Since Windows 95 I've heard Microsoft say they were rewriting their OS from scratch yet year after year we find the same flaws across many versions. They are a marketing company, don't ya know? Just look at that WMF flaw and you'll see that the coding error is from code used in Windows 3.x yet it was found in everything up to Windows XP.
Sorry but in my book, Microsofts "new" OS's are nothing but updates. It would be different if they'd stop lieing about rewriting it all the time... IMO.
And if this REALLY is only less than 1% of users, man alot of those "less than 1%" got online to report this. Notice how many pages/posts in such a short time. Maybe all of the "less than 1%" are active members of this particular forum. Right, "less than 1%".
Why would customers buy a "new machine" if it feels more sluggish than the old computer it is supposed to replace?
Because they buy new computers becaues their old one does not work or does not work with the software they think they need to run or they want another computer, etc, etc. And I hardly think they'll purchase a new computer which is of lower quality( spec's ) than the one they are replacing so in the worst case, they'll get something that'll have a new version of MS Windows which 'feels' about the same as before but looks prettier and therefore 'feels' new.
Hasn't this been the case since the early 1990's? The only exception I can think of is when the new Pentium Pro came out and surprising to some, all the 16bit code in Windows 95 caused it to run slower than the older Penium CPUs.
Don't know about you people but besides a handful of geeks, nobody installs new versions of MS Windows on old computers. It gets preloaded by OEMs who have financial strings requiring them to do so. So it does not matter if Vista sucks, doesn't work on old hardware or fails when upgrading over previous versions. It'll show up on new machines and those customers will use it no matter how bad or good it really is.
On one way, all these "features" making it difficult on older hardware are probably crumbs thrown to the OEMs so they'll sell more new computers preloaded with the "new" MS Windows. Funny how that works.
Only getting off the treadmill breaks this loop. IMO.
hey, they can't keep it from happening by 'mistake' to their own products, I'm sure they'd find a way to make this kind of thing happen in a 'partners' Linux product.
This is actually kinda funny considering Sony is about to release the PS3. And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.
One of the best examples against the old OS/2 conspiracy theory is Linux. If Microsoft did anything at all to try and stop any OEM preloading Linux today, it would immediately face sanctions from the European Commission, and probably the DoJ as well. Even so, hardly any OEMs include Linux, even though it's free. Why? It isn't because of a 'stranglehold' Microsoft have over them, it's because hardly anyone wants Linux, so the marginal cost of offering it (i.e. the cost of adding another variable to production systems, and installing Linux where requrested) is higher than the marginal income Linux sales would provide. It's basic economics.
Wow, you just don't get it...The DOJ vs MSFT Settlement left huge holes for Microsoft to continue leveraging it power over PC OEMs. Did you know that Dell gets around 20% of its PROFITS directly from Microsoft marketing programs? Ship a Linux box and lose 20% of your profit...Knowing Microsoft, they won't touch this in an email but I'd bet its been put on the table verbally once or twice already. Another example, I've heard that a former HP project manager had 2 Linux projects killed off by HP finance because if those projects went forward, HP would lose profits on existing products running Microsoft Windows. The markets were handhelds and mediacenter PCs and it was, IIRC, around 2002 that this occurred.
So don't kid yourself if you think Microsoft is not doing everything it can to keep Linux off PCs and that includes 'discussing' existing and future relationships with them if Linux is promoted.
So you want to talk about economics? See if you can get and OEM to talk about the costs of supporting Microsoft Windows as it relates to virus, spyware, adware, and related issues. Granted, in some cases, Microsoft actually pays them to support it but in most, their margins are so low that one or two support calls cleans the profits from the books. I've talked with a few consultants who specialize in 'repairing' Microsoft Windows and they love the product for its continued revenue stream for them. I've also moved a handful of friends off Windows because it was so problematic and costing too much to keep running. So, IMO, without those Microsoft 'financial' strings attached to OEM profits, most OEMs would probably love to put Linux on their boxes.
and I believe that stuff about HP pulling its OS/2 PCs off the Comdex floor after getting a call from Microsoft is in the court documents from the DOJ vs MSFT case. BTW, you sound like you're pretty young or have not read up on any of the tactics used by MSFT in the past to kill off various products.
