I think you have this one wrong. Microsoft is actually negotiating some interesting deals that do not give them control over the company licensing their technology. I am working with several legal firms that are also working on these deals, and they are surprised at how open the Microsoft negotiations are, compared to prior negotiations over different business deals with them. Microsoft is not insisting on control, a ton of stock, a ton of cash or any other onerous terms. They want royalties and access to technolgy created in a non-exclusive arrangement.
Nice. This is called FLAMEBAIT only by those that support ALGORE to the hilt. It wasn't intended as much as flamebait as a description of my personal opinion of the man and his contributions. This isn't flamebait any more than the crap supporting the idiot.
Or, perhaps the moderator that attacked my otherwise brilliant contribution works for Kleenex and was mortified that I would use his brand and ALGORE in the same sentence.
I use a fingerprint reader on my system at home. When I need to log in to a site on the web, I press my finger on the red panel and it logs in to the site for me. The keyboard is never involved. If, and I use the word 'if' here, it is true that key loggers will start becoming more harmful, this is the way out.
I do notice, however, that I leave a perfect fingerprint on the glass surface of the reader every time I tough it. I suspect I am watching too much CSI these days, but that worries me. My system is still only protected against the casual snooper, not the individual really determined to get in.
Google threatend Microsoft the same way AOL did once. They represent the possibility of a desktop maching without an OS, just a browser. It is possible to use browser-based apps for word processing and email and completely eliminate the need for the OS beyond simple file management (think DOS 1.0). If this is allowed to take hold, Gates & Co lose the OS market overnight. Hence the threat.
Google is already the home page for millions of people. If they add simple office apps, it is going to get VERY nasty out there.
You will be lookung forward to it for a very long time. WiMax to the home is just not going to happen. The 802.16 standard is TDMA-based, which means every connection takes a time-slice. This design does not scale to the home. The decision-point is coverage vs. density. A WiMax tower can cover a HUGE area, given that the density of actual users does not exceed ther time-slice availability. To cover a high-density area, like neighborhoods, you have to add more 'hot-spots', which drives the cost to the providor WAY up.
One way to look at BillG's ranting, and his ability to turn those rants into product that could take on Google is the simple parking lot test. We used to use this to test a startup's chances for success.
The test is simple. Drive through the parking lots at Microsoft at, say, 9PM on Tuesday evening. Count the cars. Now do the same at Google. The difference is the competitive edge.
It used to be, back in the early-to-mid 90's, that the Microsoft parking lots were full well into the early morning. It wasn't unusual to see full lots at 3AM. Now days the lots only begin to fill at 9am, and by 5:30 they are half-empty again. By 9pm, the janitors are parking in front of the building. There is not a car in site. I suspect the Google parking lots resemble the early-90's lots at Microsoft.
The typical Microsoft rank-and-file employee simply doesn't care any more. It's a job. The employee morale at Microsoft is at an all-time low. One of the major concerns the HR-driven corporation has these days is the attrition ratio. The fear is that the new surge of startups in the Washington area will pull the best people out, leaving Microsoft with the dregs.
Bullshit. The 1 amp generated by an access point at 2.4 or 5Ghz is not gonna hurt anyone. You get more from the 700Mhz TV transmissions already in the air.
I will be curious to see how long it is before they start adding back wired-line access. Having worked at a company that has wireless access all throughout campus for 40,000+ very technical software employees, I know that very few if any of them were willing to give up their wired access in their offices for a wireless connection from their primary desktop machines. The wireless connections are used for roaming and reading your email in a meeting, distracting all around you and allowing you to not pay any attention to what is actually going on, thereby being noted as physically present only... But I digress.
The wireless access, no matter what the numbers say, is just not the same as a real hose connected to the wall. The latency 'feels' worse, the LAN 'seems' sluggish and spongy. If the wireless technology is not actually used universally by those that actually created it, why would I think that anyone else would use it for their desktop machine.
For the campus, where most of the population is nomadic, it is likely workable. But to assume that people, like professors, in fixed offices will like the wireless over the wired connection, it just ain't gonna happen.
