window that dosn't add any functionality to the GUI itself.
And the funny thing, you can turn on/off what level of extra functionality you want in the GUI, even the Colors. In fact you can skin it to look like a MAC if that is your bag (using a simple UI patch)
As for the added functionality, have you actually ever looked at the items in the sidebar of an open folder? There are a lot of quick features available for novices and even power users that like to be able to click "Play Selected Songs 'Albums' " and just have the songs play.
And if you are real power user that needs the screen space, just turn off the side bar, these features are also available from a right click even if the side bar is off.
Maybe Microsoft is foolish in assuming that users have displays greater than 640x480 and are using the extra screen space to add functionality, but then again, maybe it is time for some people to get a new monitor. 1024x768 is becoming a minimum for desktop real estate. Even my laptop is 1600x1200 and it a year and a half old.
and the interface that only a 3 year old Teletubbies addict could navigate through, Microsoft Windows XP!
Oh get over it already. It doesn't take 20 scripts and ten screens of typing to make an OS powerful or functional. Some 'power users' actually like the idea of using a couple of clicks to print photos or play music with the OS UI model.
This reminds of DOS/UNIX people bashing all GUI interfaces in the 80's.
Are we really back to the days of using words like WIMP and telling everyone that GUI's are inherently bad, or are we just saying that ones that are easy to use are bad?
The open source world needs to learn a little about UI consistency and try to make things easy to use if any Open Source OS is ever going to be taken seriously on the desktop or in the home.
(And don't bring OSX into this as a champion of Open Source usability - it is not Open Source.)
PS *cough* Windows95 was NEVER designed to be a secure OS, it has NO inherent security, just like Mac System software did not as well. People forget it was a consumer OS and was designed in a time of the early internet where massive consumer connectivity via the internet was not something that was happening in the home markets.
Back then, there were things like CompuServe, AOL, and the new MSN, and at the time AOL had just recently added the ability to browse HTML, MSN was a folder based browsing service, and CompuServe was a text system with a new GUI that made it look pretty to interpret the text interface.
Most people had no clue about ISPs, especially when Win95 was being designed in 1993-1994.
If you want to talk about Microsoft's security track record, pick on something like NT, which in 1996 was far more stable and secure than even Linux of 1996. (With both being about the same age)
Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of cars being recalled? Almost EVERY Model and Make of car has had at least one type of recall that has required dealer service. Don't believe it, go look up whatever you are driving, there will be a list for what has been a 'required' and a 'requested' recall for your car. - At least if Windows fails it doesn't kill you. (And if you are driving a Ford Truck or a Pinto, you REALLY might want to take a look at your vehicle recall list):)
However the main point since the entry of this thread has been maintained that NT's lineage came somewhere directly from OS/2. As demonstrated at least in part with the following excerpt from a link provided by Coventry:
The point that was being made in several posts I was responding to was the NT was derived from OS/2, and it was also stated and implied that NT was based directly on and shared OS/2 code.
NT does not, read the links I provided, especially the link to Microsoft's own whitepaper on why they did away with having OS/2 as a part of the NT architecture.
Microsoft's design team original considered the base kernel architecture of NT to be from the OS/2 base, and even a UNIX base (Remember Xenix?). They then (as noted in their own documentation in the whitepaper link) moved on to a new OS architectural model, seeking kernel technology theories from both MACH and the client/server Microkernel designs.
NT's architecture ended up being something new and was not based on OS/2's kernel, a true MACH or a true Microkernel design. Instead it was a combination of MACH concepts and Microkernel concepts, with some of their own innovations, which managed to implement the best technologies of MACH and Microkernel without the inherent limitations of overloading the kernel or restricting it monolithic messaging.
Hence why NT was able to do things other OSes that are directly based on true MACH or Microkernel designs are not able to do. NT, being non-monolithic, could implement a layered subsystem OS architecture, supporting multiple OS layers simultaneously, and additionally using Microsoft technology, the kernel was not overwhelmed with multiple message requests. Hence the NT kernel has been described as an object based client/server kernel based on it being non-monolithic and having a token based message system.
So as I assert once again, NT is NOT OS/2, was not built on OS/2 technologies, nor has any commonality in architecture to OS/2 or the 32bit version of OS/2. The only OS/2 connection to NT was that Microsoft provided an OS/2 1.x character mode subsystem that was 'layered' on top of NT, just like POSIX was layered on top of NT, and even WIN32 was layered on top of NT.
That is my point, and I find it entirely silly that to just say this was not enough proof for people, as it is pretty common knowledge in OS theorists groups.
I have come to the conclusion that if people want to believe that NT is just a hacked version of OS/2 development, then no matter how much proof I, Microsoft, or IBM provide, people are just not going to get it or change their beliefs.
Thanks for your post as well, most of my above comments are not directed at you, but mainly to people that are following this thread.
BTW, here is the link to the article on Microsoft's site that was malformed before.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defaul t. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ntwrkstn/evaluate/fea tfunc/kernelwp.asp
Here, you want to read, here are a few links that describe, exactly what I was already saying.
From the NT kernel's MACH underpinnings to its hybrid of a client/server microkernel design to implement the layered subsystems - hence to OS layer dependancy.
These links also describe (if you read them) that originally, NT was going to be based on the OS/2 V3 kernel technologies and even have the new OS/2 interface "WorkPlace Shell" that IBM later brought to fruition in OS/2 2.0.
It also clearly states that the OS/2 model was completely abandoned and NT was redesigned, thereby adding OS/2 support in only a subsystem layer and not a PART OF THE OS.
Also take the opportunity to explore more than just the pages of the links I have referenced, the articles often span several pages.
