1. If it's likely to make money for Microsoft, they'll sue. The only reason they won't sue it if it would probably fail in the courtroom.
Microsoft already makes tons of money off the Windows monopoly and that is what all of their actions are about. Since the early 1990's, Microsoft is more worried about protecting their monopoly than expanding in other areas. Expansion is secondary IMO. They spend a couple of $billion per year on losing markets outside the desktop/server but THAT is more about keeping budding technologies/companies from getting too much power and marketshare in the PC periphery sectors. Look at their recent earnings report. ~30% from MS Windows, ~30% from MS Office for Windows, ~20% from MS Windows Server/software, and until last year, EVERYTHING else was losing hundreds of millions each year. MSN advertising brought MSN into the black finally( popup ads maybe? ). Also, failing in the courtroom is not a big concern for MSFT since they'll be using much of this stuff as threats. It only has to LOOK like it has teeth in order to work as they intend it to. With $40 Billion in CASH, they can sue til the cows some home and not make a dent in that cash horde.
IMO, the current IP patent land grab is about protecting the Windows monopoly and very little about making money from new sectors or business markets. Never have I seen Microsoft support a none-Windows based product having over 50% marketshare. Even when Palm had 80% marketshare, every dbase vendor had a PalmOS based micro-dbase except MSFT. They came out with MS Access for WindowsCE when that only had 5% marketshare. The key to understanding Microsofts actions is to know their motivations and that is protecting the Windows monopoly. THAT is their business.
This sounds alot like how the old CompuServe and AOL browsers used to work for their client side application. They used to download and cache images if you didn't already have them locally and I'd bet that the line protocols describing/calling up the images were not binary.
It's been a long long time since I've run or seen these clients working but I do remember that the dialup line/connection would be really fill the pipe on startup if new graphics were needed.
IMHO, MSFT is doing this to protect their IM business from OSS client connections in the future. They might not exercise the patent now, but mark my word, IP patents is the ultimate weapon they plan to use on OSS projects. Valid or not. After all, when Jose, Joe, and Vladimir get a letter from Microsofts legal team to stop their OSS project or go to court, what do you think is going to happen? The EFF just doesn't have the funds to fight MSFT off and I'm sure MSFT knows this.
sure but that was when most toys were mostly or even all mechanical. And to top it off, with MS Windows, you can't get too deep into it at all. Now if GNU/Linux were on everyones desktops, there would atleast be somewhere/something to dig down into AND there isn't a marketing company behind it trying to block you from looking or going too deeply into it.
With MS Windows, it so much like "FM"(F#cking Magic) that when something goes wrong, you usually can't figure out where to fix it. Did I just see a story about how many people just throw their Windows computers away and get a new one when they can't clean it of virus's and spyware?...
So Gates really made a point about FOR GNU/LINUX and OSS.
you called it correctly and we've seen it posted a few times here in/. but we all know that they are NOT A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY don't we? Therefore, the way the buy off researchers and university departments has nothing to do with technology or innovation. It's also why, when word gets out of the contracts they're signing, they are hounded by the students, and others, for not having the students or education in their best interests.
The internet is preventing, or atleast slowing, Microsofts use of the same tactics they used to stop OS/2 in the early 1990's. Bullshit in in the press and bullshit in backroom eventually gets brought to light and publicized for what they really are.
ah but you must remember that Microsoft is just starting on it's latest multi 100 million dollar marketing campaign and this is close to free advertising. Have you noticed all the MSFT ads showing on the Tele and in online press?
I've noticed all the gates-isms over the lasts 2 weeks or so and figured it was all part of their new marketing push. You know, they have to keep the interest away from GNU/Linux and OSS, or atleast at bay, so that they can start drumming up MS Longhorn interest. I expect to see more articles on that over the next year also.
I'm with you, who needs to listen to these guys anymore since they have proven over and over that they don't know the truth or refuse to tell it and all that comes out of their mouths is MS-speak.
