If they actually produced a tablet friendly interface on top of Windows CE for ARM hardware for good battery life, I might consider that copying. Right now they're doing nothing more than the same thing they did with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition: shove the full OS onto a device with a touch screen. They've been trying to shove Windows onto mobile devices since before the first rumors of the iPhone started.
or...
Apple is suing HTC, HTC is suing Apple
Nokia is suing Apple, Apple is suing Nokia
Kodak has sued Apple and RIM
RIM has sued Motorola, Motorola has sued RIM
NTP has sued everyone
Oracle is suing Google
Maybe they're just offering indemnification because the mobile space is overflowing with litigation.
Depends on if there's real compatibility breaks. Windows 7 runs pretty much all Vista software unmodified exactly as it ran on Vista so to avoid installers breaking for no good reason because they're just checking major version number, they made Windows 7 "6.1". They claimed there was enough changes to warrant a major version number of 7 but made it 6.1 for compatibility. If there's actual compatibility breaks warranting a new version number, they'll probably use 8.0 or else label it 6.2 for compatibility.
Hotmail has over 360 million users which is quite a bit larger than the 30 million users they claim Spaces had. I don't see how scalability could've been an issue here. Now the fact that Spaces pretty much sucked to the point they're willing to take a hit on their Windows Live brand by jettisoning it is another issue entirely.
Addons and/or Flash probably or perhaps just a bad install. Pages with Flash also have display glitches. Not sure if it's Flash or the renderer not handling there being Flash on the page well.
I've actually tinkered with the code for the test. They're probably using very simplistic optimizations such as
1) Does the loop modify variables outside the loop or call anything that could?
2) Is the modified variable outside the function and are there any function calls that could return the local variables or use them in some way?
I believe the optimizations they apply are simplistic and probably intended to get the most obvious stuff without slowing down the engine. Making a function call such as FIXED(30) which doesn't really do anything as far as side effects prevents the loop from being optimized away the same way the true statement does... in fact you can replace return with FIXED(30) in that code and it's the same thing. The engine probably doesn't check whether the function calls actually use local variable or returns them. If there's a function call or other statement, it simply doesn't optimize the loop away.
The behavior is reproducible with different code. If you insert the return. It jumps to about 40ms on my machine. If you modify one of the branches to not modify any variables outside of for loop (modify a new variable inside the loop instead), it drops to 16ms. The code *should* still be doing the same amount of work but because one branch has no effect, it probably doesn't even get compiled. If you modify both branches in the same way, the result drops to 8ms which appears to be just the time it takes to loop through 12 times multiplied by the 25000 times the function is called since it modifies the Step variable. Without a return, it seems to drop the entire loop but not the assignment of local variables. Not calling the function at all would cause the loop which normally counts to 25000 to also not do anything and the test would complete instantly.
I've tinkered with it enough to say it's more than likely nothing but the pre-compiler optimizing things by dropping statements that don't really do anything (can't be returned or aren't going to be because the function doesn't return at all). Inserting a true statement probably just causes it to not do the optimization for whatever reason (perhaps just any built-in statement will cause it). Also most of the speed up can still be gained even if the return statement is there if the branches in the loop are just written differently to have no effect on the function's local variables.
The attack apparently relies on analyzing errors thrown by the application. If an app wraps everything in a try-catch and only rethrows if the app is in development and a generic error message to the public, it's doubtful they could ever pull off an exploit.
If I recall correctly, the parts that both Firefox and IE9 are missing from ACID3 is stuff that not only might get removed from ACID3 and/or made optional but might also get the same treatment from the W3C.
I wonder if after the KIN debacle, they're trying to show their partners they're so behind this product, they're willing to make themselves look like idiots for it....
Adobe's CS5 converts Flash apps into native apps. There's no runtime. That's why Apple banned development tools that translated from other languages into C, C++ or Objective-C. People could probably start submitting apps built with CS5 right away if they felt so inclined.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why they're called punitive. They are entirely to serve as punishment in addition to the per message fines.
If they actually produced a tablet friendly interface on top of Windows CE for ARM hardware for good battery life, I might consider that copying. Right now they're doing nothing more than the same thing they did with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition: shove the full OS onto a device with a touch screen. They've been trying to shove Windows onto mobile devices since before the first rumors of the iPhone started.
There's a total of 3 versions available at retail and I'm pretty sure the boxes tell you what each edition does.
%allusersprofile% (C:\ProgramData by default)
If Microsoft wants licensing fees for the devices, the best way to do that is to go after the handset makers. HTC is already paying them the fees.