You will also find in these links, from OS/2 sites that OS/2 2.0 from IBM was full of 16bit code, just as I explained in an earlier post. But again, maybe you think you know OS/2 better than IBM and the OS/2 advocates.
BTW, there was limited support for 16bit printer drivers in NT 3.1, but they only worked through the WOW and Win32 subsystem, they COULD NOT be installed as NT System Drivers. They would also fail if used via the Win32 subsystem and not directly from inside the Win16 WOW layer sitting on top of the Win32 subsystem. - Source Microsoft.com
Now go off and troll to someone that doesn't know you have no idea what you are talking about. You will feel better about yourself.:)
Also, in an "intellectual" debate its usually bad form to all caps a line as if your yelling at someone.
Yeah, learned that about 15 years ago, but thanks for imparting me with your vast knowledge of posting online.
Sometimes, people ARE YELLING!:)
As for sources, just read a damn book, or at least do a simple search at ibm.com or microsoft.com - I don't have to be your librarian when this is very common knowledge. I am frankly shocked that so many people have responded to this as if I was telling them the earth was made of cheese.
People that claim to be OS experts and especially in the Open Source OS movement should know this information better than they do.
Knowing your enemy, if you see Microsoft as the ultimate evil, is the first thing everyone here should be doing, and learning about their OS technologies would be the first step in seeing what they did do right, and where they are heading.
And by not even having a clue how NT or Windows itself works is scary, as you have no reference to what you are even competing with.
I'm not here to tell everyone Microsoft or NT is wonderful, I am here to say, "Hey, they have done some good things, and by ignoring them, you are just sticking your head in the sand. You won't even see it coming when MS sidesteps the entire Open Source development community with technologies people out here haven't even considered."
Just for example: Is an OSI Application Layer Filter becoming a standard feature on Linux desktop installations for security? Why not, it will be on Windows XP in the next few months.
Did you read the same links I did? They seem to backup coventry's side. I think you seem to be a MS biased troll, or just a very mislead MCSE.
No, not a MS lover, used to like them, but they lost my passion years ago. Additionally, I personally don't tout a MCSE, I pay my techs to get certified, just as they have also been certified in various other OS technologies.
And I think you should re-read the links he provided and my responses. They state exactly what I was saying, he just seemed to think that because OS/3 was started before Microsoft and IBM split that OS/3 was the origins of NT.
You can see from my other posts that this is not true, and why.
So... being new to slashdot normally means that a user is stupid, and/or rmembers things incorrectly? I think you just proved your own point - by the looks of you UID that is.
I was referring to Newbies as defined as New to Computers and technology, as it is generally used.
There are a lot of 'newbies' that were not around when NT came about, or were around when Microsoft was the underdog.
I had no inclination of using 'newbie' in reference to someone that was new to SlashDot and think that you are more than a bit paranoid to automatically assume this.
You have responded to so many things stating what I said, when I did not.
For example, I never said that WOW and Win3.1 compatibility was different. The WOW is a 16bit layer that sits on top of Win32 that allows Windows 3.1 applications to run on NT-XP.
As for the POSIX and NT compatibilty, goto Microsoft.com and search for Unix Services for Windows 3.0. The new version includes the full UNIX subsystem, not just the buggy POSIX layer that was in earlier versions of NT, and it is now also free.
For #2 & 3 - you seem to be going on a rant about what a kludge the OS was. This has little to do with my statements, that the OS was 32 bit. You could use 16 bit drivers with NT 3.0, if you were stupid, but that didn't make the OS 16 bit did it?
Really 16bit drives in NT 3.1? I would love to see you demonstrate this one. NT forbid hardware access to applications and NT 32bit drivers even dropped through the NT kernel/HAL layer to touch hardware. A 16bit driver could never be used in the NT architectual model.
I never said OS/2 2.0 was a 16bit OS, but it had a LOT of 16bit code that most people didn't realize, as it was a transitional OS from OS/2 1.3. NT had NO 16bit code, ever.
which, btw, anyone who really knows OS design will tell you that the NT kernel (and the OS/2 kernel) are not true microkernels in the classic sense.
No they are not. But the NT kernel is significantly different than the OS/2 kernel. The NT kernel used ideas from the MACH kernel design as well as ideas from the microkernel. It is truly neither, but taking advantage of the best features of both conceptual ideas and adding in a few extra tricks.
The NT kernel can best be described as a Client/Server kernel model. Therefore it does not have a monolithic interface like OSX, but yet it isn't bound to being overloaded with calls either.
If you want links, start with microsoft.com and work from there. I also recommend any of the Inside Windows NT series of books, the original to the latest cover the newest NT OSes.
NT is not WINDOWS as everyone thinks, it is the core under the modern Windows that allows WIndows to do what it does.
As I said before, NT and Win32 are not the same thing. When you make a kernel call in Win32, you are making kernel call to the Win32 kernel, not the NT kernel. You have to specfically dig down to touch the NT kernel layer.
Now, I've found links to backup my side, and all you do is spout crap about 'everybody knows' - when in fact, you are wrong. Go get a book on the archetechture of windows NT4, or preferably, NT 3.5, from microsoft. goto a used bookstore. Read. Being able to backup your side with facts is elemental to an educated debate.
Actually, I have an original edition "Inside Windows NT" that was given to me by Microsoft in 1993.
Not only have I read it, but I would bet I was using NT before you ever even heard of it. I still have Alpha discs that predate any pubically available copies.
I was in the Original NT development process and worked as a consultant with Microsoft during the late 80's and early 90's.
The article you are so proudly touting are incorrect facts confusing the product lines and the timeline of the division and legal rights to OS/2 between IBM and Microsoft.
