There is absolutely no reason to launch an executable file from an email attachment. If you attach a non-executable document file to an email, sure, let the application that filetype is associated with open it up from within Outlook, but any attempt to execute an EXE/COM/BAT/PIF/SCR file should result in 'not allowed.'
Outlook has BLOCKED these since SP1 of 2000. So considering that was over three years ago, don't you think you are beating a dead horse?
Or have you just not used Outlook and want to continue the FUD...?
Yes, as I said it still runs. But anyone who uses it for any other OS is playing russian roulette whether it will continue to run other OS's properly.
Possibly true, and I personally think this is stupid for Microsoft to do this, completely stupid.
As what I have seen from the product, the other OSes still run just as well as they always have, but they are creating their own FUD by letting these stories center on their 'definition' of support that is only hurting what is now their product.
MS whole goal was to use this for MS Hosted Servers inside Win2003 boxes for Win2k and WinNT4 to offer a easy migration environement for Server users. Which it works quite well by taking an existing Running Server Drive Image, and dropping it in MS Virtual Server.
However, what is stupid is that they need to extend this thought beyond just their own migration model. They should also be using it as a marketed tool for Migrating Linux and other OSes to people that need or would want to move to Win2003.
So they need to either get press out that the Product does work in this senerio, or just let this market segment die - which I think is stupid.
You cannot safely continue using Virtual PC for Linux, BSD, Netware, or Solaris. Merely applying a patch becomes a game of russian roulette. Not only might it kill the system outright, it could silently cause curruption. Unknown silent curruption is often far more damaging than outright failure.
Ok, for starters the article is a bit off.
Microsoft is NOT producing any Guest OS Tools for most OSes, and that pretty much sums it up.
Technically being a 'supported' OS is simply stating that they are not providing any Guest Client Tools to help in integrating the Guest OS for Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Period.
I hate to burst the bubble, but I happen to have a 'friend' that is in the official beta.
So no, Virtual PC is not going to have the client tools for guests OSes like Linux, but that does not mean it does not work, or that it does not work any differently than it has in the past.
BTW, this really isn't a surprise, VMWare has been more of a performance leader, especially with their 'tools' for the guest OSes.
Think of it as Microsoft being nice to VMWare and giving them the Linux Guest OS market.:)
However, with all that said, Linux and the other OSes still run, just like they used to under Virtual PC, Microsoft just won't be helping a Linux user Guest OS customer with free support.
Besides, I thought everyone here was running Windows as the Guest OSes, so does this really make a big difference to many of us?
Even being in the official beta (I mean my 'friend'), I still use VMWare under Windows for stuff like Linux and OpenBSD.:)
Also, I believe that Win2K is internally NT 5.0, and XP is NT 5.1 (I think an actual NT 5.0 was planned, but it was so late it morphed into Win2K)
Correct on the 5.1 part, however NT5 and Win2k were always the same thing - it just happened that MS changed their product naming convention in the late 90s. So NT5 was going to be called whatever the year it was released. (Although it was finished in Dec of 99).
I think one could argue that OS9 and OSX are so different it would be like Microsoft taking FreeBSD or Linux, heavily modifying Gnome, writting a very comprehensive/official version of Wine for backwards compatibility, and releasing the whole package as the next version of Windows.
True OSX is a whole world from OS9; however, Microsoft wouldn't have to do all that to change the whole OS interface. All they would need to do is slap a FreeBSD subsystem with Gnome on the NT core. NT can do things like that due to the client/object architecture. In fact Microsoft already sells a full Unix variant that is just another layered subsystem on NT - look it up.
If they wanted to, Win32 could be dumped altogether and they could add any subsystem OS they wanted. Or they could leave Win32 and add in a new subsystem that is yet unheard of, and also a full binary compatible FreeBSD or Linux subsystem and they would all run on the same computer onscreen with NO EMULATION or VMing and still be able to share data and messages via the NT core.
Remember Win32 is ONLY a subsystem on NT and is not a part of the NT kernel or core.
I was merely demolishing the argument that Apple's systems are closed and proprietary and undocumented.
And it seems that you were the only one saying this, or trying to defend this notion - try reading the posts more carefully before you start chasing false arguments.
Let's see... How about the open paper describing the complete QuickTime file format [apple.com]? Or the documentation for creating your own codecs and components [apple.com]? Or the documentation for the Quartz Window Manager [apple.com], including how to send it raw PDF and details of the level of PDF supported by current versions? Or the documentation for how to hook into the window manager [apple.com] and remote control it.
And this differs from Microsoft disclosing how everything in the NT and WIn32 API work how? Hmm... It doesn't.
Just like Apple, Microsoft isn't providing the source code, and just like Apple they FREELY tell you how to program with it, for it, and even use in your own products.
Drop by msdn.microsoft.com, you will find the same level of programming information for Windows.
With WMA, you can add your own codecs (just like the apple link you give), with windows Everything about the GUI including full disclosure of the Window painting, 3d interfaces is available (again, just like apple), Microsoft even provides tons of articles on adding your own technology into Windows - completely modifying beyond the specifications and information Apple provides for OSX.
And yes, I know all these facts you cite. But you overlook my evaluations: that all non-x86 platform ports were suboptimised and 32 bits, and that MS-W64 hasn't seen enough testing.
If all you are looking for is a way to a way to discount Microsoft and that is your only goal, I do feel sorry for you. As no amount of information I provide will ever fix what is wrong with you and your passion of hatred.
Microsoft pisses me off a lot too, but I also seem to balance a reasonable understanding of them in the market and what they HAVE done well and what they have also done that has improved people's lives. Even if the technology or ideas were not all their own.
As for MS's experience in the 64bit world... How COULD THEY have more 64bit experience?
THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN A FEW DESKTOP 64bit CPUS, and the other big 64bit CPU players have been proprietarily owned and marketed by the companies that made them with the OSes that were designed to run on them.
So unless you know of even a few desktop or low server class 64bit CPUS that were available in a RAW PC part form, I don't think you can prove that MS has any more or less experience in the mainstream 64bit world.
As for the limited 35bit on the Alpha, do you NOT HEAR that this is a common concept in 64bit processors, did you NOT LOOK UP THE SPECS on the Itanium and AMD64?
As I see it, for what was 'commonly' available in the marketplace for CPUS 16,32, or 64 bit wise MS Covered the Majority of them in the 1990.
