I actually ran into this about 7 years ago. A client of mine was setting up a video on demand system and wanted to run the videos off of hard drives. The plan was to encode the video as MPEG and serve it up off a single copy on the HD. We were going to buy 10 or 15 copies each of each movie and park them on the shelf to satisfy legality, and play off the HD. The software would only serve up as many simultaneous streams as we had real copies. These were going to be the $85/copy video rental versions, not the $15/copy "for personal use only" version, so it was legal to rent these or play them across a CCTV system. Everybody we consulted in the movie industry said "NO!"
So we had to do plan B and actually load these 10-15 copies of 8 - 10 movies into a bank of 150 cheap VCR's (DVD players were too expensive then) and serve that up on demand.
Maybe the legal issues are more sane now, but that's where it was 7 years ago.
It depends on what you need to do. On a 64 bit processor you MUST sling around 64 bits per clock cycle. If you need to, like in encryption applications or in a well written database engine, then it will be faster. If you only need 32 bits, then you are slinging around 32 bits of junk on every tick and will see no benefit. Simply recompiling an application which uses 32 bit aligned structures as 64 bit will cause a performance decrease. But redesigning those structures top be 64 bit alligned will cause a performance increase.
Another point of confusion is that most 64 bit processors introduce some form of VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word). VLIW lets the compiler, rather than the processor, sort out the dependancies between instructions and decide how to load the pipelines. The effectiveness of this is compiler dependent and will improve as the compiler technology grows to fit the new processors. VLIW is not inherently a feature of 64 bit processors, but the 64 bit processors are better able to handle the long instructions,
Aren't those headers representations of the ANSI C spec? I mean, they contain function prototypes, not real code. Maybe, just maybe, the implementation is proprietary, but the header is a public domain spec. They may as well be laying claim to the C language!
The version in question is a Windows version. Look at "http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/down loads/trial.asp" for specs on the host machine. And from the looks of this it will let you run Linux under Windows, but will not let you use Linux as the host OS. Again, dumb on Microsoft's part because they could then capture a Windows licence from people who usually run Linux but have an app or two they need on Windows.
Ok, forgive the histrionics. I probably will not really remove XP. I actually don't really use Virtual PC anyway, I do use VMWare. The point was that Microsoft would not be helping a competitor by including support for Linux. They, in fact, are helping a competitor (VMWare) by excluding it. And are even risking losing me as a customer for XP in the process. Bad business decsion by MS no matter how you look at it.
I used to be a strong MS supporter, but they seem hell bent on driving me away.
I just bought a 160GB HDD and guess what? Windows 2000 does not support more than 137GB out of the box. So I could have installed it on 137GB of the drive, upgraded to SP3 and installed again.
What I did was install RedHat 9, and SAMBA and I now have a 100% Microsoft free domain controler.
Oh, yes, logins with roming profiles take half the time than they used to. And I only load X-Windows when I want to use it. Why have a GUI on a file server when you're not using it.
What's in it for Microsoft? Well, I run Linux under Virtual PC on XP and they still get a licence out of me. Or, I order my machine without and OS and install Linux straight on it and they do not get a license out of me.
See what's in it for them now?
Well this stinks. My preference would have been to run Linux UNDER XP inside a virtual machine on my laptop since there are still some things like games which run "better" (read, "only") under Windows. I guess I'll have to wipe the drive now and install Linux directly.
Good move Micro$oft! You have, in fact, forced me to abandon one of my two preferred OS's.
What do we lose if we roll back to the version prior to SCO's claim, branch off from there, then continue development? We totally defuse SCO's claim and likely bankrupt them in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually ran into this about 7 years ago. A client of mine was setting up a video on demand system and wanted to run the videos off of hard drives. The plan was to encode the video as MPEG and serve it up off a single copy on the HD. We were going to buy 10 or 15 copies each of each movie and park them on the shelf to satisfy legality, and play off the HD. The software would only serve up as many simultaneous streams as we had real copies. These were going to be the $85/copy video rental versions, not the $15/copy "for personal use only" version, so it was legal to rent these or play them across a CCTV system. Everybody we consulted in the movie industry said "NO!"
So we had to do plan B and actually load these 10-15 copies of 8 - 10 movies into a bank of 150 cheap VCR's (DVD players were too expensive then) and serve that up on demand.
Maybe the legal issues are more sane now, but that's where it was 7 years ago.
Yeah. These are the same people who have the "Free Tibet Now" bumper sticker and the "No War in Iraq" bumper sticker on the same car.
How exactly do you propose we free Tibet?
It depends on what you need to do. On a 64 bit processor you MUST sling around 64 bits per clock cycle. If you need to, like in encryption applications or in a well written database engine, then it will be faster. If you only need 32 bits, then you are slinging around 32 bits of junk on every tick and will see no benefit. Simply recompiling an application which uses 32 bit aligned structures as 64 bit will cause a performance decrease. But redesigning those structures top be 64 bit alligned will cause a performance increase. Another point of confusion is that most 64 bit processors introduce some form of VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word). VLIW lets the compiler, rather than the processor, sort out the dependancies between instructions and decide how to load the pipelines. The effectiveness of this is compiler dependent and will improve as the compiler technology grows to fit the new processors. VLIW is not inherently a feature of 64 bit processors, but the 64 bit processors are better able to handle the long instructions,
Aren't those headers representations of the ANSI C spec? I mean, they contain function prototypes, not real code. Maybe, just maybe, the implementation is proprietary, but the header is a public domain spec. They may as well be laying claim to the C language!
Through creative editing you can make somebody seem to be saying whatever you wish. Perhaps Time thought twice about misquoting Mr. Bush.
The version in question is a Windows version. Look at "http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/down loads/trial.asp" for specs on the host machine. And from the looks of this it will let you run Linux under Windows, but will not let you use Linux as the host OS. Again, dumb on Microsoft's part because they could then capture a Windows licence from people who usually run Linux but have an app or two they need on Windows.
Ok, forgive the histrionics. I probably will not really remove XP. I actually don't really use Virtual PC anyway, I do use VMWare. The point was that Microsoft would not be helping a competitor by including support for Linux. They, in fact, are helping a competitor (VMWare) by excluding it. And are even risking losing me as a customer for XP in the process. Bad business decsion by MS no matter how you look at it.
I used to be a strong MS supporter, but they seem hell bent on driving me away. I just bought a 160GB HDD and guess what? Windows 2000 does not support more than 137GB out of the box. So I could have installed it on 137GB of the drive, upgraded to SP3 and installed again. What I did was install RedHat 9, and SAMBA and I now have a 100% Microsoft free domain controler. Oh, yes, logins with roming profiles take half the time than they used to. And I only load X-Windows when I want to use it. Why have a GUI on a file server when you're not using it.
What's in it for Microsoft? Well, I run Linux under Virtual PC on XP and they still get a licence out of me. Or, I order my machine without and OS and install Linux straight on it and they do not get a license out of me. See what's in it for them now?
Well this stinks. My preference would have been to run Linux UNDER XP inside a virtual machine on my laptop since there are still some things like games which run "better" (read, "only") under Windows. I guess I'll have to wipe the drive now and install Linux directly. Good move Micro$oft! You have, in fact, forced me to abandon one of my two preferred OS's.
Ok, they're liable. How do you enforce it?
What do we lose if we roll back to the version prior to SCO's claim, branch off from there, then continue development? We totally defuse SCO's claim and likely bankrupt them in the process.