Right AC, and HP was operating in its best interest when Microsoft threatened it to pull all of its OS/2 PC off the Comdex showroom floor the night before the show opened and it was all on the up-and-up for a monopoly to do this. Sure.
And some wonder why NO OEMs in the US preloaded OS/2... Hey, there are still people who think that the latest MSFT and Novell deal is going to help GNU/Linux and FOSS too.
IMO it would have 'helped' some but is not the main reason. I will agree that OS/2 2.1 in 10MB on a 386/40 did a pretty good job of multitasking and running both OS/2 and Windows applications where 4MB was not desired if anything but OS/2 apps were run. You might be interested to know that in Germany where a few of the top PC makers provided pre-loaded OS/2, it gained a 25% marketshare in just one year.
Also, IIRC, OS/2 v4.0 had the WorkplaceShell using ~4MB and the OS using ~4MB where NT v4.0 required ~16MB just for its OS/desktop. And the speed optimizations in OS/2 from v2 to v3 were significant. so much so that a dual processor NT system was benchmarked to run slower than a single CPU OS/2 system. So, at the low end, it would have helped some if OS/2 ran better on tiny amounts of RAM but IMO, it was the stranglehold on OEMs and pre-installs which really did the most damage to OS/2 in the 90's.
I had heard about that but came in later when IBM was trying to get small ISVs on OS/2 and priced things better. I'd run across people who were pretty pissed at them though and I'm sure that did lose them alot of buisness/partners.
that does ring a bell. But IIRC, the only real difference was that the 386 version let you run more than one DOS application. Windows still was 16bit and still was cooperatively tasking. And IIRC, himemory using memory managers were still used in DOS on the 286 and since Windows was a shell on DOS, it still sucked. Maybe the 16bit/286 version of OS/2 upset people because they wanted to run more DOS applications...
I didn't get into OS/2 in the 1.x days but I'd heard from many how they hated IBM in those days. Not to mention the cost they charged for dev tools for the OS. None ever said OS/2 technically sucked or anything like that but I did hear a Windows developer called the OS/2 WorplaceShell the WorkplaceHell. But then again, he was in an OOP class and he wasn't any good at it...
ISV's who have built a career and a business with Windows aren't going to abandoned that and rush to a new OS just because they think it is technically superior, regardless of what MS does or doesn't do. That's not how business decisions are made.
They would and some did when they found that the platform provided features which made their applications better and more useable. THOSE ARE business descisions. But besides pressure from Microsoft on some ISVs, Microsoft also pumped up Chicago so much that on paper, it was a better product than OS/2. Those press releases and advertisements kept many ISVs waiting for Chicago instead of building a better product on OS/2. It also helped that Microsoft threatened any OEM thinking of pre-loading OS/2 and thereby prevented an install base from growing. Only hardcore techies would install from dozens of floppies or even CDROM though millions did.
For example, let's pretend the next version of the GIMP is recognized as technically superior to Photoshop: faster, more features, more capabilities. Are professionals who depend on Photoshop going to abandon it? Not a chance.\
I don't think an application like Photoshop or GIMP can compare to an OS platform which all applications are built from/on. But if this new GIMP provided the ability to run Photoshop plugins but also provided much needed and advanced plugins from this new GIMP so they could do their jobs better, faster, etc, then I believe professionals would move to the newer product. It's about money right? Doing the job better right? What is being left out of this 'pretend' scenario are the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the "Photoshop" maker to spread FUD about the new "GIMP" product in attempts to keep the professionals from moving. Anyways, this is not quite the same as an OS platform IMO.
ISV's, then as now, are in the business of selling software. They balanced the cost of learning OS/2 and the cost of porting to it versus continuing to sell the same product into the Windows market. The money was with Windows.
The money is in getting customers to want to purchase your software and a big part of that is making the product better, faster, etc. OS/2 provided that platform and a few ISVs did go there. Again, there was hundreds of millions of dollars spent by Microsoft to stop this and there was pressure on large ISVs and OEMs to stay away from promoting, porting, or shipping OS/2 or products for OS/2. A famous example is the one of the 1994 L.V. Comdex computer show. HP had 50% of their PCs on the show floor running OS/2 the night before the show opened. Somebody at Microsoft called HP and said something which resulted in all those PCs going missing from the show the next morning and for the remainder of the show.