In fact, at one point in the mid 90s, MS NT ran on more CPUS than most *nix variants.
NT is a portable OS that was designed to extend past the 32bit world, and if you somehow missed that in the history of NT, I apologize, but maybe now is the time to do a little research or Microsoft will once again crush the market place by placing NT based OSes on EVERY platform out there with a FULL *nix Interface if that is what it takes.
Why - because NT IS NOT TIED TO THE WIN32 Subsystem, never was - only fools see Windows Win32 or Win16 as the NT OS.
I suggest you don't do like most people and assume that Microsoft will stay static and then one day wonder why the world is running a NT Kernel Core of Linux on everyone's desktop.
NT is the uber in extensible OS technology, and if you don't trust Microsoft as many of us don't - then we ALL better be ready to understand how far this NT OS can go and will go with the amount of R&D funds a company like Microsoft has.
There are already binary Linux Subsystems running on the NT kernel that fully interoperate with the Win32 and other subsystems in NT.
It just happens that they currently only exist in the testing labs - The only external works that point to this existence is an Israeli company that was commission to port the *nix subsystem (the one Microsoft currently sells for NT) and move it to a Linux and BSD compatible environment.
So, sit back, keep your eyes closes and continue to discount MS, just like Lotus, Novel and WordPerfect did in the early 1990s.
have to say that the rise of audiobooks really excites me, I love to read and never thought I would get into them but I really like them for long road trips (especially if I can find a book wither historical or fictional detail on where I am headed, like Tony Hillerman books while wandering around New Mexico). I have only used tape version until now, but I am glad I'll be able to transfer them onto my iPod... I only have a 5GB though, very soon I think it may be time to upgrade!
I have to agree, I have been a fan of Online Audio books since I first found Audible.com back in 2000 or 2001.
I have tons of audio books I take with me everywhere. I just leave them on my laptop, as my car was designed to have the laptop lock into the dash. So it is my best portable jukebox, DVD player, and Audio book library.
My portable players just never seem to have enough space for everything, waiting for a nice 80gb unit with a quality DVD screen as well, then maybe I can finally leave the laptop home more.
Yet it never reached 64 bits -- why? Note you are citing the *PC parts.
The Alpha CPU did not support full 64bit memory addressing in the earlier version of the CPU that were provided in the system configurations available.
This was not inherently a NT limitation as it was a limitation of the early EV5 CPUS.
That is why the standard set of addressable memory was set at 35bit for NT to provide backward compatibility with the older Alpha CPU configurations and the newer ones as well.
As you will notice, even the never Alpha CPUs were only capable of allowing 43bit memory addressing, hence the limitation of the CPU, not the OSes that used it.
Just like the AMD and the Itanium also are 'technically' limited to a lower memory addressable bit range than full 64bit. As well as the PPC in the new G5 - they are still limited (not by software, but hardware configuration) to less than 64bit addressing.
Go look up the AMD, PPC, and Itanium CPUs if you need the facts on them to see that they are also do not fully support 64bit memory addressing.
As for you dismissing the viability of the 64bit Version of WindowsXP 64 because it only supported the Itanium, you are showing a flaw in your knowledge and experience. WindowsXP 64 is a full 64bit OS, and even though it ONLY supports the Itanium (at the native Itanium level, not x86 mode) this does not mean that MS is not capable of moving the NT kernel and the NT HAL to ANY OTHER PLATFORM.
You need to do some NT kernel history.
We are Running Windows 64bit for AMD in our labs now, and you know what, it works, and works quite well. And it also is not relying on the x86 32bit compatibility, it is running in a full 64bit capacity - just as designed.
Additionally, don't for a second try to argue that MS is somehow tied to Intel or the x86 Chip line.
NT was running on RISC systems before it was EVER running on x86 (This is in fact how it got the NT name - which is not (New Technology) as many people mis-report.
Additionally, you seem to forget that Microsot NT was common on many platforms in mid 1990s, the only reason these projects were cancelled were because the market shared for the platforms died. (Just like Compaq pulling the plug on the Alpha support, and despite your rumor, it was NOT because Compaq was funding it) (You might have noticed that MS has a bit of money themselves. Geesh.
Do you not know or remember that NT was available on MIPS, RISC, PowerPC, x86, and Alpha Processors? Considering that this pretty much COVERED the mainstream CPU market of the mid 90s, I would say Microsoft had a pretty good handle on porting NT to whatever they wanted. But if you knew your NT history, you would know that a an essential design rule of NT is that it must ALWAYS remain portable. No CPU specific machine language is allowed in the OS outside the HAL layer of NT.
If you are trying to argue that MS has not ability or knowledge of porting OSes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Cutler alone being involved in the Microsoft world should be enough a testament to this for anyone old enough to remember his multi-platform works alone.
Never stop questioning, it is the only true power a person has in this world.
Ok, so you don't fully understand the Berkeley-style license agreement. And even though Apple tries to cover this with the APSL, the fact remains that they are not as 'free' to close Darwin as people think.
Shall we talk about the kernel development that goes back to when Apple sought out the then OSF to port Linux to the PowerMac?
Apple takes great strides to hide these dirty secrets so they can present the Darwin project as a 'good' faith investment in the Open Source world - which it simply is not.
Additionally, the original post that spawned this debate was over the fact that Quicktime is not OPEN or will be, even though the person that responded used Darwin as a reference to illustrate I was wrong about Quicktime being open.
However, Apple themselves state (apple.com) that Quicktime is not open, nor will it be ported to platforms other than OSX, and Windows.
Here I will let Carnegie Mellon talk out their 'ass' for you...
-------------- Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to
Software Distribution Coordinator
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
or Software.Distribution@CS.CMU.EDU any improvements or extensions that they make and grant Carnegie Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes. -----------
Hence why the 'open' Darwin project was created.
Apple cannot legally KEEP the Darwin core closed, just as I stated in the previous post. Additionally, changes to the MACH technology and the BSD interface are also 'licensed' to return the MODIFIED and EXTENDED technology - in other words DARWIN HAS TO BE OPEN. Period.
This is also why Apple works so hard to make a full distinction between the Darwin core of OSX and the upper layers of the OS - so the upper layers (like the Window Manager) do not fall into the open license of Darwin which would require the code of the upper layers to also be disclosed.
-------------- Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to
Software Distribution Coordinator
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
or Software.Distribution@CS.CMU.EDU any improvements or extensions that they make and grant Carnegie Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes. -----------
Hence why the 'open' Darwin project was created.
