The reason you can't remove those components from Windows is precisely because windows is so modular.
Windows is HIGHLY modular and componentised which is EXACTLY why you can't remove certain components. It's all the component REUSE that causes windows depend on stuff like IE. You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!
Java is OO and very componentised. But that doesn't mean Java could exist without java.lang.String!
Sure, you could replace java.lang.String with an implementation that acts just like it. That's precisely what you can do in windows too. You can replace the IE component with the Mozilla component (it has already been done). The only problem is that you're now forcing MS to sell a product that is made up of 3rd party components they may not want to be associated with their products. (Imagine what a nightmare it would have been to have the bloat that is Netscape 4.6 included in windows 98).
Anyway. I just wanted to point out again, that something being componentised doesn't mean you can remove any components. (It only means you could REPLACE the component). You can't remove IE from windows, but you could replace it. Just like you can't expect the MOTOR component of a car to be removed and still have the car work.
Considering quicksort is recursive, don't you think it'd use quite a bit of stack space? Bubble sort doesn't need anymore memory than is really for the loop indexes.
Ofcourse just cause a program uses more ram doesn't mean it is immediately bloat. Quicksort uses more ram than bubblesort but is faster. Hashtables use more ram than linked lists but is faster (for lookups). It all depends on what the ram is used for.
I wrote this program once where I get a 20X speed increase by caching everything in memory. The program took up much more memory but ran HEAPS faster. I'm not saying that this is the case with Office XP. I'm just saying MORE RAM USAGE != SLOPPY PROGRAMMING.
"Geekstreet.ca has a story on a new concept invented by Philips called Detachable Monitor
Considering Microsoft already have 'invented' the idea (Mira), and that Philips have just announceed that it will deliver Mira devices, don't you think the article summary is a bit um...made up?
Perhaps this article would never have made it to the main page if it had said that Microsoft 'invented' the idea.
I know you're just trying to be funny...but the argument that IE can't be seperated from windows is not a technical one.
IE obviously can be removed from windows. Windows XP embedded (which is the componentised version of Windows XP) allows you to make a Windows XP install image WITHOUT IE. Despite what/. trolls will have you believe, windows is highly componentised (and I reckon the most componentised OS out there....if it wasn't for Gnome/Bonobo/Mono, linux would still be in the stone age in that regard).
The problem is many components and applications have a dependency on IE. Particularly the HTML rendering part of IE. IE can't be seperated from windows because it would make many things in windows useless (like Windows Help). Even applications like RealPlayer, Winamp and ICQ REQUIRE IE. IE has become as important a component to windows as the TextBox control or the Button Control. Ask the KDE team if it'd be alright to remove the HTML rendering component from KDE. I don't think they'd like it. Many apps and components running under KDE would fail (just like in windows).
The best thing you can really do is just remove the IE icon and client browser specific files (you really can't remove most of the DLLS which make up the CORE of IE).
Um. There are plenty of "inside windows" books and the like.
The guys at
SysInternals have lots of inside knowldege of NT.
COM/COM+ is heavily documented (how do you think Gnome/Mozilla managed to copy it so well?). Lots of source code/examples are available too.
If you read any good OS book, it'll tell you things like the real time capabilities of NT compared to Solaris etc.
I don't see how knowing the scheduling algorithm used by Window 2000 would help system administrators....but if you want to know, the information is out there. Perhaps you should start reading Windows technology related websites and cut down on the linux evangelist websites?
$38 billion pile of cash. $6 million is 0.15 cents on the dollar.
Uh huh...isn't it more like 0.00015 cents on the dollar.
Re:.NET good, not evil
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
Well most business programming will be done on windows. Outside of windows, there will be 3rd party data objects...and eventually (like with java) a standared DB and GUI classset will be developed for.NET.
C++ doesn't have standard database classes, but it's hardless useless.
Re:.NET good, not evil
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe you got modded up as 'informative'.
Have you even read the submission? It's hardly 'nearly useless'. It's basically got everything Java has with the exception of WinForms and ADO (which can easily be added since the interfaces are public).
How about getting rid of IRQ's on the PC platform!