Even today, people don't use the "advanced features" that OS/2 had in comparison to Windows 3.1. People concentrate on one, fullscreen, app at a time. They don't multitask. They care more about appearance, ease of use and reliability more than technology. More than anything, they don't won't to have to relearn how to use a computer. Look, Linux is arguably superior to Windows. It's free, and its been around for about 15 years. MS can't stop people from using it and can't stop people developing for it. And yet, a tiny fraction of the market uses Linux. Linux is to software as the Segway is to transportation.
Well, I can tell you that there are/were Windows ISVs which were so excited by the "new" features in Windows 95( multi threading ) that they mentioned how cool and great the feature was and that their applications ran so much better using them. A fullscreen application can and sometimes does use multi-threading and therefore also uses preemptive multitasking. The user is clueless but only knows that the appliction is more responsive than before( when these are not used or are poorly implemented ). Regarding Linux, it's all about pre-installs and Microsoft can and does pressure the OEMs to NOT SHIP LINUX products and
I mentioned those features because they actually made application better, faster, cheaper, etc. Sure, if customers only wanted what was already out and didn't want or care about better, faster, cheaper, etc applications then sure, running old clunky Windows 3.x apps on OS/2 was 'good enough'. But, IMO, customers NEVER are happy with what they have and ISVs many times can come up with ways to make the next version better, faster, cheaper, etc and therefore get customers to move to that new version and pay for it.
I will say that many, but not all, Windows ISVs are ignorant to what is outside of the Microsoft platform. Back then and even now. So for many, even if some kind of super-duper new computer system was created, many many Windows ISVs will have no clue it exists and just keep on waiting for some kind of new restriction or feature to be released in some MS patch or bundled OS upgrade.
Anyways, we don't agree that there WAS a reason for Windows ISVs to move their software to the advanced features of OS/2 so that's where this thread stands. IMO.
You know, there's talk about this having to do with MS.Net and mono so there really might be something more to the Corel/MSFT tie-in...
It does amaze me that these 'deals' are happening considering the obviously visible roadway full of dead or dieing Microsoft 'partners'. Gawd, 10 years after the Microsoft-Sun JAVA deal noless.:-/
was MS Windows really 386 capable in 1988? I remember when OS/2 2.0 came out with it's Windows 3.0 compatibility and a year or so later made an upgrade MS Windows 3.1 compatible. I guess that would have ment that MS Windows 2.0 was 386 capable and just how much effect did THAT really have?
I do remember hearing about the 286/386 problems between IBM and Microsoft but I was messing with UNIX on the 286 and 386 back in those days( Microport, Consensys, etc ). I didn't get to mess with Gem, DrDOS, Windows, and OS/2 until around 1990/1991. OS/2 just blew my socks off compared to what I saw of Microsoft Windows NT and what this new XWindow thing was on UNIX. I say "new" because it took some time before it was financially possible to run X on a PC let alone have enough RAM to run it.
I never heard of Gates doing any of what you mentioned but I did hear that when Microsoft provided IBM with the first version of MSDOS, it was so bad that IBM needed the source code to fix it before shipping it as PCDOS. It seemed all versions of PCDOS were 'fixed' versions from there on out for some reason or another.
Good one. I also see Microsoft doing anything and everything they can to keep Windows 'under' the VM layer and Xen could be the key motive for this 'deal'.
BTW, did you like how they have the Vista license prenting Vista Basic and Vista Home from running in ANY VM's? As you mentioned, they do NOT want Windows just popping up now and then in a VM without getting some hefty bucks for that version of Windows.
I'll have to keep my eyes open for more of this being a Xen/VM thing.
This could be it. Microsoft provides something with some so-called MS IP and requires Novell to provide monthly shipment numbers to Microsoft so that can keep track of how much their IP is being used. Or some other lame excuse to track this. Then, Microsoft can tie those numbers into the 'throttle' of advertising revenue to fight off possible spikes of OSS and Suse growth.
Remember how much they fought SCO to keep a $1 license fee into SCO UNIX when nobody even used Xenix code? This was when SCO actually had a business in the pre-Linux breakout days of the early/mid 90's.
There is definately a dastardly motive behind this and eventually it'll come to light. I only hope that it is BEFORE it is effective.