Apple cannot legally KEEP the Darwin core closed, just as I stated in the previous post. Additionally, changes to the MACH technology and the BSD interface are also 'licensed' to return the MODIFIED and EXTENDED technology - in other words DARWIN HAS TO BE OPEN. Period.
OS and UI theorist for over 15 years, I have worked with projects like XWindows and the IBM CUI, to more modern OS theories and UI concepts that have been introduced in the past few years. I think I have a pretty good handle on pioneering OS concepts and UI features.
You obviously know a lot about what Microsoft does in it's research labs.
Actually, chrome was a beta product that was released outside the MS Labs. BTW research.microsoft.com will lead you down the yellow brick road to many upcoming concepts and technologies from MS. But most techs know this, so I apologize for not providing a link.
look at microsoft rendering their desktop in 3d in longhorn the same way panther does now
Actually, I (as an outsider even) saw these technologies at MS far before this was added to OSX - in fact MS was previewing some of the VERY same animated Window painting that is OSX back in 1998.
BTW the 3D Window manager in Longhorn is a bit different than the 2D Window Manger in OSX. Just because OSX uses 3D acceleration techniques to paint windows as textures, does not mean the UI is 3D based. Do a little more homework on the OSX Window Manager. And if you are incapable of reading the Apple web site, I will have a tech here pull the links for you.
Thanks for the detailed post and inquisitive nature of your post.
I too seek answers to fringe topics, and these formats and new levels of distribution are certainly an example of that. I hope that information becomes available and time itself provides the full answers we both seek.
WMA may be a piece of the future, or a piece that is morphed into another standard, or it may fail miserably and AAC or another format yet to be seen will pave the future for online distribution.
I honestly cannot find many items in your response that I disagree with.
BTW I also have a 'serious' Audible.com book collection - close to 100 books since 2001. I am glad that Music is now becoming 'legally' this easily available as well.
I am sensing a major leap here. Yes there are 300 devices that support WMA - but how many support protected WMA
You are totally missing the issue. With WMA, the devices themselves do not HAVE to support the protection mechanism, just like the IPOD itself does not support the protection mechanisms.
It is when the WMA files that ARE protected are transferred to the devices that any protection is considered. Either via Windows Media Player or third party applications like AUDIBLE.COM's audible manager.
The devices are nothing more than a medium, just like a CD, and even protected content can STILL be copied to these devices or to a CD if the protection of the content allows for it.
Period.
With WMA, you can burn them to a CD, or transfer them to your portable device. There is no difference between it and the Apple offering in concept.
The difference is that WMA players are more available and have better features - even though you like your iPod, many people have chosen the iRiver and other devices because of more features than what the iPOD offers. (Space available, sound quality, price, etc.) Everyone likes different features for different reasons. At least with WMA and tons of people supporting it, there are 'choices' - something Apple is not in the market of offering.
Sure you can take iTunes and rip the song to a CD - Resampling the compressed song back up, and then rip it to a MP3 or WMA - resampling the song back down. But does anyone else realize that no matter how well this is done, there WILL be a loss in quality. Check out the Audio equivalent to the Moire effect. Compression taken up and back down in other format will lose original quality - EVERY TIME.
Additionally with music quality the WMA format at smaller file sizes STILL way outperform other codec formats. This is why there are over 300 manufacturers that support the WMA format in addition to the MP3 format.
With WMA, you can get twice the amount of content on a device with the same sound quality of MP3s.
Which is very important when storing audio data like books, or even standard songs on a 64mb audio device. Instead of a CD, you can get two at the same quality for example.
I suggest you take a serious look at the WMA devices and how they work, and why WMA is a viable music format standard.
And don't hate it just because MS is its author, as I said above, Microsoft also had a hand in authoring many of the other codecs in use - even the ones used by Apple and the iPod.
Why, to keep Microsoft from "innovating" new features into their OS, of course! How else do you keep your ideas from ending up in Microsoft Windows Important Productivity Thingy 2005XP?
I like OSX, so I hate to say this...
Do you have ANY idea the number of features in OSX that FIRST appeared in a MS OS?
Should we start with CUI and GUI basics like Select and Modify concepts and move all the way to the newer features being added to Panther?
We could even mention Chrome and other things from the MS research lab that SOMEHOW made it into the OSX Window Manager, even though Microsoft never released the product officially.
I know OSX has some great innovative ideas and technologies, but I serious doubt that MS's multi-billion dollar research facility is set up to just disassemble Apple's work.
It sure sounds good if you are trying to sell Macs, but in the real world of logic, it just doesn't play out.
Go read the BSD license. It requires nothing of the sort
BSD is just the interface to the MACH Kernel.
Go read the MACH Kernel licensing requirements that Apple agreed to.
Additionally, I think you should also re-read the BSD requirments as well, because you are missing a couple of points of why it also has to be included in the Darwin 'open' project.
We were talking 64 bits. MS-WNT on the Alpha was 32-bits only.
Yes and NO...
Windows NT for Alpha was originally a 32bit OS because of the original Alpha limitations.
However as later version of the Alpha chip were available, more bits of addressable memory were available to the OS.
Hence the latest versions of Windows NT for Alpha supported a common 35bit addressing to support the large array of available Alpha CPUS with backward compatibility for the earlier EV5 chips like the 21164PC that only supported 33bit addressing to the 21164PC which supported 43bit addressing.
This meant that NT for Alpha could access 32GB of RAM natively with NO PAE tricks as found in the x86 world. And this was back in the mid 90s when 64mb of RAM was considered a lot.
So if you think Microsoft has no knowledge of OS support beyond a 32bit platform, you know very little about the NT development on the Alpha platform, especially the once upcoming Win2k that Compaq killed at RC1.
Why do you think it was SO easy for MS to produce WindowsXP 64bit edition in 2001? They had already done most of the UI work for the Alpha NT projects, it was just a matter of modifying the HAL for the Itanium CPU and transferring the WOW32 interface layers for the Itanium.
Additionally, if you would look back on the original design of the NT architecture, it was designed to not be dependant on 'any' set bit platform with 32bit being the minimal OS architectural requirement.
The NT Kernel along with HAL is easily extended, it is the Win32 subsystem that takes more developer resources to move past the 32bit world it was design into.
NT is just as extensible to the 64bit or even 128bit world as any OS around, the flaw is that people see the Win32 (note the 32 there) as the NT platform, when it is just the Controlling Subsystem of NT OS - but doesn't have to be.