IBM had nothing to do with the assembly of the NT development team, including Dave Cutler. The fabric of what NT was to be was originally going to be based on OS/2 technologies, but the NT team (Specifically Cutler) pushed Microsoft to start from scratch using newer OS architecture theories. Hence the emergence of the design of NT - without IBM - completely without IBM or any OS/2 technology.
NT is NOT based on OS/2 technologies, and NT was NOT in any way contributed to by IBM.
If NT had ANY OS/2 technologies at its CORE, IBM WOULD have ownership in it and have source code rights to use NT. THEY DO NOT.
This was also another reason the NT Team choose to scrap the entire OS/2 model for the NT architecture. Not only did it give them a chance to put in place the latest OS technologies in a new OS, but it would also prevent any ownership or legal problems with IBM.
If you are right, IBM should step forth today and claim their royalties to the entire NT line, including Windows XP. But funny, IBM has not, and was not able to do this even when the great NT - OS/2 2.x battles were happening in the early 90s.
If IBM owned NT or NT was built on IBM or OS/2 technology, all IBM would of had to do is simply sue. Funny that you seem to know more about NT and OS/2 than Microsoft and IBM themselves.
Now, I'm sure you can pull a few more articles to prove that I don't know what I am talking about, but I have more insight into this than you can possibly imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Wow. Here I thought windows 2000 was a complete rewrite and that IE could not be unbundled
Wow, and I thought most of the people on here were bright enough to know that the NT core of Windows is Not the WIN32 interface.
you're missing the point, the ipod pretty much defined what a portable mp3 player was supposed to be like.
.. basically a hard drive (or tiny expensive RAM) and an mpeg decoder.. no firewire, no small size, no good design.
:)
the stuff that came before was "proof of concept"
apple doesn't "copy", they "redefine".
why do all the new music players look like ipods these days??
Actually, I think you have missed something. The Creative Jukebox not only was feature for feature in tune with what the iPOD offered, it also supported more audio controls and more file formats, far before the iPod was a twinkle in Apple's eye.
The reason new "Hard Drive" based players look more like the IPOD? Maybe because technology and drive size have shrunk, so have the chassis that these units ship in.
Not every one even resembles the regtangular (outline of a harddirve -some innovation here) that the iPod is based on. And the ones that do have the 'harddrive' size feel and look is probably because the HARD DRIVE in the unit is the form they HAVE TO ALL WORK AROUND. Duh?
They are not trying to look like iPods, the are just smaller now that the technology is there with smaller drives with higher capacities.
If you love Steve Jobs this much, maybe you should send him roses or just ask him out.
Nobody knows under what conditions WVG will finally be made public. And if Microsoft has no ulterior motives, then why don't they just use SVG?
Read the posts... SVG does not have the features that are needed for WVG, so Microsoft would have to EXTEND SVG to make it usable for what they are doing. And this would still make everyone mad, because BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
Get a clue, Microsoft needs to have a full vector interface and protocol that supports things SVG does not, from animation to other aspects of document display.
Mcrosoft stays in control of the "standard" by explicitly forbidding derivations. Not my definition of an open specification.
Yeah, just like Adobe's PDF. I never said the Office file format was an OPEN standard. Get your terms straight. It is a published specification in an OPEN STANDARD (XML) FILE FORMAT.
Again, this subject only applies to Longhorn and the UI of Longhorn and applications that run on Longhorn and Windows, so if you consider this changing the subject, I will do so again.
This DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SVG, FLASH, THE WEB, OR MICROSOFT BASTARDIZING OPEN STANDARDS.
If you are running OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, OpenBSD or any other OS, WVG really has no more of an impact on your life than the DIB API calls in Windows Itself, they are not something that has anything to do with ANYTHING outside of Windows.
Get it yet?
Everyone seems to have fallen for the old 1998 MS lie, that anything sold with the OS and some integration is a necessary part of the OS itself.
And yet, Microsoft never said this...
IE - Integrated HTML rendering engine (IE was the browser that was the front end of the engine, but applications did not have to use the IE browser and still could use the full features of the HTML rendering engine.)
Media Player (WMP7-9 just the front end to WMA and WMV codec technologies)
However, telling Microsoft that they need to cripple the OS by removing not only IE and WMP7-9, but ALSO the HTML rendering engine and the inherent sound codecs that ARE a part of the OS, is just silly and DOES break applications.
It would be like asking Microsoft not only to remove MSPAINT, but requiring them to remove the ability for Applications to call the BMP APIs in addition to removing MSPAINT.
Developers that use these technologies in Windows get this, how come no one else seems to do so?
Microsoft never said they would not Remove IE, they just said the HTML engine behind IE was a PIECE of the OS. Microsoft never said that it wouldn't remove WMP7-9, but requiring the removal the sound and video codecs does take away from the OS.
(Windows Server for example installs just fine without the Media Player, but leaves the Codecs so applications that use them are not broken).
There is a DIFFERENCE between the IE browser and the HTML rendering engine IE uses. The HTML Rendering engine was designed to be component based so that application developers could just tell the OS to display any HTML code/pages and it would know how to do it. Just like if the developer tells the OS to draw a BMP at 0,0 or a Font at 0,0.
If Microsoft is a Monopoly because of companies like Dell that sold out for the contracts to force their users to get Windows with every system bought, and DELL still does this for most of their computers.
Smart Computer retailer (like our company for example) never signed a deal to sell Windows with every PC, and our users could choose what they wanted.
So if Microsoft is a Monopoly, then no one can use a computer without using Microsoft products? Funny, I know a Lot of Linux and Mac Users that would disagree with that argument.
They could easily have extended SVG in a backwards-compatible, standards-compliant way (using additional XML elements declared in separate namespaces, for example). The didn't. Instead, they chose to represent even those features that are supported by SVG as well in a slightly different, incompatible way (altered attribute/element names, etc.)