THAT's funny. A Microsoft which bases their marketing and business descisions on profits from making better product. I've NEVER heard of that from Microsoft and it would be such a surprise and out of character it's just too funny to not laugh.
What would it be like if Microsoft actually only made products which made money? Where would the Xbox be? Where would Windows CE/PocketPC be? Hey, where would Palm be? Where would Coopers and Peters be? Where would Dimension X be? Oh the list just goes on and on.
"MS can join in the linux market..." What a ball buster.;-)
LoB PS, there is probably and IP hammer here or a progress tracking fee involved. Surely, it is all about how to prevent GNU/Linux from progressing and about protecting the Windows monopoly( and therefore the MS Office monopoly and the MS server application space ). Again, IMO.
Oh yeah, 16bit segmented memory and cooperative pseudo-multi-tasking of Windows 3.x was so much better than a flat 32bit memory model and preemptive-multi-threading-multi-tasking of native OS/2 applications. Sure THAT's the reason.
It had nothing to do with heavy handed and illegal tactics by Microsoft on ISVs to ONLY make Microsoft Windows applications. And the fact that the Microsoft was found guilty of illegally protecting it's OS monopoly in the latest( 2nd one ) DOJ vs MSFT case was all just a dream....
Gawd, OS/2 did run 32bit Windows when Microsoft Chicago( codename for Windows 95 ) until Microsoft caught wind of that and then made a small change in how the application resources structure was addressed. Once that change was inplace, a 32bit Windows application put a small amount of the application in address space above the 512MB limit of OS/2 and BANG, OS/2 could no long run 32bit Windows.
This is about how Microsoft is going after GNU/Linux and not how Microsoft protected Windows in the early 1990's. New tactics or re-makes of old ones are in play so forget what didn't or did happen with IBM, Microsoft and OS/2. But be sure, this has nothing to do with HELPING Novell, Linux, or any customer. It is about how they'll subvert control, hinder the development community, or somehow undermine the threat that is OSS and GNU/Linux. IMO.
Something is obviously up Microsofts sleeve here and I wonder what it could be. There is just no way in hell Microsoft is doing this because customers or Novell are asking for this. Protecting Windows is all and everything to Microsoft and doing ANYTHING which will 'help' a GNU/Linux provider is NOT going to protect the Windows monopoly.
This is not going to be quite like the Corel/Microsoft deal of years ago since Microsoft nor Corel ever mentioned the deal had anything to do with Corel Linux. IIRC, it was sold as something to move Corel to promote Microsofts new.Net thing-a-ma-jig. Killing Corel Linux was probably just part of the verbal 'discussions'/requirements for the millions Microsoft paid Corel.
There is something cooking here and it's not anything that'll 'taste good' to the GNU/Linux crowd in the long run. My first guess is that Microsoft will try and get some proprietary API's into Suse so they can shut them down at some later date, or, maybe it's another $1 licensing fee agreement so Microsoft can track exactly how many sales are going through. They've used that one before so I wouldn't be surprised if they're using it again. After all, they've already told investors they'll be spending billions on marketing over the next year and it'll help if they know more exactly where to direct those dollars.
Regardless, yet another company is playing the fools game with this lit stick of dynamite called Microsoft. IMO.
I thought the comment was about how long it takes for the solar panel to generate the amount of energy which equals the total energy required for the manufacturing of that panel. This point is when the device starts actually being environmentally 'friendly'.
It might look like a FF2 lauch cake but really they were thanking the Mozilla team for providing Microsoft with a browser feature specification list they could work from while attempting to 'improve' their product.
Sending a previously heated pile of flour, water, sugar and eggs is the LEAST they could do. But then again, Microsoft has NEVER been any good at giving credit where credit is due.;-) But maybe there's another Halloween document inside...
While I think it makes good 'business' sense for Canonical to keep distributing the 6.06 LTS version over the latest, 6.10 has an 18 month suppport cycle, not 6. Think about it, Canonical wants people to try out Ubuntu but they also want them to feel comfortably supported when they continue to use it. The LTS version gives users this while the latest Edgy/6.10 version will lose support after a relatively short period. IMO.
