There's not question that some of Microsoft's divisions have goofed up on the transition, but with any luck anything truly new (not started long before Vista was even workable) will be 100% compatible. The Vista logo requirements require x64 support so x64 is really a first class citizen and you can upgrade from 32-bit for FREE.
Apple's universal binaries are cool but there is the tradeoff of having binary data for absolutely everything in formats for 2-3 architectures.
It's mostly just pointers that are larger. Pretty much everything is the same size and we get more registers to play with so I think it's a good tradeoff.
According to Microsoft you are, but Apple's device is not certified for Windows so they just sucker people into buying their hardware and signing up for mandatory contracts etc etc...
XP for x64 or Vista for x64 for that matter doesn't do any emulation. It switches the CPU into 32-bit mode for 32-bit processes when it schedules them. The closest thing to emulation would be memory address translation and translating certain file paths to get to the correct directories for 32-bit libraries. Of course, we've been mapping virtual memory addresses to real physical addresses for a couple decades or longer already so extending an x86 memory address into x64 format is NOTHING to the OS.
That makes sense considering Microsoft intends Vista to be the OS that transitions everyone to 64-bit. They do require x64 compatibility for anyone that claims their product is compatible with their OS.
My prediction is that every new retail boxed software or hardware for Windows will be Vista x64 compatible within a year if not sooner.
Apple needs to explicitly state that they don't support x64 on the packaging. Despite the stupidity of what some fanboys have been spewing, Microsoft makes little to no distinction between a 32-bit and 64-bit version of Windows Vista since their logo programs for certifying hardware and software requires compatibility with everything in 32-bit and 64-bit editions.
Apple doesn't have the certification logo on their packaging and wouldn't meet the certification requirements without x64 support (and that's the only test failure we know of...) so Windows users shouldn't even expect their product to work with ANY edition of Windows. "Minimum system requirement" may as well mean the phone won't explode when you plug it into a Vista PC if it doesn't carry certification.
XP x64 uses a 32-bit build of IE by default specifically so it can work with 32-bit plugins like Flash and RealPlayer. MS would have done well to simply force everyone to start providing 64-bit builds early by providing NO 32-bit IE in XP x64 and telling them to start testing with XP x64 because Vista would be the same way. They should have made Vista x64 the requirement for PCs carrying the "Design for Vista" logo while they were at it.
Here I thought the Zune was a piece of hardware targeted at the consumer market. XP x64 was not a consumer release and not in the XP logo certification requirements. Vista x64 IS a consumer release and compatibility is REQUIRED for certification. Apple does not have theirs so it's not even guaranteed their stuff will work with Vista.
If Microsoft didn't want x64 to be mainstream, why do they require that any software and hardware with a Certified For or Works With Vista logo to be tested and pass on x64 editions? Vendors got a free pass on XP x64 since it wasn't in the logo requirements so that is how we've gotten into this mess, but any new retail boxes with a logo for Vista must work on all version of Vista.
bzzzt, x64 Vista editions use the same driver model as 32-bit versions. Apple is just lazy. It's also a good thing they don't want to put so much as a "Works with Windows Vista" logo on any of their software since they would fail the certification process (must work with x64 Vista editions).
Abiding by export restrictions is typically not a GPL violation. The day someone makes it a violation of the GPL to abide by the law is the day every US corporation distributing GPLed software either goes under or stops any activities involving the GPL.
You can get listed in the Windows Marketplace by signing up with a Microsoft partner or by signing up with CNET.com. Items in the Windows category end up in the same or equivalent category as they are on Download.com.
From the how to get listed page at the Windows Marketplace:
"Packaged Software, Hardware, & Devices: If your product is available in packaged format, you can offer it at Windows Marketplace by signing up with CNET.com."
The category for Ubuntu form Download.com:
Windows > Utilities & Drivers > Device Drivers > BIOS & System Updates
Eerily familiar, no?
This is a total non-story. Microsoft isn't distributing anything and CNET needs to fix their categories.
Government regulators reviewed and approved Vista. Good luck to Google trying to use that antitrust conviction against Microsoft when the DoJ is giving MS the thumbs up.
Not only will the major retailers not even carry it, there's a possibility they may have dumped a ton of cash developing it for Nintendo's console only to have Nintendo refuse to license it due to the AO rating on their hardware.
Most of the Unix systems were relatively secure even before anyone open sourced their implementations. Microsoft has simply made a LOT of trade offs to make their system "user friendly". I also suspect we'll find all the anti-trust business holding them back from ever fixing it for fear of inviting third parties to sue them.
Perhaps the best idea would be to conform to the moral codes set forth by the United Nations which China is a part of. If a country doesn't like you abiding by laws and treaties set forth by the United Nations, you'd best not do business there or else find yourself in prison after aiding them in violating human rights since China's veto power on the security council doesn't mean jack in a western court.
Requiring registration will just lead to the required payment for registration being too high for anyone but the the people who are abusing patents right now to afford it.
Slashdot Mirror
There's not question that some of Microsoft's divisions have goofed up on the transition, but with any luck anything truly new (not started long before Vista was even workable) will be 100% compatible. The Vista logo requirements require x64 support so x64 is really a first class citizen and you can upgrade from 32-bit for FREE.
Apple's universal binaries are cool but there is the tradeoff of having binary data for absolutely everything in formats for 2-3 architectures.