Just what I need in my computer room, leaking 'liquid metal coolant'. Computer manufacturers need to realize that the lowest common denominator for intelligence and technical knowledge is dropping (has been for years) within the ranks of computer owners. I realize that they will 'make sure' that this type of system is foolproof, but we are human, and they are going to leak, break, hiss or whatever.
I can certainly understand why you would not want to show your real identity with a reply like that.
Just to be clear, I know EXACTLY why WinFS was postponed. It has nothing to do with anything in your rant.
Technology advanced out of need. SOmeone could have come up with relativity 1800 years ago but for the fact that they were more interested in not dying. Survival was the order of the day.
The only force that can change the nature and architecture of current database technology is a fundamental change in the way they are used. Change the requirements and the technology will change to meet the new requirements. Change the requirements in a radical way and you will get radically new technology.
The use of a database as a file system will require radical new technological advances in database theory as the current methods break down under the new requirements. The functionality of the file system will change as the capabilities of an underlying database are realized. The two forces together will create an interesting discontinuity in the industry, the kind the venture capitalists look for.
The original 'Book of Longhorn' (the official internal product specification ) was almost three inches thick. The second version (issued August 12, 2003) was about half the size and included a new small section called 'Out Of Scope Scenarios' that outlined what had been pulled from the release. The third Book of Longhorn (dated April 30, 2004) dropped the 'Out of Scope Scenarios' section because it got to big.
The internal name is actually split into three: Shorthorn (Windows XP SP3), Longhorn (what will actually be released as 'Longhorn') and Longerhorn (the stuff, like WinFS, that will just have to wait another couple of years.
It is truly pathetic that they can no longer create innovative solutions and actually release them. The best stuff comes out of Microsoft Research and will never see the light of day.
The release and very positive public arm-waving over Tiger OS has knocked a serious hole in the Longhorn marketing engine. They are faced with the problem of everything they are doing being a 'me too' statement now, instead of a 'new and innovative'. Serious discussions are taking place about how to recover from the rave acceptance of Tiger.
Believe me when I say this: Dell doesn't give a shit about Microsoft. There is no way Microsoft could revoke their license, change their pricing or any other thing because of the legal decree Micrsoft operates under. IT CANNOT HAPPEN.
That said, yours is the first rational response I've seen. Thx.
First of all, I suggested being able to go to Dell and order a box with a choice of OS, not, as you so sweetly put it "in a MAC-biased attitude that reeks of liberalism, a homebuilt shit-box you cobbled together...". Get your head out your two-buttoned ass and think about reality for a minute. Apple doesn't give a shit about your little protected environment and your closed-minded attitude about alternate choices, they care about REVENUE. It really isn't all about you...
Do I think Jobs could just snap his fingers and a few months later have a version of Tiger that would run on very specific configurations of Dell equipment? Yes, I do. Do I think they could have a serious impact on Microsoft markets and revenue? Yes I do. Do I think they could FINALLY attract a customer base that understood reality and that the Intel hardware platform is probably just as good as the MAC platform? We can only hope.
You react as a typical MAC user without seeing the world as markets and revenue. I cannot see how the MAC hardware is somehow superior to the INtel platform. Different? Yes. Superior? Who cares? You will find that the MAJORITY of the markets for either OS could care less about the underlying hardware along as it is fast enough and there is plenty of memory. Crap hardware? Exactly what criteria do you use to determine this? I have PC's that have been running for years and years without so much as a hitch. Who cares? Ultimately it is the user experience that really matters, not the hardware.
PPC is a better architecture? And exactly how does this change your life? Are you one of the 12 remaining assmbly-language programmers still breathing? When I am running Photoshop on a G5 or a 3.5Ghz Intel, how exactly do I tell that one hardware architecture is better than the other?
Get real pal and welcome to the new century. It's all about the user.
I have always, in the past, known the answer to this, but there are serious discontinuities occuring in the Apple world that could caluse a shft in strategy. I believe this shift in strategy could bring Micrsosoft to its knees.