And yet the XML behind WVG is published so that anyone, company, or entitity can also use the technology to implement a version of WVG or a SVG WVG compatibile version.
It would be different if they had the door closed on the WVG specifications, but you can read tag and ability for yourself.
Just like people bitched they wouldn't let the XML structure of Office out, and yet they have also published it.
Pick something else to bitch about. If you are not using Windows (Longhorn specifically) it really has NO impact on you. If you are using Windows, then it is your choice to make apps using the WVG interface or not. Period.
This has nothing to do with specifications or standards or the WEB unless the app is being deployed over the web for a WINDOWS user RUNNING Longhorn with the WVG rendering engine.
Now, if Micro$oft were attempting to redo their entire interface in SVG, you'd hear raves about it with a few cautious twitters that they might be subtlely embracing (gack) and extending (ughn) again, and our backsides might be in danger.
:)
That would be wonderful in an ideal world, but SVG has MANY limitations that Longhorn WILL support. From animations and effects that SVG cannot handle.
Sure. Because it's PDF-based and PDF is a...wait for it...STANDARD.
PDF, Standard? Um... Ok, and who owns this standard, defines it, and 'licenses' it?
Oh wait, you surely didn't mean an 'Open Standard' did you?
Ok, so Microsoft is coming out with a product that is 90% the same as an existing product from another vender, but 10% optimized for windows only, and probably *just* different enough that it's easy to get in to, but hard to switch back. It'll be included with every copy of windows (when it's released sometime towards the end of the decade).
Good theory, expect Microsoft was one of the original developers involved in the creation of SVG. Oh, how soon everyone forgets...
"SVG is currently a working draft at the W3C, with working group members coming from key industry leaders such as Adobe, HP, IBM, Macromedia, Microsoft, Netscape, Quark, Sun and Visio." (Source)
I'd say the only reason the speckle engine is getting any buzz is because Microsoft is using the same marketing machine to create buzz for an idea they stole from someone else.
Good theory, but the buzz isn't coming from Microsoft, it is coming from the anti-Microsoft world.
Other than visiting the Longhorn development sites to prep developers for what is coming in the new OS, Microsoft has said very little about 'Sparkle'.
Especially considering the complete implementation and design specifications of Sparkle are not even finalized. Microsoft's only sparkle PR campaign is with developers to get feedback on its final implementation.
Well, if you actually read anything about Longhorn, you would know that there is no difference between a native app and a web app in Longhorn. IE will support avalon rendering, so if you go to a website that uses MS's proprietary document/app format, you WILL see a Sparkle rendered page.
Read anything about it, does USING and developing on it count?
You are right that Web Applications will use also be able to use the rendering engine in Longhorn; however, you still don't get it.
You are taking about features of the distributed application model that allows web and client side applications to be synonymous to the OS.
The fact still remains that 'Sparkle' is the rendering engine of Longhorn, just as the GDI of Windows today uses a Bitmap based engine.
Using your analogy is ridiculous when you consider that Web pages of today are displayed in IE window on a Windows computer rendered as a Bitmap image. This is no different than it being rendered in the future as a vector image in Longhorn.
Using your messed up analogy you could also say that because the current Windows GDI uses DIB technology to display a Web Page in IE then Microsoft is trying to take over the JPEG and other Bitmap technologies. (Sound ridiculous yet?)
You are confusing the two concepts, and using that to establish that the Vector engine or Longhorn is designed to be a WEB standard.
Admittedly there is more to "Sparkle" than just the Vector engine of Longhorn by incorporating the UI in a XML style that is network friendly, but that does not mean it is designed to take over anything that already exists, it is simply just the evolution of display technology in Longhorn.
If you look hard enough, you will see that "Sparkle" has concepts from other networking GUI models as well, does XWindows ring a bell? Making an open light protocol interface for the Vector engine is a great idea, much better than shoving massive chunks of bitmaps over the network for remote applications.
- But again, this does not mean it is designed to replace the internet with a Windows only world - Microsoft is NOT that stupid, nor do they have that much control on the internet.
Look at his posting history, all he does is spew microsoft propaganda
And funny, I also write a lot of code for Linux. Makes you rethink how safe this whole Open Source thing is, ah?
Just kidding, although I do write a lot of things for Linux...
I abhor the lynching of any company when it isn't based on fact. Pick on Apple or Linux for the wrong reason, and you will get a response from me as well. However, Linux and Apple are seldom bashed at SlashDot or 20 people have already responded to defend them. Microsoft seems to be the kicking boy around here, and sometimes they deserve it, but not EVERY TIME.
I am no serious fan of any specific OS, I just want the competition to continue so that future OSes will be far beyond what is conceived and rambled on in many of these posts.
It amazes me that OS fans(especially here) get so complacent with what the current development cycles are producing and the lack of vision of what is around the corner.
Microsoft may be fools in a lot of regard, but they are not losing any R&D ground by being 'happy' with how things currently are with their OS.
Apple is also starting to lead innovation again after a 10 year dead cycle.
Solaris just keeps moving the old model forward, Linux is maturing, and the BSD variants are setting some security standards, but there is nothing revolutionary coming from these OS groups.
Where is the next thing? If I had to bet now, it will be from Microsoft or Apple - they at least get that catching up is not good enough, creating something that never existed before is the real brass ring.
Just like the 2.6 kernel, what is really great and new in it that doesn't exist already in some other OS already available? And it kills me that people are so 'happy' about what is new in the 2.6 kernel, like the new scheduler - other *nixes have had better schedulers for a long time; Linux is once again just catching up. Even the original NT kernel scheduler is more advanced than pre-2.6 Linux kernels.