I see what you are saying, that basically, a primarily electric vehicle could have it's own builtin generator to enhance it's long-haul distance and also provide a way to grid( or other ) charge also.
That would be nice and who knows, maybe the current hybrids will move in that direction. It's not really a unique concept though. I've heard of some design where a charging trailer could be used with an electric car design to increase travel distance.
I think the Rosen Motors vehicle was primarily an electric car but instead of a large battery bank, I think it used a shoebox sized turbine engine to generate electricity and extra energy was stored in a flywheel system.
Our best hope today is that the current hybrids will get a bit more battery capacity and electric motor power. Already, the latest Prius has an EV button to disable the ICE for more pure-EV driving. It's a start...
The SunnyBoy unit I have has an RS232 opto-isolated interface that I built for it and either way, it only measures what gets put INTO the system. What somes in off the electric lines, or goes out is not measured or measurable at this time.
Are you saying that the Trace systems wire in between the grid and the home? I wouldn't think they would do that just for installation simplicity and/or dealing with the loads the existing system must support.
I don't remember where that information came from. It was probably an exchange with people in the OS/2 Warp beta program or someone at a conference. IBM never released a beta which worked with Chicago/Win95 apps but supposedly had that working inhouse until one of the Chicago betas showed up with the resource compiler putting code in the address space >1GB.
gee, you're talking about a hybrid car and the Bush administration has said that those are bad for us. YOU must not be patriotic and therefore should be hanged for treason!;-)
BTW, the Honda Insight was very close to what you posted, though you're 10x to high on MPG. The Insight regularly gets 60 MPG. The Insight uses the electric motor to assist the small/efficient gasoline engine though so it's really not exactly like you mentioned. A fully electric vehicle would require more batteries and the added weight would offset the MPG. Not to mention put more strain and wear on the other drive components.
Currently, the Toyota hybrid design seems to be the best on the market. Someday, it would be nice to see the ICE replaced with another form of power source. Letting the market decide would be nice, instead of the current administrations protectionism of the oil industies.
All we have to do is look at how Microsoft handled their Palm attack( WinCE ). They first came on the market with a product which didn't support the same screen orientation as the Palm and forced hardware vendors to build Microsofts clame-shell systems. That failed because the market wanted the smaller portrait format. After all but one of the first WinCE vendors closed shop, Microsoft came out with another video layout and renamed the productline as the MS-PalmPC before the courts told them to stop that and the name became MS-PocketPC.
So, they did this 8 years ago and didn't learn anything from this. Or atleast they didn't learn that the VENDORS and OEMs are the ones to INNOVATE around the customers. Bill seems to think that it's all about Microsoft control when it's actually the opposite. For another example, look at the Windows 3.x days when hardware OEMs could load custom software over, or inplace of, the Windows desktop. Compaq came out with a nice rollodex-like manager and HP came out with HP-NewWave for an object oriented folder and data desktop interface. Microsoft LEARNED from that and when they launched Windows95, their licensing forbid any changes to the Desktop.
Bill/Microsoft learns from earlier mistakes alright. To him, the mistakes are letting the market make the choice, letting innovation occur... Same olde Microsoft so there's little to worry about if you're not a Microsoft vendor, OEM, or customer. If you are, well, you'll have to keep living with THAT until they, or you, leave.
$2.50/gal of gasoline had been stated to be a critical price for US citizens. I heard this from a Saudi Oilman and I've seen it happen around me since CA has crossed that line a few times. It seems to be the price point where people start to change their purchasing habits and driving habits. It could also be the price that makes the alternatives more competitive.
With that inhand, seeing this story pop up at this time is not surprising. It runs with how the US auto industry started fighting against hybrid cars when Bush too office and started feeding them with billions for a handful of million dollar hydrogen fuelcell vehicles...