This is why you will find that the Win32 API is being replaced with a new OS API model in the upcoming Longhorn and new MS Server technologies. They are also moving the UI from being 'bit' dependant.
Just the fact that MS has had a 64bit Shipping OS (WindowsXP 64bit Edition) for over two years should be enough of a sign that your original statement of MS having no experience in the 64bit OS world is truly ridiculous.
as its leader Dave Custer wanted
BTW - His name was Dave Cutler - I assume you are mixing his last name with Helen that wrote "Inside Windows NT" back in 1992.
Oh, and where exactly are you finding all this Dolby 5.1 music? Or do you just spin movie soundtracks at parties?
Actually I know people that pull sound from Movies, but that is beside the point.
There are 5.1 AUDIO releases out there; they are just not as common because of the limitations in current media distribution (not likely to have 5.1 digital on a cassette tape or CD).
Just like some CD Audio has Dolby Pro Logic Surround encoded in them, you will also find technologies that mimic surround and bass enhancement like the QSound and SRS that Madonna used in the early 1990s on her albums. However the 5.1 isn't something that is as easily encoded or available in the current 'media' that music is distributed on.
Digital media distribution is not ALWAYS going to be limited to what can be encoded on current media technology - you are already seeing 5.1 surround music DVDs and music video DVDs.
Surprise, surprise.
Wow, that is novel, I am such a fool and never knew something so profound. Give people a break here, we are not all neophytes when it comes to Apple or OS design.
So, now that you mention it, where are the open papers on Quicktime, and the Window Manager technologies for OSX? Oh wait, those are closed...
Why we might ask? Because APPLE CAN. The Darwin project is ONLY open because of the open source licensing that requires them to do so.
If Apple had actually been able to write their own Kernel or Kernel interface, they would not have had to have an open Darwin project. Period.
I'm not even going to argue Apple's case because I mostly agree with you. If you're implying that Apple isn't capable of streaming MPEG4, though, maybe you should do some more research [apple.com] before you open your mouth. Not only is it streamable, Apple's not the only company involved.
Never said Apple wasn't able to stream MPEG4, maybe you should READ THE POST more carefully.
What I DID SAY is that part of the MPEG4 codecs that are SO popular and the DIVX codecs are taken from codecs DEVELOPED AT MICROSOFT in the MID 1990s.
Does anyone else remember this, or am I the only one that was working with the MPEG v4 codec techology from Microsoft back in 1998 that was freely distributed and turned into DIVX and is a founding technology of MPEG4.
IIRC, AAC is actually an ISO standard and is used in MPEG4 and is significantly better than mp3s which are at much higher bitrates. WMA is wholly owned by Microsoft and doesn't seem to offer appreciable sound benefits over mp3s.
First point true, second point not true - additionally missing third point.
The missing third point.. Microsoft's contributed to the MPEG4 and AAC standards, as part of their codec development has been used in both.
The incorrect second point... Microsoft does own WMA - but they are taking steps to opening the codec so that it is no longer just 'their baby' - watch the headlines and you will know what I mean.
Also WMA (Especially Version 9) has successfully tested better in sound reproduction than AAC and MP3s - so by saying it has little benefits over the older MP3 format is a little silly.
WMA (9 Series )offers all the bells and whistles of other technologies from lossless compression to advanced bit rate selections - including the ability to do Dolby 5.1, and now even Dolby 7.1 surround. Something not common or even doable in most of the other formats.
And for now, even though Microsoft 'owns' the WMA technology - in the Windows world the Player is free, the Encoders are free, even the ability to setup your own radio station server is free.
Some of these things Apple doesn't even offer and their technology is not even capable of doing.
Once WMA is opened, look for it to proliferate to other platforms with NO allegiance to Microsoft other than saying thank you Microsoft for the free codec technologies that you spent 100s of millions on in research. BTW this is something I don't foresee Apple ever doing with their products, but could be surprised.
It kills me that people make a career of complaining about Microsoft and their 'closed OSes' and 'closed Technologies' and see Apple as a saint, but Apple not only has a closed OS but closed hardware, and even restricts the users to what portable player they can use (other than a CD). Geesh.
This is especially amusing when the people that are whining are usually using Microsoft technologies themselves on other OSes and don't even realize it. (Technologies from simple things like UI innovations that are copied on the other platforms (Even OSX) to codecs and standards that Microsoft has created and GIVEN to the community) - MPEG4 codecs, CSS, etc, etc, etc...
And then you have the iPod, a great device, but seriously lacking in future features. It does not and will not support WMA until Microsoft literally gives Apple what they want.
But yet, the iPod is the device Apple WILL LET YOU use with iTunes, where Microsoft WMA format is available and used on over 300 portable devices that automatically interface with WindowsXP. Strange how Microsoft is strangling the market by letting all these companies use WMA formats for free. Geesh.
Even without the WMA support the iPod is not the sexiest portable Jukebox, nor was it even the FIRST. Look at the iRiver iHP as a good alternative for example. And with these devices and WMA you can have higher bit rates, and some of the portables will even do the fully Dolby 5.1 surround using WMA if you serious about moving music from party to party.
> Microsoft learned a lot about making a 64 bit OS from it's Alpha experience. Actually very little, the Alpha was killed before MS had anything more than a prototype. That work seems to have been mostly scrapped, as its leader Dave Custer wanted to break backwards compatibility to save MS-WNT from the big problems it still has.
Funny - Especially considering that NT on the Alpha was a shipping product for several years - like between 1993 and 1999.
In fact, when the Alpha was introduced at the 1992 Comdex, NT was the OS they used to demonstrate the power of the CPU. (Surely I'm not the only one that was at COMDEX in '92.)
It was the final Beta stages of Win2k when Compaq purchased DEC and halted the NT OS production - which was NOT Microsoft's choice. (I saw the 'memo' - Microsoft was floored that Compaq was planning to basically kill and piece out the Alpha technology.)
Slashdot Mirror
There is absolutely no reason to launch an executable file from an email attachment. If you attach a non-executable document file to an email, sure, let the application that filetype is associated with open it up from within Outlook, but any attempt to execute an EXE/COM/BAT/PIF/SCR file should result in 'not allowed.'
Outlook has BLOCKED these since SP1 of 2000. So considering that was over three years ago, don't you think you are beating a dead horse?
Or have you just not used Outlook and want to continue the FUD...?