It is time to take theories and start putting them into products, and then creating new OS theories and implementing them as well.
That is one of the few things Microsoft did do right with the NT project - take un-implemented OS theories and put them together in a cohesive OS model. Seems everyone is so busy hating them they have missed their angle that gives them the edge even today.
Is everyone really missing the point?
'Sparkle' is a vector designed drawing engine for APPLICATIONS inside longhorn, it is NOT being billed as a WEB standard.
'Sparkle' is the transitional replacement of the GDI model of the Windows interface. Moving from a Bitmap model to a true Vector model for the Windows UI.
It has NOTHING to do with SVG, Flash, or Web standards.
If you need to compare it to something, compare it to 'Quartz' - and I don't see people jumping on Apple for replacing SVG or Flash by using the PDF based Quartz engine.
The only reason the 'Sparkle' vector engine of Longhorn is getting buzz in this area is that unlike Quartz, it supports a wide array of animation standards within the vector drawing engine.
So, yes it functions somewhat like Flash of today, but that DOES NOT mean it is meant to replace Flash. Instead, it should be the new OS UI rendering engine that FLASH itself uses to draw FLASH applets in a browser window. (Get it, it is the vector engine under applications and things like Flash will use to render on screen.)
The same for SVG, there is no mention that SVG will not be supported in the new IE of Longhorn, in fact, SVG will probably be supported, but be drawn in the UI by the 'Sparkle' Engine.
This is an application/OS level vector rendering engine with animation, it is not a Web standard, nor does it purport to be.
Please stop with Microsoft is abandoning standards and trying to take over the world because they are moving their OS UI model from bitmap to vector based. That is all, get over it.
Everyone thought it was great stop forward in UI rendering models when Apple did this with Quartz, so how is Microsoft evil in developing their own rendering engine as well?
They aren't the only OS to have them, there are sloppy programmers everywhere. But two years ago Microsoft announced to the world that they were focusing on security. They supposedly stopped development on everything and put all of their programmers through new training to be security conscious. Yet a problem that a simple code review should have exposed still exists. And please keep in mind, Microsoft also maintains the compiler that builds all of their products. If they were really serious about security, they could have fixed it there.
We all need to make sure we aren't putting out code that is vulnerable to known exploits. And Microsoft shouldn't be preaching to the industry about security until they have at least addressed a common, well known flaw in their products.
Sure they could have changed the compiler, but moving a compiler like in Visual Studio for C++ to a compiler that 'manages' both buffer overflow and memory allocation would BREAK many applications because of the inherent nature of C++ programming model and compiler that is required.
Microsoft knew this, but also knew it couldn't be done at the time.
Microsoft has started moving to 'managed' code, even major parts of DirectX 9.0 have been moved to managed code, and Longhorn should be almost if not fully moved to managed code.
It isn't that Microsoft was ignorant of the circumstances of 'their' compiler, and what flaws this type of programming model left open, instead they realized it would take a major progressive moment away from non-managed code.
Microsoft's security revision two years ago was not to be an 'instant' fix, anyone that understands security realizes that such a prospect is ridiculous.
But they did identify where they needed to take their products to get away from security problems, and fix the current software in development at the time using the methodologies and technologies they had available at the time.
Windows 2003 Server, was a result of that movement, and had dramatic initial security changes from Win2k Server. However, even though it has a high rating of security, it is not, nor will ever be perfect. There is no such OS.
The fully 'managed' compilers that Longhorn will be built on are not even finalized, but they have been designed around the security shift that occurred 'two years' ago.
Without dismissing the usefulness of a GUI I would argue that an OS that does not have a simple yet powerful framework for scripting and command based interface is not a powerful OS. Although GUIs can be useful, there are many tasks that are much more cumbersome with a GUI then with a command based interface. Compare the MS Windows graphical Find Files facility, with the UNIX find(1) command.
Where have you been? Everything in Windows 2k, XP, and 2003 is fully scriptable via the command line, or even the GUI scripting engine. This was a major administrative revision in Win2k that was even taken further in XP.
There is virtually NOTHING that cannot be accesses, queried, or changed via administrative level scripting either via the command line scripting interface, or the GUI scripting technologies. (Check out MSDN, you will find what I am referring to.)
As I mentioned in another post, this is somehow a hidden secret to the non-Windows world.
Anyway, personally I feel the GUI of Windows XP sucks. It sucks up more screen real estate for no apparent enhancement in usability over its predecessors
Then turn off what you don't want, it is only a couple of mouse clicks to remove all the extra stuff. Besides, have you actually read the context level of assistance in the sidebars for example? There are features even 'power' users like, from printing photos, to starting music based on the albums selected. If that is not your bad, turn it off. Just like the colors, turn them off.
You show your ignorance by associating DOS and UNIX. The two have practically no historical connection and very little common philosophy. Where there is common ground, it is always a case of the later versions of DOS borrowing from UNIX (not the other way around).
Futhermore, GUI systems were developed on UNIX systems, including W and X, long before Mac OS and Windows.
I never said they had commonality, I just referenced that hard core UNIX zealots and MSDOS zealots (i.e. command line power users) continually dismissed all GUIs as silly, childlike and made up the WIMP acronym because most command line 'power users' thought a GUI was a waste of time for real productivity.
And I suggest that you do not lecture me on the start of W and X, I actually worked in the XWindow project at one time. I wasn't referring to this at all.
Maybe I should of just said 'command line OS' users instead of even mentioning MSDOS and UNIX so you wouldn't have been confused.
The use of the WIMP acronym dates back to Xerox and Apple. Its use was considered completely innocuous.