If you're talking about the limitations of IRQs on PCs, this is for the most part over. If you run Windows 2000/XP on an ACPI machine, all your devices will be assigned resources by the OS. All devices share IRQ9 (the PCI steering IRQ). This means you will never 'run out' of IRQs like in the past.
How about getting rid of drive letters in Windows/Dos and having mount points!
Windows 2000/XP allow you to setup mount points to any directories. NT natively doesn't use drive letters (it uses naming paths like Unix). Personally, I like drive letters.
And for self healing? If Windows is still around and the predominant OS, I'll pass on the "self healing" - it'll be more like "death-without-dignity." Remember NT 4 SP 6? [Shivver] I don't want MS "self-healing" my machine!
Well, 2000/XP are already 'self healing'. Major system files are automatically restored if they are corrupted. Drivers can be automatically disabled and 'rolled back' if they cause a system crash.
How do you know that? You just made that up didn't you?
Compaq (after they bought out digital) was responsible for porting Windows 2000 (NT5) to Alpha. They discontinued support for W2K sometime after beta2. It wasn't Microsoft. No doubt, Compaq did this because they didn't want to keep developing Alpha (only use the technologies).
there's full and voluminous specifications for all those add-on java packages like Java3D, JAXP and whatnot - MS makes a point of NOT standardising the.net equivalents.
There isn't a 3D class set for.NET yet. Microsoft can't submit them for standardisation if they don't exist. JAXP? Every looked at the.NET specs? (here's a hint: look at the System.Xml namespace).
They are all downloadable documents. Sun can't reach onto your harddrive and mutate them once you've downloaded them.
You can download the.NET specs as documents from dotnetexperts.com.
This is in marked contrast to MS, which doesn't even bother fully specifying most of it's APIs, in fact, is reknowned for such behaviour.
FUD FUD FUD..Most of the.NET APIS are published. Most (if not all) of he APIs for windows are published. Care to give an example of where MOST of the APIs aren't published?
What I really hate (and this is a general remark, not accusing the parent post or anything), is people who judge Java by Microsoft's antiquated and incomplete implementation of it. For god's sake, install the Sun Java2 1.3.1 or 1.4 JRE, don't judge Java's by MS's (presumably deliberately) shitty implementation.
Who judges java by Microsoft's implementation? It's old...noone uses it anymore. Most people have sun's VM installed (thanks to limewire). BTW, microsoft where the first to write a JITter for Java. When they were still supporting java, Microsoft had the best VM around.
And Java is like C# in many areas except supporting reflection and other good ideas, unlike C#.
I don't quite understand your sentence, but if you're implying that C# doesn't support reflection then you're wrong. C# has FULL reflection support and goes beyond java (like C# attributes).
Look for the reflection classes under the System.Reflection namespace.
True enough. I knew about most of those, although not all. But this is a little different. It's one thing to support an alternative technology, but Mono is a direct frontal attack.
Considering Microsoft is helping Ximian port.NET and has turned the CLI/C# (the parts that make up Mono) into an international standard do you really think that Mono is a direct frontal attack on Microsoft? Maybe you should let MS know they're attacking themselves!
If MS is really reorganising itself around.Net, then contributing to a clone is roughly equivalent to contribuing to Wine.
Maybe for some parts of.NET (Passport vs "Freedom" Alliance), but certainly not for the development/runtime side of things. Microsoft wants those to succeed. MS are even shipping the c# and vb compilers with their.NET runtimes. Expect to see.NET language compilers included in the next version of Windows.
It's just some ironic hahaha stuff when you realize that the USPS is one of the bigest Linux based systems in the US.
How is that ironic? MS are tagetting the advertising at USPS customers, not the USPS itself aren't they? Being one of the biggest Linux based systems in the US doesn't mean they use Linux MORE than Windows. Just means noone else really uses Linux as much.
The new GUI? No use, since the older one is known by the users since 95, and the new one can be disorienting, despite Microsoft's claim of the contrary. Re-training is expensive
So turn off the new UI.
.net? Pure vaporware so far as far as real-world applications go.
Windows XP doesn't ship with the.NET runtime. And.NET is not 'pure' vaprware as far as real worl applications go (whatever the last part is supposed to mean). You're obvious ignorant as far as.NET goes. Head over to MSDN and download yourself a copy of the.NET SDK and have a look for yourself.