BTW, if you consider the US military complex as a subsidization for the US Oil industry, that along pulls the rug out from under their feet on this one. Would we be in Iraq and Saudi Arabia if we were not dependent on foreign oil? For that matter, would 9/11 have happened? Sure they'd hate the US for the Israeli/Palestinian issues but without a US backed Saudi government, would they be pissed enough still to come here?
Anyways, expect more of these kinds of articles as the price of US gasoline approaches an average of $2.50 nationwide. IMO.
But how would you tell if your meter is going backwards or forward?;-) Great hack but it won't work for systems with grid tied solar electric systems. It's too bad because I liked that your system actually reads the power companies measured usage.
If I could tell the direction, then I could take the difference between the solar generation and the amount of negative power usage on the meter. That would then be the actual energy usage.
Hey, the US public, by and large, believed Bush when he said that Iraq was all about 9/11 and all about fighting terrorism. We are a country made up of a majority of morons...
The author is probably a Microsoft shill. Windows is so freaking bad that they have to rely on hardware to attempt to fix all their software holes. At the same time, this "technology" can also be used to prevent all kinds of non-Microsoft stuff from working and all in the name of security.
I doubt if a proposed hardware fix for flaws in the Windows OS has anything to do with Apple changing to the Intel CPUs. IMO, Apple/Jobs knows that OS X is ready to take on Windows and they just want to get the hardware platform difference behind them. No more arguments on PPC vs x86. The public will consider the x86 Mac a PC and "feel" more comfortable with a head to head comparison with Microsofts OS(s).
Just watch and see where it all goes. Apple will be releasing a how truckload of x86 machines, ready to interface easily with all those iPods and and ready to handle security, reliablity, And ease of use issues.
Will it work? I think it'll gain some traction but not a wholesale migration. Maybe 20% marketshare in 6 years is my guess. GNU/Linux will proabably have a 20-25% share by that time too. After all, opensource apps will cover most home and SMB applications needs. IMHO.
but the kid wrote a poem about Bill Gates' life! surely that is a sign of genius.
I think the last kid who took the exam and passed it was 10 years old AND I heard an MCSE ask what the IP address of an ethernet cable was... So, the kid could be a genius, she could not be a genius, and taking and passing the MCSE exam does not give ANY insight regarding the kids intelligence. The fact that the kid worships Bill Gates tells me the kid is more of a drone than a queen-leader type.
I'll have to read the poem. I'm sure there's plenty to laugh at in there.
I see this too is flying right over everyones head. There is a difference between being "capable of operating a computer" and being able to click a few buttons and hit some keys.
Driving a car is nothing like being "capable of using a computer". A car has a fixed set of functions and interfaces and pretty much does one thing. It rolls on the ground to get you from point A to point B. A computer doesn't just do web browsing, just do email, just to graphic design, just to 3D animation, just to render farm tasks, just to database storage, just to XYZ. And I don't think the OP was saying the operator needs to know all these fields of use to be "capable". IMO, the operator needs to know the basics of the system like networking, filesystems, configurations, the general differences in UI design techniques, etc. And those are hardly every known by most who use the machines.
I do understand that since most are only familiar with Microsoft Windows, and therefore, they are really only familiar with an operating system pretty much only capable of doing one thing at a time.;-) So I can see how many would be confused by the OP'ers suggestion and think that it goes against what they THINK the capabilities needed to operate a computer really entails.
you said what I was thinking( kinda ).;-) But then I realized there are sooo many out there who never learned their way around the computer and don't have any idea what is going on under those icons and pretty decorations.
It's a shame since the computer is not a single purpose machine like many would like it to be. It's value is in it's ability to be many things. Unfortunately, it's being sold as something anybody can use without any education in it's use / design. Heck, I know people who'll not touch their espresso machine because it's too complicated to operate but they think they are a computer expert and believe me, they are not even close.
It is tough to be nice to some of these VERY NAIVE responses when there is so much information at their fingertips if they only knew how to use the search engines. Thanks for saying what I wouldn't.;-)
The OP stated that because OS/2 could run Windows applications, it must be that Microsoft helped IBM make that happen. That was pure bull and my reply was TRYING to shed light on how wrong that statement was.