Yes it origins were playful, but it was a solid argument by 'command line' geeks and wannabes to dismiss GUIs, especially in the late 80's and early 90's. It became a strong acronym referencing that if you needed to or used a GUI you were not bright enough to use a command line interface. (Maybe you missed this era)
So What? I, and many others, have no vested interest in seeing Linux or *BSD succeed on the desktop (whatever that is). We use it because it works for us, nothing more. Anyway, Debian Linux has been used in my home (my non computer savvy family members) as what many would consider a Desktop operating system. As far as I'm concerned, Debian Linux is taken seriously on the desktop.
You still don't get it, and until you do and push your *nix variants to get it, they will never have the consistency model needed to bring usability and productivity to the levels already offered my MS and Apple. Not only will their OS GUIs be filled with inconsistency holes, but every application written for them will suffer the same fates.
I have no insecurity; I am trying to pry your eyes open a little bit. Does Plato's Cave allegory ring a bell?
Here is an opportunity for Linux to bring something entirely new to the table: UI consistency. The gratuitous UI changes from one windows flavor to another are deeply frustrating. Finding a particular admin applet is like playing whack-a-mole. As I recall in NT 3.51 the hard disk management applet was easily reached. Every generation hides it deeper.
I agree with the push for UI consistency completely. Open Source needs to really band to together and stop trying to 'invent' their own methods. The whole idea of Open Source is to share, and yet you see distributions and groups trying to create their own methods and NOT share them.
As for the Disk management reference, a lot of things changed in NT from then, as this was a part of the administrative consistency model added to Win2k that probably won't change for long time.
Everything you need in Win2k, WinXp, or Win 2003 is available from the MMC. From services and devices, to disk management, and effectively everything thing else that is an 'administrative' function is available in the MMC interface.
Even IIS, MS SQL, Exchange, and other 'administrative' level applications plug into the MMC. There is no longer a hunt to find any of these features.
The MMC may not be the end all of usability, but it removes the inconsistent behavior of NT4 and earlier where these features were scattered throughout the OS in different mechanisms. It also provides a standard mechanism for third parties to plug into as well, so even if the MMC interface changes, the plug ins will still work and be available.
In new OSes, you may find administrative functions moved to easier to use interfaces for novices (like the User Manager in XP), but that doesn't mean they are not still fully accessible for administrators or power users from the MMC interface.
An additional note to this is the scripting level of support that was added in Win2k for accessing all of these features. Virtually every part of the OS can be accessed via command line or GUI based scripting via the same interfaces. This is almost like a big secret somehow, everything in Windows 2k and newer is scriptable.
Win95 was just as navigable as XP with only a keyboard. They got some things right, at least
:)
This is an example of UI Consistency that filters throughout the applications in Windows.
So even if the programmer is a fool, chances are their program inherits the basic concepts of using keyboard navigation from the Windows GUI model.
I don't think people that don't work with end-users realize how important consistency and a UI model that inherently defines this consistency are.
When working with new users, I also get SO tired of trying to explain the Delete and Backspace keys to Mac users. (Sometimes they do this, but in other programs they might not work, or do the opposite of what they did in a previous program.)
This is something you never have to deal with in Windows as well. The keys always work as expected, period.
I also dislike a lot of MS software, and a lot of things MS has done in the past, but that doesn't mean I think everything they have brought to the computing world is 'evil'.
Everything with MS doesn't have to be black and white. So you may see me defending some of the Microsoft technologies I think were good, or at least good ideas that the Open Source world should look at more closely, but you won't find me defending the first versions of Outlook or Bob.
Buffer overruns have been well understood for years, are easy to automate tools to search source code for and any that leak through are easily tested for
If you think buffer overruns are a Microsoft OS only problem, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I've heard (and mine) are about the damned cartoonish color scheme and the total waste of screen space in each and every window that dosn't add any functionality to the GUI itself.
And the funny thing, you can turn on/off what level of extra functionality you want in the GUI, even the Colors. In fact you can skin it to look like a MAC if that is your bag (using a simple UI patch)
As for the added functionality, have you actually ever looked at the items in the sidebar of an open folder? There are a lot of quick features available for novices and even power users that like to be able to click "Play Selected Songs 'Albums' " and just have the songs play.
And if you are real power user that needs the screen space, just turn off the side bar, these features are also available from a right click even if the side bar is off.
Maybe Microsoft is foolish in assuming that users have displays greater than 640x480 and are using the extra screen space to add functionality, but then again, maybe it is time for some people to get a new monitor. 1024x768 is becoming a minimum for desktop real estate. Even my laptop is 1600x1200 and it a year and a half old.
and the interface that only a 3 year old Teletubbies addict could navigate through, Microsoft Windows XP!
:)
Oh get over it already. It doesn't take 20 scripts and ten screens of typing to make an OS powerful or functional. Some 'power users' actually like the idea of using a couple of clicks to print photos or play music with the OS UI model.
This reminds of DOS/UNIX people bashing all GUI interfaces in the 80's.
Are we really back to the days of using words like WIMP and telling everyone that GUI's are inherently bad, or are we just saying that ones that are easy to use are bad?
The open source world needs to learn a little about UI consistency and try to make things easy to use if any Open Source OS is ever going to be taken seriously on the desktop or in the home.
(And don't bring OSX into this as a champion of Open Source usability - it is not Open Source.)
PS *cough* Windows95 was NEVER designed to be a secure OS, it has NO inherent security, just like Mac System software did not as well. People forget it was a consumer OS and was designed in a time of the early internet where massive consumer connectivity via the internet was not something that was happening in the home markets.
Back then, there were things like CompuServe, AOL, and the new MSN, and at the time AOL had just recently added the ability to browse HTML, MSN was a folder based browsing service, and CompuServe was a text system with a new GUI that made it look pretty to interpret the text interface.