Yes, as I said it still runs. But anyone who uses it for any other OS is playing russian roulette whether it will continue to run other OS's properly.
Possibly true, and I personally think this is stupid for Microsoft to do this, completely stupid.
As what I have seen from the product, the other OSes still run just as well as they always have, but they are creating their own FUD by letting these stories center on their 'definition' of support that is only hurting what is now their product.
MS whole goal was to use this for MS Hosted Servers inside Win2003 boxes for Win2k and WinNT4 to offer a easy migration environement for Server users. Which it works quite well by taking an existing Running Server Drive Image, and dropping it in MS Virtual Server.
However, what is stupid is that they need to extend this thought beyond just their own migration model. They should also be using it as a marketed tool for Migrating Linux and other OSes to people that need or would want to move to Win2003.
So they need to either get press out that the Product does work in this senerio, or just let this market segment die - which I think is stupid.
You cannot safely continue using Virtual PC for Linux, BSD, Netware, or Solaris. Merely applying a patch becomes a game of russian roulette. Not only might it kill the system outright, it could silently cause curruption. Unknown silent curruption is often far more damaging than outright failure.
:)
:)
Ok, for starters the article is a bit off.
Microsoft is NOT producing any Guest OS Tools for most OSes, and that pretty much sums it up.
Technically being a 'supported' OS is simply stating that they are not providing any Guest Client Tools to help in integrating the Guest OS for Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Period.
I hate to burst the bubble, but I happen to have a 'friend' that is in the official beta.
So no, Virtual PC is not going to have the client tools for guests OSes like Linux, but that does not mean it does not work, or that it does not work any differently than it has in the past.
BTW, this really isn't a surprise, VMWare has been more of a performance leader, especially with their 'tools' for the guest OSes.
Think of it as Microsoft being nice to VMWare and giving them the Linux Guest OS market.
However, with all that said, Linux and the other OSes still run, just like they used to under Virtual PC, Microsoft just won't be helping a Linux user Guest OS customer with free support.
Besides, I thought everyone here was running Windows as the Guest OSes, so does this really make a big difference to many of us?
Even being in the official beta (I mean my 'friend'), I still use VMWare under Windows for stuff like Linux and OpenBSD.
Also, I believe that Win2K is internally NT 5.0, and XP is NT 5.1 (I think an actual NT 5.0 was planned, but it was so late it morphed into Win2K)
Correct on the 5.1 part, however NT5 and Win2k were always the same thing - it just happened that MS changed their product naming convention in the late 90s. So NT5 was going to be called whatever the year it was released. (Although it was finished in Dec of 99).
I think one could argue that OS9 and OSX are so different it would be like Microsoft taking FreeBSD or Linux, heavily modifying Gnome, writting a very comprehensive/official version of Wine for backwards compatibility, and releasing the whole package as the next version of Windows.
True OSX is a whole world from OS9; however, Microsoft wouldn't have to do all that to change the whole OS interface. All they would need to do is slap a FreeBSD subsystem with Gnome on the NT core. NT can do things like that due to the client/object architecture. In fact Microsoft already sells a full Unix variant that is just another layered subsystem on NT - look it up.
If they wanted to, Win32 could be dumped altogether and they could add any subsystem OS they wanted. Or they could leave Win32 and add in a new subsystem that is yet unheard of, and also a full binary compatible FreeBSD or Linux subsystem and they would all run on the same computer onscreen with NO EMULATION or VMing and still be able to share data and messages via the NT core.
Remember Win32 is ONLY a subsystem on NT and is not a part of the NT kernel or core.
(Rule #55 - Never underestimate Microsoft)
I was merely demolishing the argument that Apple's systems are closed and proprietary and undocumented.
And it seems that you were the only one saying this, or trying to defend this notion - try reading the posts more carefully before you start chasing false arguments.
Let's see... How about the open paper describing the complete QuickTime file format [apple.com]? Or the documentation for creating your own codecs and components [apple.com]? Or the documentation for the Quartz Window Manager [apple.com], including how to send it raw PDF and details of the level of PDF supported by current versions? Or the documentation for how to hook into the window manager [apple.com] and remote control it.
And this differs from Microsoft disclosing how everything in the NT and WIn32 API work how? Hmm... It doesn't.
Just like Apple, Microsoft isn't providing the source code, and just like Apple they FREELY tell you how to program with it, for it, and even use in your own products.
Drop by msdn.microsoft.com, you will find the same level of programming information for Windows.
With WMA, you can add your own codecs (just like the apple link you give), with windows Everything about the GUI including full disclosure of the Window painting, 3d interfaces is available (again, just like apple), Microsoft even provides tons of articles on adding your own technology into Windows - completely modifying beyond the specifications and information Apple provides for OSX.
Try again...
And yes, I know all these facts you cite. But you overlook my evaluations: that all non-x86 platform ports were suboptimised and 32 bits, and that MS-W64 hasn't seen enough testing.
If all you are looking for is a way to a way to discount Microsoft and that is your only goal, I do feel sorry for you. As no amount of information I provide will ever fix what is wrong with you and your passion of hatred.
Microsoft pisses me off a lot too, but I also seem to balance a reasonable understanding of them in the market and what they HAVE done well and what they have also done that has improved people's lives. Even if the technology or ideas were not all their own.
As for MS's experience in the 64bit world... How COULD THEY have more 64bit experience?
THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN A FEW DESKTOP 64bit CPUS, and the other big 64bit CPU players have been proprietarily owned and marketed by the companies that made them with the OSes that were designed to run on them.
So unless you know of even a few desktop or low server class 64bit CPUS that were available in a RAW PC part form, I don't think you can prove that MS has any more or less experience in the mainstream 64bit world.
As for the limited 35bit on the Alpha, do you NOT HEAR that this is a common concept in 64bit processors, did you NOT LOOK UP THE SPECS on the Itanium and AMD64?
As I see it, for what was 'commonly' available in the marketplace for CPUS 16,32, or 64 bit wise MS Covered the Majority of them in the 1990.
In fact, at one point in the mid 90s, MS NT ran on more CPUS than most *nix variants.
NT is a portable OS that was designed to extend past the 32bit world, and if you somehow missed that in the history of NT, I apologize, but maybe now is the time to do a little research or Microsoft will once again crush the market place by placing NT based OSes on EVERY platform out there with a FULL *nix Interface if that is what it takes.