It appears that my reply glanced off the top of a few heads. Oh well, here it goes again....
I guess my reply was more about OS/2's inability to run Windows apps beyond Win16/Win3.x, but the main point I was TRYING to get across was that although Microsoft ORIGINALLY worked with IBM to create OS/2, Microsoft had nothing to do with OS/2's ability to run Windows apps and after the split, they did things to PREVENT OS/2 from running Windows apps. Heck, they did things to prevent Windows app vendors from porting to OS/2 but that's another book...
It was really the IBM DOS compatibility layer that enabled Windows to run in IBMs virtual DOS. Yes the full OS/Environment ran in OS/2s DOS session with some tweaks. One version, Ferengi, even would use the original Microsofts Windows 3.x installation disks to add Windows support. IBM had access to the Windows 3.x source code and I'm sure that helped. I was told that it was a combination of the OS2-DOS and the optimized Watcom compiler which made Windows run faster on OS/2 than on MS-DOS. After all, Windows 3.x and Windows 95/98/ME are all DOS based operating environments.
It must have been Microsofts lies to the press which lead people to believe they were not DOS based operating environments. But everybody knows that Microsofts statements to the public/press are never factual and very seldom have any element of truth to them. Yeah, right.:-/
Good luck with that. Microsoft helped IBM develop OS/2; how do you think it ran Windows stuff so well?
Good luck with that son, but I'm sorry to tell you that Microsft did NOT help IBM code OS/2 so it would run Windows. As a matter of fact, Microsoft did far more to STOP OS/2 from running Windows and Windows applications. When Microsoft was releasing betas of Chicago( Win95 ), IBM had Chicago apps running under OS/2. When Microsoft found out, they changed the OS so that a very small portion of the Win32 resources loaded up at the 1GB memory address. This was so OS/2 could not run ANY Chicago applications or the OS. It worked because OS/2 supported virtual memory up to 512MB.
So you got that WAY WRONG. The bit about Microsoft licensing issues preventing opensourcing OS/2 is correct.
There isn't any information on IBM cutting off Serenity Systems and their eComStation OS/2 variant. That would be a good place for continued support and purchases.
IBM has published a number of development articles on migrating from OS/2 to GNU/Linux. Just because they didn't list them in the press release doesn't mean they don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
1. If it's likely to make money for Microsoft, they'll sue. The only reason they won't sue it if it would probably fail in the courtroom.
Microsoft already makes tons of money off the Windows monopoly and that is what all of their actions are about. Since the early 1990's, Microsoft is more worried about protecting their monopoly than expanding in other areas. Expansion is secondary IMO. They spend a couple of $billion per year on losing markets outside the desktop/server but THAT is more about keeping budding technologies/companies from getting too much power and marketshare in the PC periphery sectors. Look at their recent earnings report. ~30% from MS Windows, ~30% from MS Office for Windows, ~20% from MS Windows Server/software, and until last year, EVERYTHING else was losing hundreds of millions each year. MSN advertising brought MSN into the black finally( popup ads maybe? ). Also, failing in the courtroom is not a big concern for MSFT since they'll be using much of this stuff as threats. It only has to LOOK like it has teeth in order to work as they intend it to. With $40 Billion in CASH, they can sue til the cows some home and not make a dent in that cash horde.
IMO, the current IP patent land grab is about protecting the Windows monopoly and very little about making money from new sectors or business markets. Never have I seen Microsoft support a none-Windows based product having over 50% marketshare. Even when Palm had 80% marketshare, every dbase vendor had a PalmOS based micro-dbase except MSFT. They came out with MS Access for WindowsCE when that only had 5% marketshare. The key to understanding Microsofts actions is to know their motivations and that is protecting the Windows monopoly. THAT is their business.
Everything else you wrote is right on target.