Most people had no clue about ISPs, especially when Win95 was being designed in 1993-1994.
If you want to talk about Microsoft's security track record, pick on something like NT, which in 1996 was far more stable and secure than even Linux of 1996. (With both being about the same age)
Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of cars being recalled? Almost EVERY Model and Make of car has had at least one type of recall that has required dealer service. Don't believe it, go look up whatever you are driving, there will be a list for what has been a 'required' and a 'requested' recall for your car. - At least if Windows fails it doesn't kill you. (And if you are driving a Ford Truck or a Pinto, you REALLY might want to take a look at your vehicle recall list)
However the main point since the entry of this thread has been maintained that NT's lineage came somewhere directly from OS/2. As demonstrated at least in part with the following excerpt from a link provided by Coventry:
l t. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ntwrkstn/evaluate/fea tfunc/kernelwp.asp
The point that was being made in several posts I was responding to was the NT was derived from OS/2, and it was also stated and implied that NT was based directly on and shared OS/2 code.
NT does not, read the links I provided, especially the link to Microsoft's own whitepaper on why they did away with having OS/2 as a part of the NT architecture.
Microsoft's design team original considered the base kernel architecture of NT to be from the OS/2 base, and even a UNIX base (Remember Xenix?). They then (as noted in their own documentation in the whitepaper link) moved on to a new OS architectural model, seeking kernel technology theories from both MACH and the client/server Microkernel designs.
NT's architecture ended up being something new and was not based on OS/2's kernel, a true MACH or a true Microkernel design. Instead it was a combination of MACH concepts and Microkernel concepts, with some of their own innovations, which managed to implement the best technologies of MACH and Microkernel without the inherent limitations of overloading the kernel or restricting it monolithic messaging.
Hence why NT was able to do things other OSes that are directly based on true MACH or Microkernel designs are not able to do. NT, being non-monolithic, could implement a layered subsystem OS architecture, supporting multiple OS layers simultaneously, and additionally using Microsoft technology, the kernel was not overwhelmed with multiple message requests. Hence the NT kernel has been described as an object based client/server kernel based on it being non-monolithic and having a token based message system.
So as I assert once again, NT is NOT OS/2, was not built on OS/2 technologies, nor has any commonality in architecture to OS/2 or the 32bit version of OS/2. The only OS/2 connection to NT was that Microsoft provided an OS/2 1.x character mode subsystem that was 'layered' on top of NT, just like POSIX was layered on top of NT, and even WIN32 was layered on top of NT.
That is my point, and I find it entirely silly that to just say this was not enough proof for people, as it is pretty common knowledge in OS theorists groups.
I have come to the conclusion that if people want to believe that NT is just a hacked version of OS/2 development, then no matter how much proof I, Microsoft, or IBM provide, people are just not going to get it or change their beliefs.
Thanks for your post as well, most of my above comments are not directed at you, but mainly to people that are following this thread.
BTW, here is the link to the article on Microsoft's site that was malformed before.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/defau
Follow my response to the post link below...
5 11 646
There are plenty of 'credited' technical articles that substantiate exactly what I am saying.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=86199&cid=7
Here, you want to read, here are a few links that describe, exactly what I was already saying.
/ /www.2b-designs.com/ftp/CIS-19/winNT-Foundat ions.pdfe w/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ntwrkstn/evaluate/fea tfunc/kernelwp.aspw innt/kernel.htmh tmle s.org/~unios/oskernels.html. net/michaln/history/os220/r t/9406/sec11/art2.htm
:)
From the NT kernel's MACH underpinnings to its hybrid of a client/server microkernel design to implement the layered subsystems - hence to OS layer dependancy.
These links also describe (if you read them) that originally, NT was going to be based on the OS/2 V3 kernel technologies and even have the new OS/2 interface "WorkPlace Shell" that IBM later brought to fruition in OS/2 2.0.
It also clearly states that the OS/2 model was completely abandoned and NT was redesigned, thereby adding OS/2 support in only a subsystem layer and not a PART OF THE OS.
Also take the opportunity to explore more than just the pages of the links I have referenced, the articles often span several pages.
Here, start reading and have fun:
http://www.swexpert.com/F/WS1.JUN.98.pdf
http:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treevi
http://www.808multimedia.com/
http://www.edm2.com/0607/kernel.
http://webserver.cpg.com/wa/2.6/
http://tun
http://pages.prodigy
http://www.byte.com/a
You will also find in these links, from OS/2 sites that OS/2 2.0 from IBM was full of 16bit code, just as I explained in an earlier post. But again, maybe you think you know OS/2 better than IBM and the OS/2 advocates.
BTW, there was limited support for 16bit printer drivers in NT 3.1, but they only worked through the WOW and Win32 subsystem, they COULD NOT be installed as NT System Drivers. They would also fail if used via the Win32 subsystem and not directly from inside the Win16 WOW layer sitting on top of the Win32 subsystem. - Source Microsoft.com
Now go off and troll to someone that doesn't know you have no idea what you are talking about. You will feel better about yourself.
Also, in an "intellectual" debate its usually bad form to all caps a line as if your yelling at someone.
:)
Yeah, learned that about 15 years ago, but thanks for imparting me with your vast knowledge of posting online.
Sometimes, people ARE YELLING!
As for sources, just read a damn book, or at least do a simple search at ibm.com or microsoft.com - I don't have to be your librarian when this is very common knowledge. I am frankly shocked that so many people have responded to this as if I was telling them the earth was made of cheese.
People that claim to be OS experts and especially in the Open Source OS movement should know this information better than they do.
Knowing your enemy, if you see Microsoft as the ultimate evil, is the first thing everyone here should be doing, and learning about their OS technologies would be the first step in seeing what they did do right, and where they are heading.
