Just what makes you think that all the other countries of the world, those that don't have financial incentives to tolerate Microsoft's practices, would be willing to accept complete control of their electronic communication by a foreign power. Especially one with the history of the United States and Microsoft.
In fact, the majority of countries in the world are moving away from Microsoft's products to Open Source equivalents in order to eliminate this very possibility.
I loved Nintendo when i was a kid, and i still think they release some of the best games on the market. But when it comes to shooting themselves in the foot, they never learn.
They released the N64 as a cartridge based system to prevent piracy; but in doing so alienated their 3rd party developers and customers. Not only where the games far more expensive to produce, they could not support the wealth of Video and Music easily contained on a CD.
With the GameCube, they decided -again- not to go for the mainstream option and instead use small psuedo-DVD's -and for what? The only thing the have been successfull in achieving is eliminating any wavering interest in the gamecube as a competitor to the "home-entertainment style" PS2, whilst at the same time, retaining the piracy that they went to so much effort to prevent.
For me it has to be System Shock 2. It was probably the first FPS to seemlessly combine the relentless action of doom, with a full blown RPG element. A great story line that never gave up, and that wouldn't have been out of place in a movie.
Sadly tho, the company that produced it, Looking Glass, ran into serious difficulties during the games developement (both financially and of the technology) so the release version was a bit rough around the edges. Shame really... a couple of more weeks and a wee bit more cash would have cemented this game as one of the all time greats.
With all this talk about Microsoft developing their own Unix platform, i'm wondering if they will introduce their own "extensions" -non standard of course.
I don't pretend to be a guru or anything, but i was under the impression that AGP and PCI devices were mapped to that region. Wouldn't that region correspond to the buffer width of the peripherals being mapped (128mb for a new graphics card)?
Besides, wouldn't it be such a system be configured such that the upper GB of the address bus is muxed to the peripherals? Meaning that it is unaccessable to the system under any circumstances.
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but aren't all AGP and PCI devices mapped to the memory around 4GB? (below I think) If this is the case, wouldn't this have significant bearing on the limit opposed to just lameness on the part of SCO?
No, i just think that the cost of support with free software is less important than it is when using proprietary. In proprietary software, anything that makes the software work, or not work in the case of support, is hidden from the purchaser. They therefore depend on the supplier providing advice, which the purchaser cannot get elsewhere.
With free software on the other hand, all the source is freely available. The company would already have techs. available able to find out what has gone wrong -alternatively, usenet is always a goldmine.
I don't understand why companies are willing to splash out on such products whilst the software being sold is essentially free.
Maybe its the old theory: businesses think that they are getting a better product if it costs more than the alternatives. Hey, maybe thats why MS is doing so well!
Yeah, i agree with you. However, i think its the implementation, not the system, that does not work.
Markets have a natural tendancy to favour products that are more popular to the consumer. In time however, as is being seen around the world today with the increasing dominance of "brand-name" culture, producers become too large and begin to dominate the market.
This is similar to what is happening in the computer industry; a small key community of companies hold tremendous control over all areas of the market (Microsoft:desktop,doc; Intel: CPU; etc..).
In the past, this was perhaps acceptable since a wide number of alternatives existed; but today with the increased role of computers in our society, and the companies in questions dominance, means that this has become a significant problem. Its no different from the problem of the natural monopolies illustrated by water, gas etc... companies whereby the significant cost into entry of the market (distribution systems) impedes the availablity of free competition. The only difference being that and the computer industry is that the government has not yet stepped in to bring back the balance and open up the area for more competition.
What linux provides (as an example) differently is that it provides a free, publicly owned kernal (analogous to a distribution network) which provides key essential facility in which larger systems may be built. From this, independantly of the producer, competition may exist by companies building features such as GUI upon it -all the time the consumer having the choice.
It has been argued that OS software may never compete with professional level applications -this may be true. However, OSS opens the playing field for the basic "grass-routes" foundation upon commercial products may be built. And, more importantly, an enviroment in which monopoly would be less likely to emerge. Since that all the building blocks are free and not privately owned.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't ATi lined up to produce the graphics hardware for the X-box? Maybe, Microsoft gave them an incentive to support Windows, and Windows only?
Just what makes you think that all the other countries of the world, those that don't have financial incentives to tolerate Microsoft's practices, would be willing to accept complete control of their electronic communication by a foreign power. Especially one with the history of the United States and Microsoft.
In fact, the majority of countries in the world are moving away from Microsoft's products to Open Source equivalents in order to eliminate this very possibility.
Steve
I think i speak for everyone when i say:
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH MUAHAHAHA -gasp- MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
Next they'll be getting the U.N. involved!
Steve
Given her acting in the last two star wars films, I'm not too sure we'd be able to tell whether she was petrified or not.