LoB
This sounds alot like how the old CompuServe and AOL browsers used to work for their client side application. They used to download and cache images if you didn't already have them locally and I'd bet that the line protocols describing/calling up the images were not binary.
It's been a long long time since I've run or seen these clients working but I do remember that the dialup line/connection would be really fill the pipe on startup if new graphics were needed.
IMHO, MSFT is doing this to protect their IM business from OSS client connections in the future. They might not exercise the patent now, but mark my word, IP patents is the ultimate weapon they plan to use on OSS projects. Valid or not. After all, when Jose, Joe, and Vladimir get a letter from Microsofts legal team to stop their OSS project or go to court, what do you think is going to happen? The EFF just doesn't have the funds to fight MSFT off and I'm sure MSFT knows this.
LoB
sure but that was when most toys were mostly or even all mechanical. And to top it off, with MS Windows, you can't get too deep into it at all. Now if GNU/Linux were on everyones desktops, there would atleast be somewhere/something to dig down into AND there isn't a marketing company behind it trying to block you from looking or going too deeply into it.
With MS Windows, it so much like "FM"(F#cking Magic) that when something goes wrong, you usually can't figure out where to fix it. Did I just see a story about how many people just throw their Windows computers away and get a new one when they can't clean it of virus's and spyware?...
So Gates really made a point about FOR GNU/LINUX and OSS.
LoB
you called it correctly and we've seen it posted a few times here in /. but we all know that they are NOT A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY don't we? Therefore, the way the buy off researchers and university departments has nothing to do with technology or innovation. It's also why, when word gets out of the contracts they're signing, they are hounded by the students, and others, for not having the students or education in their best interests.
The internet is preventing, or atleast slowing, Microsofts use of the same tactics they used to stop OS/2 in the early 1990's. Bullshit in in the press and bullshit in backroom eventually gets brought to light and publicized for what they really are.
LoB
ah but you must remember that Microsoft is just starting on it's latest multi 100 million dollar marketing campaign and this is close to free advertising. Have you noticed all the MSFT ads showing on the Tele and in online press?
I've noticed all the gates-isms over the lasts 2 weeks or so and figured it was all part of their new marketing push. You know, they have to keep the interest away from GNU/Linux and OSS, or atleast at bay, so that they can start drumming up MS Longhorn interest. I expect to see more articles on that over the next year also.
I'm with you, who needs to listen to these guys anymore since they have proven over and over that they don't know the truth or refuse to tell it and all that comes out of their mouths is MS-speak.
LoB
I see what you are saying, that basically, a primarily electric vehicle could have it's own builtin generator to enhance it's long-haul distance and also provide a way to grid( or other ) charge also.
That would be nice and who knows, maybe the current hybrids will move in that direction. It's not really a unique concept though. I've heard of some design where a charging trailer could be used with an electric car design to increase travel distance.
I think the Rosen Motors vehicle was primarily an electric car but instead of a large battery bank, I think it used a shoebox sized turbine engine to generate electricity and extra energy was stored in a flywheel system.
Our best hope today is that the current hybrids will get a bit more battery capacity and electric motor power. Already, the latest Prius has an EV button to disable the ICE for more pure-EV driving. It's a start...
LoB
The SunnyBoy unit I have has an RS232 opto-isolated interface that I built for it and either way, it only measures what gets put INTO the system. What somes in off the electric lines, or goes out is not measured or measurable at this time.
Are you saying that the Trace systems wire in between the grid and the home? I wouldn't think they would do that just for installation simplicity and/or dealing with the loads the existing system must support.