...the iPod in the productline. And it is their fault for not using a Mac or Linux box to test the iPod after every Microsoft Windows box 'touched' the iPod before boxing it up.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Windows 95 I've heard Microsoft say they were rewriting their OS from scratch yet year after year we find the same flaws across many versions. They are a marketing company, don't ya know? Just look at that WMF flaw and you'll see that the coding error is from code used in Windows 3.x yet it was found in everything up to Windows XP.
Sorry but in my book, Microsofts "new" OS's are nothing but updates. It would be different if they'd stop lieing about rewriting it all the time... IMO.
LoB
Sony has got to think THIS is good timing. ;-) Can't hurt but then again, the press seems to be missing this.
http://forums.xbox.com/7765866/ShowPost.aspx
And if this REALLY is only less than 1% of users, man alot of those "less than 1%" got online to report this. Notice how many pages/posts in such a short time. Maybe all of the "less than 1%" are active members of this particular forum. Right, "less than 1%".
LoB
Because they buy new computers becaues their old one does not work or does not work with the software they think they need to run or they want another computer, etc, etc. And I hardly think they'll purchase a new computer which is of lower quality( spec's ) than the one they are replacing so in the worst case, they'll get something that'll have a new version of MS Windows which 'feels' about the same as before but looks prettier and therefore 'feels' new.
Hasn't this been the case since the early 1990's? The only exception I can think of is when the new Pentium Pro came out and surprising to some, all the 16bit code in Windows 95 caused it to run slower than the older Penium CPUs.
LoB
Don't know about you people but besides a handful of geeks, nobody installs new versions of MS Windows on old computers. It gets preloaded by OEMs who have financial strings requiring them to do so. So it does not matter if Vista sucks, doesn't work on old hardware or fails when upgrading over previous versions. It'll show up on new machines and those customers will use it no matter how bad or good it really is.
On one way, all these "features" making it difficult on older hardware are probably crumbs thrown to the OEMs so they'll sell more new computers preloaded with the "new" MS Windows. Funny how that works.
Only getting off the treadmill breaks this loop. IMO.
LoB
hey, they can't keep it from happening by 'mistake' to their own products, I'm sure they'd find a way to make this kind of thing happen in a 'partners' Linux product.
6 4073
This is actually kinda funny considering Sony is about to release the PS3. And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.
http://forums.xbox.com/1/7864073/ShowPost.aspx#78
Wow, you just don't get it...The DOJ vs MSFT Settlement left huge holes for Microsoft to continue leveraging it power over PC OEMs. Did you know that Dell gets around 20% of its PROFITS directly from Microsoft marketing programs? Ship a Linux box and lose 20% of your profit...Knowing Microsoft, they won't touch this in an email but I'd bet its been put on the table verbally once or twice already. Another example, I've heard that a former HP project manager had 2 Linux projects killed off by HP finance because if those projects went forward, HP would lose profits on existing products running Microsoft Windows. The markets were handhelds and mediacenter PCs and it was, IIRC, around 2002 that this occurred.
So don't kid yourself if you think Microsoft is not doing everything it can to keep Linux off PCs and that includes 'discussing' existing and future relationships with them if Linux is promoted.
So you want to talk about economics? See if you can get and OEM to talk about the costs of supporting Microsoft Windows as it relates to virus, spyware, adware, and related issues. Granted, in some cases, Microsoft actually pays them to support it but in most, their margins are so low that one or two support calls cleans the profits from the books. I've talked with a few consultants who specialize in 'repairing' Microsoft Windows and they love the product for its continued revenue stream for them. I've also moved a handful of friends off Windows because it was so problematic and costing too much to keep running. So, IMO, without those Microsoft 'financial' strings attached to OEM profits, most OEMs would probably love to put Linux on their boxes.
and I believe that stuff about HP pulling its OS/2 PCs off the Comdex floor after getting a call from Microsoft is in the court documents from the DOJ vs MSFT case. BTW, you sound like you're pretty young or have not read up on any of the tactics used by MSFT in the past to kill off various products.
LoB
Right AC, and HP was operating in its best interest when Microsoft threatened it to pull all of its OS/2 PC off the Comdex showroom floor the night before the show opened and it was all on the up-and-up for a monopoly to do this. Sure.
And some wonder why NO OEMs in the US preloaded OS/2... Hey, there are still people who think that the latest MSFT and Novell deal is going to help GNU/Linux and FOSS too.