The question: Why doesn't Apple port their OS to Intel hardware?
The old answer: Because the vast majority of Apple's revenue depends on the MAC, which includes the Apple proprietary hardware. To fuss with this equation would mean taking a risk with the very fabric of the company. Apple does not see the wisdom in this.
I know there are a few other reasons such as application portability and having to create more of a driver model to the OS, but I have always believed the primary reason is Apple stability.
Now, given that the excellent iPod now makes up over 30% of Apple's revenue, the release of Tiger, which at first blush (and from my inside knowledge of Longhorn) blows the doors off the future Microsoft offerings, why wouldn't Apple reconsider the option of porting Tiger to the Intel platform? I have heard from a number of people, some informed, some dreamers, some drug influenced, that Apple DOES have an Intel port of Tiger in a back room, and that in fact they have aways created an INtel version of every OS they create.
Given all of the above, combined with the growing anti-Windows anxiety I keep hearing, I would ask the following question:
What would be the effect on the Windows market ($15BILLION+ Microsoft revenue stream) if you could order a Dell platform and choose between Windows and Tiger?
I believe the effect to Microsoft would be immediate and huge. I am not a MAC owner, the last MAC I used was in 1993. However, I am a semi-professional photographer and the MAC is looking better and better to me all the time. In my real life I am an Executive Consultant and have to use Windows because that is what everyone else uses. I am getting VERY close to purchasing a dual-G5, the Tiger OS may push me over the edge. The reason I hesitate? I just am not comfortable with the closed hardware model. If I could put Tiger on my existing six systems at home, I would not hesitiate.
Apple, are you missing out on an opportunity to win the war here??????
Slashdot Mirror
There is a HUGE difference betwen giving away patents and licensing working functional research code.
I, for one, am surprised.
Or, perhaps the moderator that attacked my otherwise brilliant contribution works for Kleenex and was mortified that I would use his brand and ALGORE in the same sentence.
I do notice, however, that I leave a perfect fingerprint on the glass surface of the reader every time I tough it. I suspect I am watching too much CSI these days, but that worries me. My system is still only protected against the casual snooper, not the individual really determined to get in.
By the way, he already has one, but it was issued by the 'Be Your Own Best Friend' group, co-sponsered by Kleenex.
I would suspect 'marketing', and 'hype'.
Google is already the home page for millions of people. If they add simple office apps, it is going to get VERY nasty out there.
Stick with DSL and MIMO, you are better off.
The test is simple. Drive through the parking lots at Microsoft at, say, 9PM on Tuesday evening. Count the cars. Now do the same at Google. The difference is the competitive edge.
It used to be, back in the early-to-mid 90's, that the Microsoft parking lots were full well into the early morning. It wasn't unusual to see full lots at 3AM. Now days the lots only begin to fill at 9am, and by 5:30 they are half-empty again. By 9pm, the janitors are parking in front of the building. There is not a car in site. I suspect the Google parking lots resemble the early-90's lots at Microsoft.
The typical Microsoft rank-and-file employee simply doesn't care any more. It's a job. The employee morale at Microsoft is at an all-time low. One of the major concerns the HR-driven corporation has these days is the attrition ratio. The fear is that the new surge of startups in the Washington area will pull the best people out, leaving Microsoft with the dregs.
I am afraid.
For that, I would suggest that you get an aluminum foil hat as soon as posible.
Bullshit. The 1 amp generated by an access point at 2.4 or 5Ghz is not gonna hurt anyone. You get more from the 700Mhz TV transmissions already in the air.
The wireless access, no matter what the numbers say, is just not the same as a real hose connected to the wall. The latency 'feels' worse, the LAN 'seems' sluggish and spongy. If the wireless technology is not actually used universally by those that actually created it, why would I think that anyone else would use it for their desktop machine.
For the campus, where most of the population is nomadic, it is likely workable. But to assume that people, like professors, in fixed offices will like the wireless over the wired connection, it just ain't gonna happen.