LoB
I don't remember where that information came from. It was probably an exchange with people in the OS/2 Warp beta program or someone at a conference. IBM never released a beta which worked with Chicago/Win95 apps but supposedly had that working inhouse until one of the Chicago betas showed up with the resource compiler putting code in the address space >1GB.
r eview.html
Here is one place which mentions that Win32 apps still do this. See item #2 of the "Installation" section:
http://www.goldencode.com/atlos2/notes/odin/odin-
LoB
gee, you're talking about a hybrid car and the Bush administration has said that those are bad for us. YOU must not be patriotic and therefore should be hanged for treason! ;-)
BTW, the Honda Insight was very close to what you posted, though you're 10x to high on MPG. The Insight regularly gets 60 MPG. The Insight uses the electric motor to assist the small/efficient gasoline engine though so it's really not exactly like you mentioned. A fully electric vehicle would require more batteries and the added weight would offset the MPG. Not to mention put more strain and wear on the other drive components.
Currently, the Toyota hybrid design seems to be the best on the market. Someday, it would be nice to see the ICE replaced with another form of power source. Letting the market decide would be nice, instead of the current administrations protectionism of the oil industies.
LoB
Nicely put.
Now where are my moderator points when I need them?
LoB
All we have to do is look at how Microsoft handled their Palm attack( WinCE ). They first came on the market with a product which didn't support the same screen orientation as the Palm and forced hardware vendors to build Microsofts clame-shell systems. That failed because the market wanted the smaller portrait format. After all but one of the first WinCE vendors closed shop, Microsoft came out with another video layout and renamed the productline as the MS-PalmPC before the courts told them to stop that and the name became MS-PocketPC.
So, they did this 8 years ago and didn't learn anything from this. Or atleast they didn't learn that the VENDORS and OEMs are the ones to INNOVATE around the customers. Bill seems to think that it's all about Microsoft control when it's actually the opposite. For another example, look at the Windows 3.x days when hardware OEMs could load custom software over, or inplace of, the Windows desktop. Compaq came out with a nice rollodex-like manager and HP came out with HP-NewWave for an object oriented folder and data desktop interface. Microsoft LEARNED from that and when they launched Windows95, their licensing forbid any changes to the Desktop.
Bill/Microsoft learns from earlier mistakes alright. To him, the mistakes are letting the market make the choice, letting innovation occur... Same olde Microsoft so there's little to worry about if you're not a Microsoft vendor, OEM, or customer. If you are, well, you'll have to keep living with THAT until they, or you, leave.
LoB
$2.50/gal of gasoline had been stated to be a critical price for US citizens. I heard this from a Saudi Oilman and I've seen it happen around me since CA has crossed that line a few times. It seems to be the price point where people start to change their purchasing habits and driving habits. It could also be the price that makes the alternatives more competitive.
With that inhand, seeing this story pop up at this time is not surprising. It runs with how the US auto industry started fighting against hybrid cars when Bush too office and started feeding them with billions for a handful of million dollar hydrogen fuelcell vehicles...
BTW, if you consider the US military complex as a subsidization for the US Oil industry, that along pulls the rug out from under their feet on this one. Would we be in Iraq and Saudi Arabia if we were not dependent on foreign oil? For that matter, would 9/11 have happened? Sure they'd hate the US for the Israeli/Palestinian issues but without a US backed Saudi government, would they be pissed enough still to come here?
Anyways, expect more of these kinds of articles as the price of US gasoline approaches an average of $2.50 nationwide. IMO.
LoB
But how would you tell if your meter is going backwards or forward? ;-) Great hack but it won't work for systems with grid tied solar electric systems. It's too bad because I liked that your system actually reads the power companies measured usage.
If I could tell the direction, then I could take the difference between the solar generation and the amount of negative power usage on the meter. That would then be the actual energy usage.
LoB
Hey, the US public, by and large, believed Bush when he said that Iraq was all about 9/11 and all about fighting terrorism. We are a country made up of a majority of morons...
The author is probably a Microsoft shill. Windows is so freaking bad that they have to rely on hardware to attempt to fix all their software holes. At the same time, this "technology" can also be used to prevent all kinds of non-Microsoft stuff from working and all in the name of security.
The article is bogus IMO.