Why - because NT IS NOT TIED TO THE WIN32 Subsystem, never was - only fools see Windows Win32 or Win16 as the NT OS.
I suggest you don't do like most people and assume that Microsoft will stay static and then one day wonder why the world is running a NT Kernel Core of Linux on everyone's desktop.
NT is the uber in extensible OS technology, and if you don't trust Microsoft as many of us don't - then we ALL better be ready to understand how far this NT OS can go and will go with the amount of R&D funds a company like Microsoft has.
There are already binary Linux Subsystems running on the NT kernel that fully interoperate with the Win32 and other subsystems in NT.
It just happens that they currently only exist in the testing labs - The only external works that point to this existence is an Israeli company that was commission to port the *nix subsystem (the one Microsoft currently sells for NT) and move it to a Linux and BSD compatible environment.
So, sit back, keep your eyes closes and continue to discount MS, just like Lotus, Novel and WordPerfect did in the early 1990s.
Jesus christ. Just shut the fuck up, Trollard McBridgington Esq
I apologize...
We should be careful not to pare down God's omnipotence to the level of our human opinions. -Carl Gustav Jung
Just because a deity died, does NOT mean they left you in charge. - The Net Avenger
have to say that the rise of audiobooks really excites me, I love to read and never thought I would get into them but I really like them for long road trips (especially if I can find a book wither historical or fictional detail on where I am headed, like Tony Hillerman books while wandering around New Mexico). I have only used tape version until now, but I am glad I'll be able to transfer them onto my iPod... I only have a 5GB though, very soon I think it may be time to upgrade!
I have to agree, I have been a fan of Online Audio books since I first found Audible.com back in 2000 or 2001.
I have tons of audio books I take with me everywhere. I just leave them on my laptop, as my car was designed to have the laptop lock into the dash. So it is my best portable jukebox, DVD player, and Audio book library.
My portable players just never seem to have enough space for everything, waiting for a nice 80gb unit with a quality DVD screen as well, then maybe I can finally leave the laptop home more.
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
Yet it never reached 64 bits -- why? Note you are citing the *PC parts.
The Alpha CPU did not support full 64bit memory addressing in the earlier version of the CPU that were provided in the system configurations available.
This was not inherently a NT limitation as it was a limitation of the early EV5 CPUS.
That is why the standard set of addressable memory was set at 35bit for NT to provide backward compatibility with the older Alpha CPU configurations and the newer ones as well.
As you will notice, even the never Alpha CPUs were only capable of allowing 43bit memory addressing, hence the limitation of the CPU, not the OSes that used it.
Just like the AMD and the Itanium also are 'technically' limited to a lower memory addressable bit range than full 64bit. As well as the PPC in the new G5 - they are still limited (not by software, but hardware configuration) to less than 64bit addressing.
Go look up the AMD, PPC, and Itanium CPUs if you need the facts on them to see that they are also do not fully support 64bit memory addressing.
As for you dismissing the viability of the 64bit Version of WindowsXP 64 because it only supported the Itanium, you are showing a flaw in your knowledge and experience. WindowsXP 64 is a full 64bit OS, and even though it ONLY supports the Itanium (at the native Itanium level, not x86 mode) this does not mean that MS is not capable of moving the NT kernel and the NT HAL to ANY OTHER PLATFORM.
You need to do some NT kernel history.
We are Running Windows 64bit for AMD in our labs now, and you know what, it works, and works quite well. And it also is not relying on the x86 32bit compatibility, it is running in a full 64bit capacity - just as designed.
Additionally, don't for a second try to argue that MS is somehow tied to Intel or the x86 Chip line.
NT was running on RISC systems before it was EVER running on x86 (This is in fact how it got the NT name - which is not (New Technology) as many people mis-report.
Additionally, you seem to forget that Microsot NT was common on many platforms in mid 1990s, the only reason these projects were cancelled were because the market shared for the platforms died. (Just like Compaq pulling the plug on the Alpha support, and despite your rumor, it was NOT because Compaq was funding it) (You might have noticed that MS has a bit of money themselves. Geesh.
Do you not know or remember that NT was available on MIPS, RISC, PowerPC, x86, and Alpha Processors? Considering that this pretty much COVERED the mainstream CPU market of the mid 90s, I would say Microsoft had a pretty good handle on porting NT to whatever they wanted. But if you knew your NT history, you would know that a an essential design rule of NT is that it must ALWAYS remain portable. No CPU specific machine language is allowed in the OS outside the HAL layer of NT.
If you are trying to argue that MS has not ability or knowledge of porting OSes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Cutler alone being involved in the Microsoft world should be enough a testament to this for anyone old enough to remember his multi-platform works alone.
Never stop questioning, it is the only true power a person has in this world.
Ok, so you don't fully understand the Berkeley-style license agreement. And even though Apple tries to cover this with the APSL, the fact remains that they are not as 'free' to close Darwin as people think.
Shall we talk about the kernel development that goes back to when Apple sought out the then OSF to port Linux to the PowerMac?
Apple takes great strides to hide these dirty secrets so they can present the Darwin project as a 'good' faith investment in the Open Source world - which it simply is not.
Additionally, the original post that spawned this debate was over the fact that Quicktime is not OPEN or will be, even though the person that responded used Darwin as a reference to illustrate I was wrong about Quicktime being open.
However, Apple themselves state (apple.com) that Quicktime is not open, nor will it be ported to platforms other than OSX, and Windows.
You sure talk out of your ass a lot.
Here I will let Carnegie Mellon talk out their 'ass' for you...
--------------
Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to
Software Distribution Coordinator
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
or Software.Distribution@CS.CMU.EDU any improvements or extensions that they make and grant Carnegie Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes.
-----------
Hence why the 'open' Darwin project was created.
Apple cannot legally KEEP the Darwin core closed, just as I stated in the previous post. Additionally, changes to the MACH technology and the BSD interface are also 'licensed' to return the MODIFIED and EXTENDED technology - in other words DARWIN HAS TO BE OPEN. Period.
This is also why Apple works so hard to make a full distinction between the Darwin core of OSX and the upper layers of the OS - so the upper layers (like the Window Manager) do not fall into the open license of Darwin which would require the code of the upper layers to also be disclosed.
Now back to my talking donkey... Geesh.
Can no one else here read....
--------------
Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to
Software Distribution Coordinator
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
or Software.Distribution@CS.CMU.EDU any improvements or extensions that they make and grant Carnegie Mellon the rights to redistribute these changes.