They've been in talks with the other Android manufacturers. They filed their ITC complain against Motorola today.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/01/microsoft-files-itc-complaint-against-motorola-over-alleged-andr/
or...
Apple is suing HTC, HTC is suing Apple
Nokia is suing Apple, Apple is suing Nokia
Kodak has sued Apple and RIM
RIM has sued Motorola, Motorola has sued RIM
NTP has sued everyone
Oracle is suing Google
Maybe they're just offering indemnification because the mobile space is overflowing with litigation.
Depends on if there's real compatibility breaks. Windows 7 runs pretty much all Vista software unmodified exactly as it ran on Vista so to avoid installers breaking for no good reason because they're just checking major version number, they made Windows 7 "6.1". They claimed there was enough changes to warrant a major version number of 7 but made it 6.1 for compatibility. If there's actual compatibility breaks warranting a new version number, they'll probably use 8.0 or else label it 6.2 for compatibility.
As a post already pointed out, Microsoft modified the NT kernel to scale to 256 cores with Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.
Hotmail has over 360 million users which is quite a bit larger than the 30 million users they claim Spaces had. I don't see how scalability could've been an issue here. Now the fact that Spaces pretty much sucked to the point they're willing to take a hit on their Windows Live brand by jettisoning it is another issue entirely.
It wasn't popular enough to test scalability so we can't say a thing about whether scalability is the reason they killed it or not.
Addons and/or Flash probably or perhaps just a bad install. Pages with Flash also have display glitches. Not sure if it's Flash or the renderer not handling there being Flash on the page well.
You should probably tell Microsoft to stop calling it DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 then....
OpenGL support is achieved exactly as it was in Windows XP: with an OpenGL ICD provided by the graphics card vendor.
Standards are often riddled with security holes.
The ITU considers CDMA2000 (commonly referred to as just CDMA) a 3G standard. It's used in 116 countries.
I've actually tinkered with the code for the test. They're probably using very simplistic optimizations such as
1) Does the loop modify variables outside the loop or call anything that could?
2) Is the modified variable outside the function and are there any function calls that could return the local variables or use them in some way?
I believe the optimizations they apply are simplistic and probably intended to get the most obvious stuff without slowing down the engine. Making a function call such as FIXED(30) which doesn't really do anything as far as side effects prevents the loop from being optimized away the same way the true statement does... in fact you can replace return with FIXED(30) in that code and it's the same thing. The engine probably doesn't check whether the function calls actually use local variable or returns them. If there's a function call or other statement, it simply doesn't optimize the loop away.
The behavior is reproducible with different code. If you insert the return. It jumps to about 40ms on my machine. If you modify one of the branches to not modify any variables outside of for loop (modify a new variable inside the loop instead), it drops to 16ms. The code *should* still be doing the same amount of work but because one branch has no effect, it probably doesn't even get compiled. If you modify both branches in the same way, the result drops to 8ms which appears to be just the time it takes to loop through 12 times multiplied by the 25000 times the function is called since it modifies the Step variable. Without a return, it seems to drop the entire loop but not the assignment of local variables. Not calling the function at all would cause the loop which normally counts to 25000 to also not do anything and the test would complete instantly.
I've tinkered with it enough to say it's more than likely nothing but the pre-compiler optimizing things by dropping statements that don't really do anything (can't be returned or aren't going to be because the function doesn't return at all). Inserting a true statement probably just causes it to not do the optimization for whatever reason (perhaps just any built-in statement will cause it). Also most of the speed up can still be gained even if the return statement is there if the branches in the loop are just written differently to have no effect on the function's local variables.
That's not even remotely what that blog post actually says.
If you're already screening for guns and bombs, why would you allow other weapons when you find them?
The attack apparently relies on analyzing errors thrown by the application. If an app wraps everything in a try-catch and only rethrows if the app is in development and a generic error message to the public, it's doubtful they could ever pull off an exploit.
If I recall correctly, the parts that both Firefox and IE9 are missing from ACID3 is stuff that not only might get removed from ACID3 and/or made optional but might also get the same treatment from the W3C.
I wonder if after the KIN debacle, they're trying to show their partners they're so behind this product, they're willing to make themselves look like idiots for it....
Adobe's CS5 converts Flash apps into native apps. There's no runtime. That's why Apple banned development tools that translated from other languages into C, C++ or Objective-C. People could probably start submitting apps built with CS5 right away if they felt so inclined.
For example, the blast and shockwave from the MOAB bomb can destroy about 8-10 blocks radius of a city, and we used these in Iraq...
Citation needed cause I'm pretty sure not a single MOAB has ever been detonated outside of military test ranges.