LoB
IMO it would have 'helped' some but is not the main reason. I will agree that OS/2 2.1 in 10MB on a 386/40 did a pretty good job of multitasking and running both OS/2 and Windows applications where 4MB was not desired if anything but OS/2 apps were run. You might be interested to know that in Germany where a few of the top PC makers provided pre-loaded OS/2, it gained a 25% marketshare in just one year.
Also, IIRC, OS/2 v4.0 had the WorkplaceShell using ~4MB and the OS using ~4MB where NT v4.0 required ~16MB just for its OS/desktop. And the speed optimizations in OS/2 from v2 to v3 were significant. so much so that a dual processor NT system was benchmarked to run slower than a single CPU OS/2 system. So, at the low end, it would have helped some if OS/2 ran better on tiny amounts of RAM but IMO, it was the stranglehold on OEMs and pre-installs which really did the most damage to OS/2 in the 90's.
LoB
I had heard about that but came in later when IBM was trying to get small ISVs on OS/2 and priced things better. I'd run across people who were pretty pissed at them though and I'm sure that did lose them alot of buisness/partners.
LoB
that does ring a bell. But IIRC, the only real difference was that the 386 version let you run more than one DOS application. Windows still was 16bit and still was cooperatively tasking. And IIRC, himemory using memory managers were still used in DOS on the 286 and since Windows was a shell on DOS, it still sucked. Maybe the 16bit/286 version of OS/2 upset people because they wanted to run more DOS applications...
I didn't get into OS/2 in the 1.x days but I'd heard from many how they hated IBM in those days. Not to mention the cost they charged for dev tools for the OS. None ever said OS/2 technically sucked or anything like that but I did hear a Windows developer called the OS/2 WorplaceShell the WorkplaceHell. But then again, he was in an OOP class and he wasn't any good at it...
LoB
They would and some did when they found that the platform provided features which made their applications better and more useable. THOSE ARE business descisions. But besides pressure from Microsoft on some ISVs, Microsoft also pumped up Chicago so much that on paper, it was a better product than OS/2. Those press releases and advertisements kept many ISVs waiting for Chicago instead of building a better product on OS/2. It also helped that Microsoft threatened any OEM thinking of pre-loading OS/2 and thereby prevented an install base from growing. Only hardcore techies would install from dozens of floppies or even CDROM though millions did.
For example, let's pretend the next version of the GIMP is recognized as technically superior to Photoshop: faster, more features, more capabilities. Are professionals who depend on Photoshop going to abandon it? Not a chance.\
I don't think an application like Photoshop or GIMP can compare to an OS platform which all applications are built from/on. But if this new GIMP provided the ability to run Photoshop plugins but also provided much needed and advanced plugins from this new GIMP so they could do their jobs better, faster, etc, then I believe professionals would move to the newer product. It's about money right? Doing the job better right? What is being left out of this 'pretend' scenario are the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the "Photoshop" maker to spread FUD about the new "GIMP" product in attempts to keep the professionals from moving. Anyways, this is not quite the same as an OS platform IMO.
ISV's, then as now, are in the business of selling software. They balanced the cost of learning OS/2 and the cost of porting to it versus continuing to sell the same product into the Windows market. The money was with Windows.
The money is in getting customers to want to purchase your software and a big part of that is making the product better, faster, etc. OS/2 provided that platform and a few ISVs did go there. Again, there was hundreds of millions of dollars spent by Microsoft to stop this and there was pressure on large ISVs and OEMs to stay away from promoting, porting, or shipping OS/2 or products for OS/2. A famous example is the one of the 1994 L.V. Comdex computer show. HP had 50% of their PCs on the show floor running OS/2 the night before the show opened. Somebody at Microsoft called HP and said something which resulted in all those PCs going missing from the show the next morning and for the remainder of the show.
Even today, people don't use the "advanced features" that OS/2 had in comparison to Windows 3.1. People concentrate on one, fullscreen, app at a time. They don't multitask. They care more about appearance, ease of use and reliability more than technology. More than anything, they don't won't to have to relearn how to use a computer. Look, Linux is arguably superior to Windows. It's free, and its been around for about 15 years. MS can't stop people from using it and can't stop people developing for it. And yet, a tiny fraction of the market uses Linux. Linux is to software as the Segway is to transportation.