-----------
Hence why the 'open' Darwin project was created.
Apple cannot legally KEEP the Darwin core closed, just as I stated in the previous post. Additionally, changes to the MACH technology and the BSD interface are also 'licensed' to return the MODIFIED and EXTENDED technology - in other words DARWIN HAS TO BE OPEN. Period.
Microsoft didn't innovate mpeg4
I suggest you go look at the history of the codecs and the codec development. MS was doing more than just participating in the consortium.
man, you're full of shit
Go look up the MS Chrome project and then in the future your time might be worth more than a childish reply.
No. I'm guessing that you don't either.
OS and UI theorist for over 15 years, I have worked with projects like XWindows and the IBM CUI, to more modern OS theories and UI concepts that have been introduced in the past few years. I think I have a pretty good handle on pioneering OS concepts and UI features.
You obviously know a lot about what Microsoft does in it's research labs.
Actually, chrome was a beta product that was released outside the MS Labs. BTW research.microsoft.com will lead you down the yellow brick road to many upcoming concepts and technologies from MS. But most techs know this, so I apologize for not providing a link.
look at microsoft rendering their desktop in 3d in longhorn the same way panther does now
Actually, I (as an outsider even) saw these technologies at MS far before this was added to OSX - in fact MS was previewing some of the VERY same animated Window painting that is OSX back in 1998.
BTW the 3D Window manager in Longhorn is a bit different than the 2D Window Manger in OSX. Just because OSX uses 3D acceleration techniques to paint windows as textures, does not mean the UI is 3D based. Do a little more homework on the OSX Window Manager. And if you are incapable of reading the Apple web site, I will have a tech here pull the links for you.
Thanks for the detailed post and inquisitive nature of your post.
I too seek answers to fringe topics, and these formats and new levels of distribution are certainly an example of that. I hope that information becomes available and time itself provides the full answers we both seek.
WMA may be a piece of the future, or a piece that is morphed into another standard, or it may fail miserably and AAC or another format yet to be seen will pave the future for online distribution.
I honestly cannot find many items in your response that I disagree with.
BTW I also have a 'serious' Audible.com book collection - close to 100 books since 2001. I am glad that Music is now becoming 'legally' this easily available as well.
Take care,
The Net Avenger
I am sensing a major leap here. Yes there are 300 devices that support WMA - but how many support protected WMA
You are totally missing the issue. With WMA, the devices themselves do not HAVE to support the protection mechanism, just like the IPOD itself does not support the protection mechanisms.
It is when the WMA files that ARE protected are transferred to the devices that any protection is considered. Either via Windows Media Player or third party applications like AUDIBLE.COM's audible manager.
The devices are nothing more than a medium, just like a CD, and even protected content can STILL be copied to these devices or to a CD if the protection of the content allows for it.
Period.
With WMA, you can burn them to a CD, or transfer them to your portable device. There is no difference between it and the Apple offering in concept.
The difference is that WMA players are more available and have better features - even though you like your iPod, many people have chosen the iRiver and other devices because of more features than what the iPOD offers. (Space available, sound quality, price, etc.) Everyone likes different features for different reasons. At least with WMA and tons of people supporting it, there are 'choices' - something Apple is not in the market of offering.
Sure you can take iTunes and rip the song to a CD - Resampling the compressed song back up, and then rip it to a MP3 or WMA - resampling the song back down. But does anyone else realize that no matter how well this is done, there WILL be a loss in quality. Check out the Audio equivalent to the Moire effect. Compression taken up and back down in other format will lose original quality - EVERY TIME.
Additionally with music quality the WMA format at smaller file sizes STILL way outperform other codec formats. This is why there are over 300 manufacturers that support the WMA format in addition to the MP3 format.
With WMA, you can get twice the amount of content on a device with the same sound quality of MP3s.
Which is very important when storing audio data like books, or even standard songs on a 64mb audio device. Instead of a CD, you can get two at the same quality for example.
I suggest you take a serious look at the WMA devices and how they work, and why WMA is a viable music format standard.
And don't hate it just because MS is its author, as I said above, Microsoft also had a hand in authoring many of the other codecs in use - even the ones used by Apple and the iPod.
Why, to keep Microsoft from "innovating" new features into their OS, of course! How else do you keep your ideas from ending up in Microsoft Windows Important Productivity Thingy 2005XP?
I like OSX, so I hate to say this...
Do you have ANY idea the number of features in OSX that FIRST appeared in a MS OS?
Should we start with CUI and GUI basics like Select and Modify concepts and move all the way to the newer features being added to Panther?
We could even mention Chrome and other things from the MS research lab that SOMEHOW made it into the OSX Window Manager, even though Microsoft never released the product officially.
I know OSX has some great innovative ideas and technologies, but I serious doubt that MS's multi-billion dollar research facility is set up to just disassemble Apple's work.
It sure sounds good if you are trying to sell Macs, but in the real world of logic, it just doesn't play out.
Go read the BSD license. It requires nothing of the sort
BSD is just the interface to the MACH Kernel.
Go read the MACH Kernel licensing requirements that Apple agreed to.
Additionally, I think you should also re-read the BSD requirments as well, because you are missing a couple of points of why it also has to be included in the Darwin 'open' project.
We were talking 64 bits. MS-WNT on the Alpha was 32-bits only.
Yes and NO...
Windows NT for Alpha was originally a 32bit OS because of the original Alpha limitations.
However as later version of the Alpha chip were available, more bits of addressable memory were available to the OS.
Hence the latest versions of Windows NT for Alpha supported a common 35bit addressing to support the large array of available Alpha CPUS with backward compatibility for the earlier EV5 chips like the 21164PC that only supported 33bit addressing to the 21164PC which supported 43bit addressing.
This meant that NT for Alpha could access 32GB of RAM natively with NO PAE tricks as found in the x86 world. And this was back in the mid 90s when 64mb of RAM was considered a lot.
So if you think Microsoft has no knowledge of OS support beyond a 32bit platform, you know very little about the NT development on the Alpha platform, especially the once upcoming Win2k that Compaq killed at RC1.
Why do you think it was SO easy for MS to produce WindowsXP 64bit edition in 2001? They had already done most of the UI work for the Alpha NT projects, it was just a matter of modifying the HAL for the Itanium CPU and transferring the WOW32 interface layers for the Itanium.