So... I assume that Microsoft will be hiring quite soon to account for the increased work-load?
Steve
I loved Nintendo when i was a kid, and i still think they release some of the best games on the market. But when it comes to shooting themselves in the foot, they never learn.
They released the N64 as a cartridge based system to prevent piracy; but in doing so alienated their 3rd party developers and customers. Not only where the games far more expensive to produce, they could not support the wealth of Video and Music easily contained on a CD.
With the GameCube, they decided -again- not to go for the mainstream option and instead use small psuedo-DVD's -and for what? The only thing the have been successfull in achieving is eliminating any wavering interest in the gamecube as a competitor to the "home-entertainment style" PS2, whilst at the same time, retaining the piracy that they went to so much effort to prevent.
Steve
For me it has to be System Shock 2. It was probably the first FPS to seemlessly combine the relentless action of doom, with a full blown RPG element. A great story line that never gave up, and that wouldn't have been out of place in a movie.
Sadly tho, the company that produced it, Looking Glass, ran into serious difficulties during the games developement (both financially and of the technology) so the release version was a bit rough around the edges. Shame really... a couple of more weeks and a wee bit more cash would have cemented this game as one of the all time greats.
Steve
Let me guess, next year they'll be releasing a digitally enhanced DVD of the webcam recording.
Steve
With all this talk about Microsoft developing their own Unix platform, i'm wondering if they will introduce their own "extensions" -non standard of course.
Well then! Get back to work and stop wasting your companies money reading slashdot! :-)
Its a pitty they haven't got one of those to write the script!
Steve.
I don't pretend to be a guru or anything, but i was under the impression that AGP and PCI devices were mapped to that region. Wouldn't that region correspond to the buffer width of the peripherals being mapped (128mb for a new graphics card)?
:-)
Besides, wouldn't it be such a system be configured such that the upper GB of the address bus is muxed to the peripherals? Meaning that it is unaccessable to the system under any circumstances.
Either that or i should get back to my books!
Steve.
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but aren't all AGP and PCI devices mapped to the memory around 4GB? (below I think) If this is the case, wouldn't this have significant bearing on the limit opposed to just lameness on the part of SCO?
Just a thought,
Steve.
1 Petabyte! Thats a lotta porn!
Great! Now i can get dirt cheap memory, that requires 70W of power and 20 heatsinks!
Yeah, and before that it was BorgXP!
"retirement from creative control of Star Trek..."
Strange. I thought the creative aspect of Star Trek had been retired for a few years now!
Steve
What has Microsoft introduced a new licensing scheme? Are the hackers are now forced to upgrade their software every 6 months.
No, i just think that the cost of support with free software is less important than it is when using proprietary. In proprietary software, anything that makes the software work, or not work in the case of support, is hidden from the purchaser. They therefore depend on the supplier providing advice, which the purchaser cannot get elsewhere.
With free software on the other hand, all the source is freely available. The company would already have techs. available able to find out what has gone wrong -alternatively, usenet is always a goldmine.
Steve
I don't understand why companies are willing to splash out on such products whilst the software being sold is essentially free.
Maybe its the old theory: businesses think that they are getting a better product if it costs more than the alternatives. Hey, maybe thats why MS is doing so well!
"We have to work to common standards, which we've pretty much got licked because of the arrival of the internet and open standards. " Yeah, right!
Yeah, i agree with you. However, i think its the implementation, not the system, that does not work.
Markets have a natural tendancy to favour products that are more popular to the consumer. In time however, as is being seen around the world today with the increasing dominance of "brand-name" culture, producers become too large and begin to dominate the market.
This is similar to what is happening in the computer industry; a small key community of companies hold tremendous control over all areas of the market (Microsoft:desktop,doc; Intel: CPU; etc..).
In the past, this was perhaps acceptable since a wide number of alternatives existed; but today with the increased role of computers in our society, and the companies in questions dominance, means that this has become a significant problem. Its no different from the problem of the natural monopolies illustrated by water, gas etc... companies whereby the significant cost into entry of the market (distribution systems) impedes the availablity of free competition. The only difference being that and the computer industry is that the government has not yet stepped in to bring back the balance and open up the area for more competition.
What linux provides (as an example) differently is that it provides a free, publicly owned kernal (analogous to a distribution network) which provides key essential facility in which larger systems may be built. From this, independantly of the producer, competition may exist by companies building features such as GUI upon it -all the time the consumer having the choice.
It has been argued that OS software may never compete with professional level applications -this may be true. However, OSS opens the playing field for the basic "grass-routes" foundation upon commercial products may be built. And, more importantly, an enviroment in which monopoly would be less likely to emerge. Since that all the building blocks are free and not privately owned.
Steve.
How can this article be taken seriously when it has statements like:
"in the hour-long War Room sessions, Wanke rules with an iron fist"