It's mostly just pointers that are larger. Pretty much everything is the same size and we get more registers to play with so I think it's a good tradeoff.
According to Microsoft you are, but Apple's device is not certified for Windows so they just sucker people into buying their hardware and signing up for mandatory contracts etc etc...
XP for x64 or Vista for x64 for that matter doesn't do any emulation. It switches the CPU into 32-bit mode for 32-bit processes when it schedules them. The closest thing to emulation would be memory address translation and translating certain file paths to get to the correct directories for 32-bit libraries. Of course, we've been mapping virtual memory addresses to real physical addresses for a couple decades or longer already so extending an x86 memory address into x64 format is NOTHING to the OS.
That makes sense considering Microsoft intends Vista to be the OS that transitions everyone to 64-bit. They do require x64 compatibility for anyone that claims their product is compatible with their OS.
My prediction is that every new retail boxed software or hardware for Windows will be Vista x64 compatible within a year if not sooner.
Apple needs to explicitly state that they don't support x64 on the packaging. Despite the stupidity of what some fanboys have been spewing, Microsoft makes little to no distinction between a 32-bit and 64-bit version of Windows Vista since their logo programs for certifying hardware and software requires compatibility with everything in 32-bit and 64-bit editions.
Apple doesn't have the certification logo on their packaging and wouldn't meet the certification requirements without x64 support (and that's the only test failure we know of...) so Windows users shouldn't even expect their product to work with ANY edition of Windows. "Minimum system requirement" may as well mean the phone won't explode when you plug it into a Vista PC if it doesn't carry certification.
XP x64 uses a 32-bit build of IE by default specifically so it can work with 32-bit plugins like Flash and RealPlayer. MS would have done well to simply force everyone to start providing 64-bit builds early by providing NO 32-bit IE in XP x64 and telling them to start testing with XP x64 because Vista would be the same way. They should have made Vista x64 the requirement for PCs carrying the "Design for Vista" logo while they were at it.
Here I thought the Zune was a piece of hardware targeted at the consumer market. XP x64 was not a consumer release and not in the XP logo certification requirements. Vista x64 IS a consumer release and compatibility is REQUIRED for certification. Apple does not have theirs so it's not even guaranteed their stuff will work with Vista.
If Microsoft didn't want x64 to be mainstream, why do they require that any software and hardware with a Certified For or Works With Vista logo to be tested and pass on x64 editions? Vendors got a free pass on XP x64 since it wasn't in the logo requirements so that is how we've gotten into this mess, but any new retail boxes with a logo for Vista must work on all version of Vista.
bzzzt, x64 Vista editions use the same driver model as 32-bit versions. Apple is just lazy. It's also a good thing they don't want to put so much as a "Works with Windows Vista" logo on any of their software since they would fail the certification process (must work with x64 Vista editions).
Abiding by export restrictions is typically not a GPL violation. The day someone makes it a violation of the GPL to abide by the law is the day every US corporation distributing GPLed software either goes under or stops any activities involving the GPL.
Your typical US citizen couldn't give a damn about Ireland and the IRA. The IRA was funded by a subset mostly made up of *Irish* Americans.
You can get listed in the Windows Marketplace by signing up with a Microsoft partner or by signing up with CNET.com. Items in the Windows category end up in the same or equivalent category as they are on Download.com.
From the how to get listed page at the Windows Marketplace:
"Packaged Software, Hardware, & Devices: If your product is available in packaged format, you can offer it at Windows Marketplace by signing up with CNET.com."
The category for Ubuntu form Download.com:
Windows > Utilities & Drivers > Device Drivers > BIOS & System Updates
Eerily familiar, no?
This is a total non-story. Microsoft isn't distributing anything and CNET needs to fix their categories.
IIRC, if any of these companies DON'T deny that the code they distribute is violating patents, the GPL would require them to cease distribution...
Microsoft simply had to pay more in licensing fees since their revenue is higher.
Government regulators reviewed and approved Vista. Good luck to Google trying to use that antitrust conviction against Microsoft when the DoJ is giving MS the thumbs up.
Just because it sucked ass doesn't mean they didn't have it though.
Not only will the major retailers not even carry it, there's a possibility they may have dumped a ton of cash developing it for Nintendo's console only to have Nintendo refuse to license it due to the AO rating on their hardware.
Most of the Unix systems were relatively secure even before anyone open sourced their implementations. Microsoft has simply made a LOT of trade offs to make their system "user friendly". I also suspect we'll find all the anti-trust business holding them back from ever fixing it for fear of inviting third parties to sue them.
The bug is that you can use Safari to run commands AT ALL not that you can execute Firefox and exploit gopher.
Well, with my slower CPU it just barely lags behind the mouse when I resize the windows. Perhaps it's a graphics driver/card issue on your machine.
I'm afraid that would actually be a GPLv2 violation...
Perhaps the best idea would be to conform to the moral codes set forth by the United Nations which China is a part of. If a country doesn't like you abiding by laws and treaties set forth by the United Nations, you'd best not do business there or else find yourself in prison after aiding them in violating human rights since China's veto power on the security council doesn't mean jack in a western court.
None of the offenses that get someone the death penalty in the US are classified as exercises of basic human rights as set forth by the Unite Nations.
Requiring registration will just lead to the required payment for registration being too high for anyone but the the people who are abusing patents right now to afford it.