Additionally, if you would look back on the original design of the NT architecture, it was designed to not be dependant on 'any' set bit platform with 32bit being the minimal OS architectural requirement.
The NT Kernel along with HAL is easily extended, it is the Win32 subsystem that takes more developer resources to move past the 32bit world it was design into.
NT is just as extensible to the 64bit or even 128bit world as any OS around, the flaw is that people see the Win32 (note the 32 there) as the NT platform, when it is just the Controlling Subsystem of NT OS - but doesn't have to be.
This is why you will find that the Win32 API is being replaced with a new OS API model in the upcoming Longhorn and new MS Server technologies. They are also moving the UI from being 'bit' dependant.
Just the fact that MS has had a 64bit Shipping OS (WindowsXP 64bit Edition) for over two years should be enough of a sign that your original statement of MS having no experience in the 64bit OS world is truly ridiculous.
as its leader Dave Custer wanted
BTW - His name was Dave Cutler - I assume you are mixing his last name with Helen that wrote "Inside Windows NT" back in 1992.
Oh, and where exactly are you finding all this Dolby 5.1 music? Or do you just spin movie soundtracks at parties?
Actually I know people that pull sound from Movies, but that is beside the point.
There are 5.1 AUDIO releases out there; they are just not as common because of the limitations in current media distribution (not likely to have 5.1 digital on a cassette tape or CD).
Just like some CD Audio has Dolby Pro Logic Surround encoded in them, you will also find technologies that mimic surround and bass enhancement like the QSound and SRS that Madonna used in the early 1990s on her albums. However the 5.1 isn't something that is as easily encoded or available in the current 'media' that music is distributed on.
Digital media distribution is not ALWAYS going to be limited to what can be encoded on current media technology - you are already seeing 5.1 surround music DVDs and music video DVDs.
Surprise, surprise.
Wow, that is novel, I am such a fool and never knew something so profound. Give people a break here, we are not all neophytes when it comes to Apple or OS design.
So, now that you mention it, where are the open papers on Quicktime, and the Window Manager technologies for OSX? Oh wait, those are closed...
Why we might ask? Because APPLE CAN. The Darwin project is ONLY open because of the open source licensing that requires them to do so.
If Apple had actually been able to write their own Kernel or Kernel interface, they would not have had to have an open Darwin project. Period.
I'm not even going to argue Apple's case because I mostly agree with you. If you're implying that Apple isn't capable of streaming MPEG4, though, maybe you should do some more research [apple.com] before you open your mouth. Not only is it streamable, Apple's not the only company involved.
Never said Apple wasn't able to stream MPEG4, maybe you should READ THE POST more carefully.
What I DID SAY is that part of the MPEG4 codecs that are SO popular and the DIVX codecs are taken from codecs DEVELOPED AT MICROSOFT in the MID 1990s.
Does anyone else remember this, or am I the only one that was working with the MPEG v4 codec techology from Microsoft back in 1998 that was freely distributed and turned into DIVX and is a founding technology of MPEG4.
Maybe you should do a little research...
Geesh...
IIRC, AAC is actually an ISO standard and is used in MPEG4 and is significantly better than mp3s which are at much higher bitrates. WMA is wholly owned by Microsoft and doesn't seem to offer appreciable sound benefits over mp3s.
First point true, second point not true - additionally missing third point.
The missing third point..
Microsoft's contributed to the MPEG4 and AAC standards, as part of their codec development has been used in both.
The incorrect second point...
Microsoft does own WMA - but they are taking steps to opening the codec so that it is no longer just 'their baby' - watch the headlines and you will know what I mean.
Also WMA (Especially Version 9) has successfully tested better in sound reproduction than AAC and MP3s - so by saying it has little benefits over the older MP3 format is a little silly.
WMA (9 Series )offers all the bells and whistles of other technologies from lossless compression to advanced bit rate selections - including the ability to do Dolby 5.1, and now even Dolby 7.1 surround. Something not common or even doable in most of the other formats.
And for now, even though Microsoft 'owns' the WMA technology - in the Windows world the Player is free, the Encoders are free, even the ability to setup your own radio station server is free.
Some of these things Apple doesn't even offer and their technology is not even capable of doing.
Once WMA is opened, look for it to proliferate to other platforms with NO allegiance to Microsoft other than saying thank you Microsoft for the free codec technologies that you spent 100s of millions on in research. BTW this is something I don't foresee Apple ever doing with their products, but could be surprised.
It kills me that people make a career of complaining about Microsoft and their 'closed OSes' and 'closed Technologies' and see Apple as a saint, but Apple not only has a closed OS but closed hardware, and even restricts the users to what portable player they can use (other than a CD). Geesh.
This is especially amusing when the people that are whining are usually using Microsoft technologies themselves on other OSes and don't even realize it. (Technologies from simple things like UI innovations that are copied on the other platforms (Even OSX) to codecs and standards that Microsoft has created and GIVEN to the community) - MPEG4 codecs, CSS, etc, etc, etc...
And then you have the iPod, a great device, but seriously lacking in future features. It does not and will not support WMA until Microsoft literally gives Apple what they want.
But yet, the iPod is the device Apple WILL LET YOU use with iTunes, where Microsoft WMA format is available and used on over 300 portable devices that automatically interface with WindowsXP. Strange how Microsoft is strangling the market by letting all these companies use WMA formats for free. Geesh.
Even without the WMA support the iPod is not the sexiest portable Jukebox, nor was it even the FIRST. Look at the iRiver iHP as a good alternative for example. And with these devices and WMA you can have higher bit rates, and some of the portables will even do the fully Dolby 5.1 surround using WMA if you serious about moving music from party to party.
> Microsoft learned a lot about making a 64 bit OS from it's Alpha experience.
Actually very little, the Alpha was killed before MS had anything more than a prototype. That work seems to have been mostly scrapped, as its leader Dave Custer wanted to break backwards compatibility to save MS-WNT from the big problems it still has.
Funny - Especially considering that NT on the Alpha was a shipping product for several years - like between 1993 and 1999.
In fact, when the Alpha was introduced at the 1992 Comdex, NT was the OS they used to demonstrate the power of the CPU. (Surely I'm not the only one that was at COMDEX in '92.)
It was the final Beta stages of Win2k when Compaq purchased DEC and halted the NT OS production - which was NOT Microsoft's choice. (I saw the 'memo' - Microsoft was floored that Compaq was planning to basically kill and piece out the Alpha technology.)