And by not even having a clue how NT or Windows itself works is scary, as you have no reference to what you are even competing with.
I'm not here to tell everyone Microsoft or NT is wonderful, I am here to say, "Hey, they have done some good things, and by ignoring them, you are just sticking your head in the sand. You won't even see it coming when MS sidesteps the entire Open Source development community with technologies people out here haven't even considered."
Just for example:
Is an OSI Application Layer Filter becoming a standard feature on Linux desktop installations for security? Why not, it will be on Windows XP in the next few months.
Did you read the same links I did? They seem to backup coventry's side. I think you seem to be a MS biased troll, or just a very mislead MCSE.
No, not a MS lover, used to like them, but they lost my passion years ago. Additionally, I personally don't tout a MCSE, I pay my techs to get certified, just as they have also been certified in various other OS technologies.
And I think you should re-read the links he provided and my responses. They state exactly what I was saying, he just seemed to think that because OS/3 was started before Microsoft and IBM split that OS/3 was the origins of NT.
You can see from my other posts that this is not true, and why.
So... being new to slashdot normally means that a user is stupid, and/or rmembers things incorrectly? I think you just proved your own point - by the looks of you UID that is.
I was referring to Newbies as defined as New to Computers and technology, as it is generally used.
There are a lot of 'newbies' that were not around when NT came about, or were around when Microsoft was the underdog.
I had no inclination of using 'newbie' in reference to someone that was new to SlashDot and think that you are more than a bit paranoid to automatically assume this.
You have responded to so many things stating what I said, when I did not.
For example, I never said that WOW and Win3.1 compatibility was different. The WOW is a 16bit layer that sits on top of Win32 that allows Windows 3.1 applications to run on NT-XP.
As for the POSIX and NT compatibilty, goto Microsoft.com and search for Unix Services for Windows 3.0. The new version includes the full UNIX subsystem, not just the buggy POSIX layer that was in earlier versions of NT, and it is now also free.
For #2 & 3 - you seem to be going on a rant about what a kludge the OS was. This has little to do with my statements, that the OS was 32 bit. You could use 16 bit drivers with NT 3.0, if you were stupid, but that didn't make the OS 16 bit did it?
Really 16bit drives in NT 3.1? I would love to see you demonstrate this one. NT forbid hardware access to applications and NT 32bit drivers even dropped through the NT kernel/HAL layer to touch hardware. A 16bit driver could never be used in the NT architectual model.
I never said OS/2 2.0 was a 16bit OS, but it had a LOT of 16bit code that most people didn't realize, as it was a transitional OS from OS/2 1.3. NT had NO 16bit code, ever.
which, btw, anyone who really knows OS design will tell you that the NT kernel (and the OS/2 kernel) are not true microkernels in the classic sense.
No they are not. But the NT kernel is significantly different than the OS/2 kernel. The NT kernel used ideas from the MACH kernel design as well as ideas from the microkernel. It is truly neither, but taking advantage of the best features of both conceptual ideas and adding in a few extra tricks.
The NT kernel can best be described as a Client/Server kernel model. Therefore it does not have a monolithic interface like OSX, but yet it isn't bound to being overloaded with calls either.
If you want links, start with microsoft.com and work from there. I also recommend any of the Inside Windows NT series of books, the original to the latest cover the newest NT OSes.
NT is not WINDOWS as everyone thinks, it is the core under the modern Windows that allows WIndows to do what it does.
As I said before, NT and Win32 are not the same thing. When you make a kernel call in Win32, you are making kernel call to the Win32 kernel, not the NT kernel. You have to specfically dig down to touch the NT kernel layer.
Now, I've found links to backup my side, and all you do is spout crap about 'everybody knows' - when in fact, you are wrong. Go get a book on the archetechture of windows NT4, or preferably, NT 3.5, from microsoft. goto a used bookstore. Read. Being able to backup your side with facts is elemental to an educated debate.
Actually, I have an original edition "Inside Windows NT" that was given to me by Microsoft in 1993.
Not only have I read it, but I would bet I was using NT before you ever even heard of it. I still have Alpha discs that predate any pubically available copies.
I was in the Original NT development process and worked as a consultant with Microsoft during the late 80's and early 90's.
The article you are so proudly touting are incorrect facts confusing the product lines and the timeline of the division and legal rights to OS/2 between IBM and Microsoft.
IBM had nothing to do with the assembly of the NT development team, including Dave Cutler. The fabric of what NT was to be was originally going to be based on OS/2 technologies, but the NT team (Specifically Cutler) pushed Microsoft to start from scratch using newer OS architecture theories. Hence the emergence of the design of NT - without IBM - completely without IBM or any OS/2 technology.
NT is NOT based on OS/2 technologies, and NT was NOT in any way contributed to by IBM.
If NT had ANY OS/2 technologies at its CORE, IBM WOULD have ownership in it and have source code rights to use NT. THEY DO NOT.
This was also another reason the NT Team choose to scrap the entire OS/2 model for the NT architecture. Not only did it give them a chance to put in place the latest OS technologies in a new OS, but it would also prevent any ownership or legal problems with IBM.
If you are right, IBM should step forth today and claim their royalties to the entire NT line, including Windows XP. But funny, IBM has not, and was not able to do this even when the great NT - OS/2 2.x battles were happening in the early 90s.
If IBM owned NT or NT was built on IBM or OS/2 technology, all IBM would of had to do is simply sue. Funny that you seem to know more about NT and OS/2 than Microsoft and IBM themselves.
Now, I'm sure you can pull a few more articles to prove that I don't know what I am talking about, but I have more insight into this than you can possibly imagine.