Server-side, WinXP is just not there(TM), and it offers a total amount of nothing over win2k.
There isn't a server side WinXP yet. When are you going to stop making shit up? You don't know much more about WinXP than guesses and what you read on random news sites do you?
Also, software compatibility is still to be tested.
Better than Windows 2000. XP like you stress is very much like 2000. XP also ships with compatibility modes for emulating 9x and NT4 enviroments.
Windows XP also ships with features such as remote desktop connection (Professional comes with a mini version of terminal server). There's also the 20 second bootup time (significantly faster than Windows 2000).
The Windows XP kernel also has significant improvements over the Windows 2000 kernel. Read about it here.
Windows XP will outperform Windows 2000 machines on reasonable hardware. It is background optimisations. After running XP for a few days, your machine will just fly. My PC boots in less than 12 seconds.
I think maybe you should use windows xp, research windows xp, stop making up 'facts' and then make a better more informed post. Wait...this is/. Carry on.
Netmeeting and VNC don't even compare to RDC on windows XP. RDC is the fastest remote control I've ever seen. It's highly usable on a 56k modem. I've done hours of remote programming over a 56k modem. XP's version supports transport of sounds, com ports etc.
Yeah right. What crucible. A buffer overflow is not something a"security review" is going to find. You just have to write the code carefully.
VC++ 7 already supports automatic buffer overflow checking. More and more MS software will be written using.NET/C# so buffer overflows simply won't happen very often (if even at all).
Microsoft has the money to make some kind of effect on their software quality. They've done it before. Much of the reason why 2K/XP are stable is because Microsoft went and bought up a code verification company for like 100 million. They ran all their NT code through the thing and found a shitload of bugs that they ended up being able to fix. Remember when the song for Linux was that it was heaps more stable than Windows? That is slowly becoming irrelevant. All mainstream magazines are now touting the stability of XP. Windows 2000 servers are having uptimes of months and potentially years (having to reboot to install some security patches is a fucking pain).
Sure, no money in the world is going to make their software 100% secure, but their software would be in a much better state (security wise) then it is today.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason you can't remove those components from Windows is precisely because windows is so modular.
Windows is HIGHLY modular and componentised which is EXACTLY why you can't remove certain components. It's all the component REUSE that causes windows depend on stuff like IE. You guys all think you're great software engineers but can't seem to understand that!
Java is OO and very componentised. But that doesn't mean Java could exist without java.lang.String!
Sure, you could replace java.lang.String with an implementation that acts just like it. That's precisely what you can do in windows too. You can replace the IE component with the Mozilla component (it has already been done). The only problem is that you're now forcing MS to sell a product that is made up of 3rd party components they may not want to be associated with their products. (Imagine what a nightmare it would have been to have the bloat that is Netscape 4.6 included in windows 98).
Anyway. I just wanted to point out again, that something being componentised doesn't mean you can remove any components. (It only means you could REPLACE the component). You can't remove IE from windows, but you could replace it. Just like you can't expect the MOTOR component of a car to be removed and still have the car work.
Considering quicksort is recursive, don't you think it'd use quite a bit of stack space? Bubble sort doesn't need anymore memory than is really for the loop indexes.
Ofcourse just cause a program uses more ram doesn't mean it is immediately bloat. Quicksort uses more ram than bubblesort but is faster. Hashtables use more ram than linked lists but is faster (for lookups). It all depends on what the ram is used for.
I wrote this program once where I get a 20X speed increase by caching everything in memory. The program took up much more memory but ran HEAPS faster. I'm not saying that this is the case with Office XP. I'm just saying MORE RAM USAGE != SLOPPY PROGRAMMING.
Um. I'd imagine the images could be sent and processed by a central server. Processing on the cellphone would be a serious waste of battery power.
"Geekstreet.ca has a story on a new concept invented by Philips called Detachable Monitor
Considering Microsoft already have 'invented' the idea (Mira), and that Philips have just announceed that it will deliver Mira devices, don't you think the article summary is a bit um...made up?
Perhaps this article would never have made it to the main page if it had said that Microsoft 'invented' the idea.
So your W2K box crashes 2 times a week and you haven't fixed it? Have you even tried?