Well, I can tell you that there are/were Windows ISVs which were so excited by the "new" features in Windows 95( multi threading ) that they mentioned how cool and great the feature was and that their applications ran so much better using them. A fullscreen application can and sometimes does use multi-threading and therefore also uses preemptive multitasking. The user is clueless but only knows that the appliction is more responsive than before( when these are not used or are poorly implemented ). Regarding Linux, it's all about pre-installs and Microsoft can and does pressure the OEMs to NOT SHIP LINUX products and
I mentioned those features because they actually made application better, faster, cheaper, etc. Sure, if customers only wanted what was already out and didn't want or care about better, faster, cheaper, etc applications then sure, running old clunky Windows 3.x apps on OS/2 was 'good enough'. But, IMO, customers NEVER are happy with what they have and ISVs many times can come up with ways to make the next version better, faster, cheaper, etc and therefore get customers to move to that new version and pay for it.
I will say that many, but not all, Windows ISVs are ignorant to what is outside of the Microsoft platform. Back then and even now. So for many, even if some kind of super-duper new computer system was created, many many Windows ISVs will have no clue it exists and just keep on waiting for some kind of new restriction or feature to be released in some MS patch or bundled OS upgrade.
Anyways, we don't agree that there WAS a reason for Windows ISVs to move their software to the advanced features of OS/2 so that's where this thread stands. IMO.
LoB
Nope but I did now. :-)
:-/
You know, there's talk about this having to do with MS.Net and mono so there really might be something more to the Corel/MSFT tie-in...
It does amaze me that these 'deals' are happening considering the obviously visible roadway full of dead or dieing Microsoft 'partners'. Gawd, 10 years after the Microsoft-Sun JAVA deal noless.
LoB
was MS Windows really 386 capable in 1988? I remember when OS/2 2.0 came out with it's Windows 3.0 compatibility and a year or so later made an upgrade MS Windows 3.1 compatible. I guess that would have ment that MS Windows 2.0 was 386 capable and just how much effect did THAT really have?
I do remember hearing about the 286/386 problems between IBM and Microsoft but I was messing with UNIX on the 286 and 386 back in those days( Microport, Consensys, etc ). I didn't get to mess with Gem, DrDOS, Windows, and OS/2 until around 1990/1991. OS/2 just blew my socks off compared to what I saw of Microsoft Windows NT and what this new XWindow thing was on UNIX. I say "new" because it took some time before it was financially possible to run X on a PC let alone have enough RAM to run it.
I never heard of Gates doing any of what you mentioned but I did hear that when Microsoft provided IBM with the first version of MSDOS, it was so bad that IBM needed the source code to fix it before shipping it as PCDOS. It seemed all versions of PCDOS were 'fixed' versions from there on out for some reason or another.
LoB
Good one. I also see Microsoft doing anything and everything they can to keep Windows 'under' the VM layer and Xen could be the key motive for this 'deal'.
BTW, did you like how they have the Vista license prenting Vista Basic and Vista Home from running in ANY VM's? As you mentioned, they do NOT want Windows just popping up now and then in a VM without getting some hefty bucks for that version of Windows.
I'll have to keep my eyes open for more of this being a Xen/VM thing.
LoB
This could be it. Microsoft provides something with some so-called MS IP and requires Novell to provide monthly shipment numbers to Microsoft so that can keep track of how much their IP is being used. Or some other lame excuse to track this. Then, Microsoft can tie those numbers into the 'throttle' of advertising revenue to fight off possible spikes of OSS and Suse growth.
Remember how much they fought SCO to keep a $1 license fee into SCO UNIX when nobody even used Xenix code? This was when SCO actually had a business in the pre-Linux breakout days of the early/mid 90's.
There is definately a dastardly motive behind this and eventually it'll come to light. I only hope that it is BEFORE it is effective.
LoB
THAT's funny. A Microsoft which bases their marketing and business descisions on profits from making better product. I've NEVER heard of that from Microsoft and it would be such a surprise and out of character it's just too funny to not laugh.
;-)
What would it be like if Microsoft actually only made products which made money? Where would the Xbox be? Where would Windows CE/PocketPC be? Hey, where would Palm be? Where would Coopers and Peters be? Where would Dimension X be? Oh the list just goes on and on.