I am completely overwhelmed...
I can't function...
BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH
Is this really necessary?
Just to be clear, I know EXACTLY why WinFS was postponed. It has nothing to do with anything in your rant.
Technology advanced out of need. SOmeone could have come up with relativity 1800 years ago but for the fact that they were more interested in not dying. Survival was the order of the day.
You are a waste of everyone's time.
We should wait to see if the current movie gets out past the lunatic fringe. If it ends up on DVD in four weeks, don't count on a 5-episode trilogy.
The use of a database as a file system will require radical new technological advances in database theory as the current methods break down under the new requirements. The functionality of the file system will change as the capabilities of an underlying database are realized. The two forces together will create an interesting discontinuity in the industry, the kind the venture capitalists look for.
It's all good. Pray for WinFS.
The internal name is actually split into three: Shorthorn (Windows XP SP3), Longhorn (what will actually be released as 'Longhorn') and Longerhorn (the stuff, like WinFS, that will just have to wait another couple of years.
It is truly pathetic that they can no longer create innovative solutions and actually release them. The best stuff comes out of Microsoft Research and will never see the light of day.
And I am not even a Mac user...
my wife has been bugging me to buy her one of these for years...
That said, yours is the first rational response I've seen. Thx.
First of all, I suggested being able to go to Dell and order a box with a choice of OS, not, as you so sweetly put it "in a MAC-biased attitude that reeks of liberalism, a homebuilt shit-box you cobbled together...". Get your head out your two-buttoned ass and think about reality for a minute. Apple doesn't give a shit about your little protected environment and your closed-minded attitude about alternate choices, they care about REVENUE. It really isn't all about you...
Do I think Jobs could just snap his fingers and a few months later have a version of Tiger that would run on very specific configurations of Dell equipment? Yes, I do. Do I think they could have a serious impact on Microsoft markets and revenue? Yes I do. Do I think they could FINALLY attract a customer base that understood reality and that the Intel hardware platform is probably just as good as the MAC platform? We can only hope.
PPC is a better architecture? And exactly how does this change your life? Are you one of the 12 remaining assmbly-language programmers still breathing? When I am running Photoshop on a G5 or a 3.5Ghz Intel, how exactly do I tell that one hardware architecture is better than the other?
Get real pal and welcome to the new century. It's all about the user.
The question: Why doesn't Apple port their OS to Intel hardware?
The old answer: Because the vast majority of Apple's revenue depends on the MAC, which includes the Apple proprietary hardware. To fuss with this equation would mean taking a risk with the very fabric of the company. Apple does not see the wisdom in this.
I know there are a few other reasons such as application portability and having to create more of a driver model to the OS, but I have always believed the primary reason is Apple stability.
Now, given that the excellent iPod now makes up over 30% of Apple's revenue, the release of Tiger, which at first blush (and from my inside knowledge of Longhorn) blows the doors off the future Microsoft offerings, why wouldn't Apple reconsider the option of porting Tiger to the Intel platform? I have heard from a number of people, some informed, some dreamers, some drug influenced, that Apple DOES have an Intel port of Tiger in a back room, and that in fact they have aways created an INtel version of every OS they create.
Given all of the above, combined with the growing anti-Windows anxiety I keep hearing, I would ask the following question:
What would be the effect on the Windows market ($15BILLION+ Microsoft revenue stream) if you could order a Dell platform and choose between Windows and Tiger?
I believe the effect to Microsoft would be immediate and huge. I am not a MAC owner, the last MAC I used was in 1993. However, I am a semi-professional photographer and the MAC is looking better and better to me all the time. In my real life I am an Executive Consultant and have to use Windows because that is what everyone else uses. I am getting VERY close to purchasing a dual-G5, the Tiger OS may push me over the edge. The reason I hesitate? I just am not comfortable with the closed hardware model. If I could put Tiger on my existing six systems at home, I would not hesitiate.
Apple, are you missing out on an opportunity to win the war here??????