My W2K server has been up 196 days and counting. I've NEVER encountered a BSOD on my XP notebook.
Perhaps you should try upgrading your drivers to MS cerftified ones.
I know you're just trying to be funny...but the argument that IE can't be seperated from windows is not a technical one.
/. trolls will have you believe, windows is highly componentised (and I reckon the most componentised OS out there....if it wasn't for Gnome/Bonobo/Mono, linux would still be in the stone age in that regard).
IE obviously can be removed from windows. Windows XP embedded (which is the componentised version of Windows XP) allows you to make a Windows XP install image WITHOUT IE. Despite what
The problem is many components and applications have a dependency on IE. Particularly the HTML rendering part of IE. IE can't be seperated from windows because it would make many things in windows useless (like Windows Help). Even applications like RealPlayer, Winamp and ICQ REQUIRE IE.
IE has become as important a component to windows as the TextBox control or the Button Control. Ask the KDE team if it'd be alright to remove the HTML rendering component from KDE. I don't think they'd like it. Many apps and components running under KDE would fail (just like in windows).
The best thing you can really do is just remove the IE icon and client browser specific files (you really can't remove most of the DLLS which make up the CORE of IE).
Unforunately, Windows XP boots much faster than Linux. Whoops.
How about you make a joke about Windows' stability, or lack of users? Oh hang on..
Try:
Modern Operating Systems by Andrew Tanenbaum.
or
Windows Internals: The Implementation of the Windows Operating Enviroment
Um. There are plenty of "inside windows" books and the like.
The guys at
SysInternals have lots of inside knowldege of NT.
COM/COM+ is heavily documented (how do you think Gnome/Mozilla managed to copy it so well?). Lots of source code/examples are available too.
If you read any good OS book, it'll tell you things like the real time capabilities of NT compared to Solaris etc.
I don't see how knowing the scheduling algorithm used by Window 2000 would help system administrators....but if you want to know, the information is out there. Perhaps you should start reading Windows technology related websites and cut down on the linux evangelist websites?
$38 billion pile of cash. $6 million is 0.15 cents on the dollar.
Uh huh...isn't it more like 0.00015 cents on the dollar.
Well most business programming will be done on windows. Outside of windows, there will be 3rd party data objects...and eventually (like with java) a standared DB and GUI classset will be developed for .NET.
C++ doesn't have standard database classes, but it's hardless useless.
I can't believe you got modded up as 'informative'.
Have you even read the submission? It's hardly 'nearly useless'. It's basically got everything Java has with the exception of WinForms and ADO (which can easily be added since the interfaces are public).
How about getting rid of IRQ's on the PC platform!
If you're talking about the limitations of IRQs on PCs, this is for the most part over. If you run Windows 2000/XP on an ACPI machine, all your devices will be assigned resources by the OS. All devices share IRQ9 (the PCI steering IRQ). This means you will never 'run out' of IRQs like in the past.
How about getting rid of drive letters in Windows/Dos and having mount points!
Windows 2000/XP allow you to setup mount points to any directories. NT natively doesn't use drive letters (it uses naming paths like Unix). Personally, I like drive letters.
And for self healing? If Windows is still around and the predominant OS, I'll pass on the "self healing" - it'll be more like "death-without-dignity." Remember NT 4 SP 6? [Shivver] I don't want MS "self-healing" my machine!
Well, 2000/XP are already 'self healing'. Major system files are automatically restored if they are corrupted. Drivers can be automatically disabled and 'rolled back' if they cause a system crash.
It's Microsoft who left Alpha, not vice versa.
How do you know that? You just made that up didn't you?
Compaq (after they bought out digital) was responsible for porting Windows 2000 (NT5) to Alpha. They discontinued support for W2K sometime after beta2. It wasn't Microsoft. No doubt, Compaq did this because they didn't want to keep developing Alpha (only use the technologies).
there's full and voluminous specifications for all those add-on java packages like Java3D, JAXP and whatnot - MS makes a point of NOT standardising the
There isn't a 3D class set for
They are all downloadable documents. Sun can't reach onto your harddrive and mutate them once you've downloaded them.
You can download the
This is in marked contrast to MS, which doesn't even bother fully specifying most of it's APIs, in fact, is reknowned for such behaviour.