"MS can join in the linux market..." What a ball buster.
LoB
PS, there is probably and IP hammer here or a progress tracking fee involved. Surely, it is all about how to prevent GNU/Linux from progressing and about protecting the Windows monopoly( and therefore the MS Office monopoly and the MS server application space ). Again, IMO.
Oh yeah, 16bit segmented memory and cooperative pseudo-multi-tasking of Windows 3.x was so much better than a flat 32bit memory model and preemptive-multi-threading-multi-tasking of native OS/2 applications. Sure THAT's the reason.
It had nothing to do with heavy handed and illegal tactics by Microsoft on ISVs to ONLY make Microsoft Windows applications. And the fact that the Microsoft was found guilty of illegally protecting it's OS monopoly in the latest( 2nd one ) DOJ vs MSFT case was all just a dream....
Gawd, OS/2 did run 32bit Windows when Microsoft Chicago( codename for Windows 95 ) until Microsoft caught wind of that and then made a small change in how the application resources structure was addressed. Once that change was inplace, a 32bit Windows application put a small amount of the application in address space above the 512MB limit of OS/2 and BANG, OS/2 could no long run 32bit Windows.
This is about how Microsoft is going after GNU/Linux and not how Microsoft protected Windows in the early 1990's. New tactics or re-makes of old ones are in play so forget what didn't or did happen with IBM, Microsoft and OS/2. But be sure, this has nothing to do with HELPING Novell, Linux, or any customer. It is about how they'll subvert control, hinder the development community, or somehow undermine the threat that is OSS and GNU/Linux. IMO.
LoB
Something is obviously up Microsofts sleeve here and I wonder what it could be. There is just no way in hell Microsoft is doing this because customers or Novell are asking for this. Protecting Windows is all and everything to Microsoft and doing ANYTHING which will 'help' a GNU/Linux provider is NOT going to protect the Windows monopoly.
.Net thing-a-ma-jig. Killing Corel Linux was probably just part of the verbal 'discussions'/requirements for the millions Microsoft paid Corel.
This is not going to be quite like the Corel/Microsoft deal of years ago since Microsoft nor Corel ever mentioned the deal had anything to do with Corel Linux. IIRC, it was sold as something to move Corel to promote Microsofts new
There is something cooking here and it's not anything that'll 'taste good' to the GNU/Linux crowd in the long run. My first guess is that Microsoft will try and get some proprietary API's into Suse so they can shut them down at some later date, or, maybe it's another $1 licensing fee agreement so Microsoft can track exactly how many sales are going through. They've used that one before so I wouldn't be surprised if they're using it again. After all, they've already told investors they'll be spending billions on marketing over the next year and it'll help if they know more exactly where to direct those dollars.
Regardless, yet another company is playing the fools game with this lit stick of dynamite called Microsoft.
IMO.
LoB
I thought the comment was about how long it takes for the solar panel to generate the amount of energy which equals the total energy required for the manufacturing of that panel. This point is when the device starts actually being environmentally 'friendly'.
LoB
BFD, Microsoft says they'll have the first nerd in space and that is the new history. ;-)
I would have thought the BBC to be smarter about this. Must be a slow news day and/or the editors are all out for tea.
LoB
It might look like a FF2 lauch cake but really they were thanking the Mozilla team for providing Microsoft with a browser feature specification list they could work from while attempting to 'improve' their product.
;-) But maybe there's another Halloween document inside...
Sending a previously heated pile of flour, water, sugar and eggs is the LEAST they could do. But then again, Microsoft has NEVER been any good at giving credit where credit is due.
LoB
While I think it makes good 'business' sense for Canonical to keep distributing the 6.06 LTS version over the latest, 6.10 has an 18 month suppport cycle, not 6. Think about it, Canonical wants people to try out Ubuntu but they also want them to feel comfortably supported when they continue to use it. The LTS version gives users this while the latest Edgy/6.10 version will lose support after a relatively short period. IMO.
LoB
the Martian race? THAT explains everything. ;-)
LoB
...the iPod in the productline. And it is their fault for not using a Mac or Linux box to test the iPod after every Microsoft Windows box 'touched' the iPod before boxing it up.
;-/
Shame on Apple.
LoB