FUD FUD FUD
What I really hate (and this is a general remark, not accusing the parent post or anything), is people who judge Java by Microsoft's antiquated and incomplete implementation of it. For god's sake, install the Sun Java2 1.3.1 or 1.4 JRE, don't judge Java's by MS's (presumably deliberately) shitty implementation.
Who judges java by Microsoft's implementation? It's old...noone uses it anymore. Most people have sun's VM installed (thanks to limewire). BTW, microsoft where the first to write a JITter for Java. When they were still supporting java, Microsoft had the best VM around.
And Java is like C# in many areas except supporting reflection and other good ideas, unlike C#.
I don't quite understand your sentence, but if you're implying that C# doesn't support reflection then you're wrong. C# has FULL reflection support and goes beyond java (like C# attributes).
Look for the reflection classes under the System.Reflection namespace.
Me and most of Slashdot I'm sure
Most of slashdot?
You mean those fat, lazy, linux zealot geeks?
Yeah, sure, they'll be prime candidates for space travel.
True enough. I knew about most of those, although not all. But this is a little different. It's one thing to support an alternative technology, but Mono is a direct frontal attack.
Considering Microsoft is helping Ximian port
If MS is really reorganising itself around
Maybe for some parts of
It's just some ironic hahaha stuff when you realize that the USPS is one of the bigest Linux based systems in the US.
How is that ironic? MS are tagetting the advertising at USPS customers, not the USPS itself aren't they? Being one of the biggest Linux based systems in the US doesn't mean they use Linux MORE than Windows. Just means noone else really uses Linux as much.
The new GUI? No use, since the older one is known by the users since 95, and the new one can be disorienting, despite Microsoft's claim of the contrary. Re-training is expensive
So turn off the new UI.
.net? Pure vaporware so far as far as real-world applications go.
Windows XP doesn't ship with the
Server-side, WinXP is just not there(TM), and it offers a total amount of nothing over win2k.
There isn't a server side WinXP yet. When are you going to stop making shit up? You don't know much more about WinXP than guesses and what you read on random news sites do you?
Also, software compatibility is still to be tested.
Better than Windows 2000. XP like you stress is very much like 2000. XP also ships with compatibility modes for emulating 9x and NT4 enviroments.
Windows XP also ships with features such as remote desktop connection (Professional comes with a mini version of terminal server). There's also the 20 second bootup time (significantly faster than Windows 2000).
The Windows XP kernel also has significant improvements over the Windows 2000 kernel. Read about it here.
Windows XP will outperform Windows 2000 machines on reasonable hardware. It is background optimisations. After running XP for a few days, your machine will just fly. My PC boots in less than 12 seconds.
I think maybe you should use windows xp, research windows xp, stop making up 'facts' and then make a better more informed post. Wait...this is
Netmeeting and VNC don't even compare to RDC on windows XP. RDC is the fastest remote control I've ever seen. It's highly usable on a 56k modem. I've done hours of remote programming over a 56k modem. XP's version supports transport of sounds, com ports etc.
AFAIK, it is not. I know that in Windows minimum latency is about 10ms, same as in default Linux kernel.
Uh. NT has a preemptible kernel. Most
Yeah right. What crucible. A buffer overflow is not something a"security review" is going to find. You just have to write the code carefully.
VC++ 7 already supports automatic buffer overflow checking. More and more MS software will be written using
Microsoft has the money to make some kind of effect on their software quality. They've done it before. Much of the reason why 2K/XP are stable is because Microsoft went and bought up a code verification company for like 100 million. They ran all their NT code through the thing and found a shitload of bugs that they ended up being able to fix. Remember when the song for Linux was that it was heaps more stable than Windows? That is slowly becoming irrelevant. All mainstream magazines are now touting the stability of XP. Windows 2000 servers are having uptimes of months and potentially years (having to reboot to install some security patches is a fucking pain).
Sure, no money in the world is going to make their software 100% secure, but their software would be in a much better state (security wise) then it is today.
Damnit, why can't people understand that I don't want Microsoft pervasive into my entire life.
Because they don't care about YOU. Not everyone are fanatical Microsoft haters. Most people in the US actually like Microsoft.