LoB
I doubt if a proposed hardware fix for flaws in the Windows OS has anything to do with Apple changing to the Intel CPUs. IMO, Apple/Jobs knows that OS X is ready to take on Windows and they just want to get the hardware platform difference behind them. No more arguments on PPC vs x86. The public will consider the x86 Mac a PC and "feel" more comfortable with a head to head comparison with Microsofts OS(s).
Just watch and see where it all goes. Apple will be releasing a how truckload of x86 machines, ready to interface easily with all those iPods and and ready to handle security, reliablity, And ease of use issues.
Will it work? I think it'll gain some traction but not a wholesale migration. Maybe 20% marketshare in 6 years is my guess. GNU/Linux will proabably have a 20-25% share by that time too. After all, opensource apps will cover most home and SMB applications needs. IMHO.
LoB
And I was pointing out that it wasn't understood what the meaning of "is" is. BTW, I could hear that chest beating from here. BFD.
LoB
but the kid wrote a poem about Bill Gates' life! surely that is a sign of genius.
I think the last kid who took the exam and passed it was 10 years old AND I heard an MCSE ask what the IP address of an ethernet cable was... So, the kid could be a genius, she could not be a genius, and taking and passing the MCSE exam does not give ANY insight regarding the kids intelligence. The fact that the kid worships Bill Gates tells me the kid is more of a drone than a queen-leader type.
I'll have to read the poem. I'm sure there's plenty to laugh at in there.
LoB
I see this too is flying right over everyones head. There is a difference between being "capable of operating a computer" and being able to click a few buttons and hit some keys.
;-) So I can see how many would be confused by the OP'ers suggestion and think that it goes against what they THINK the capabilities needed to operate a computer really entails.
Driving a car is nothing like being "capable of using a computer". A car has a fixed set of functions and interfaces and pretty much does one thing. It rolls on the ground to get you from point A to point B. A computer doesn't just do web browsing, just do email, just to graphic design, just to 3D animation, just to render farm tasks, just to database storage, just to XYZ. And I don't think the OP was saying the operator needs to know all these fields of use to be "capable". IMO, the operator needs to know the basics of the system like networking, filesystems, configurations, the general differences in UI design techniques, etc. And those are hardly every known by most who use the machines.
I do understand that since most are only familiar with Microsoft Windows, and therefore, they are really only familiar with an operating system pretty much only capable of doing one thing at a time.
LoB
Read the others posts to this thread and learn a little will you!
Geesh.
LoB
you said what I was thinking( kinda ). ;-) But then I realized there are sooo many out there who never learned their way around the computer and don't have any idea what is going on under those icons and pretty decorations.
;-)
It's a shame since the computer is not a single purpose machine like many would like it to be. It's value is in it's ability to be many things. Unfortunately, it's being sold as something anybody can use without any education in it's use / design. Heck, I know people who'll not touch their espresso machine because it's too complicated to operate but they think they are a computer expert and believe me, they are not even close.
It is tough to be nice to some of these VERY NAIVE responses when there is so much information at their fingertips if they only knew how to use the search engines. Thanks for saying what I wouldn't.
LoB
enough said
LoB
The OP stated that because OS/2 could run Windows applications, it must be that Microsoft helped IBM make that happen. That was pure bull and my reply was TRYING to shed light on how wrong that statement was.
:-/
It appears that my reply glanced off the top of a few heads. Oh well, here it goes again....
I guess my reply was more about OS/2's inability to run Windows apps beyond Win16/Win3.x, but the main point I was TRYING to get across was that although Microsoft ORIGINALLY worked with IBM to create OS/2, Microsoft had nothing to do with OS/2's ability to run Windows apps and after the split, they did things to PREVENT OS/2 from running Windows apps. Heck, they did things to prevent Windows app vendors from porting to OS/2 but that's another book...
It was really the IBM DOS compatibility layer that enabled Windows to run in IBMs virtual DOS. Yes the full OS/Environment ran in OS/2s DOS session with some tweaks. One version, Ferengi, even would use the original Microsofts Windows 3.x installation disks to add Windows support. IBM had access to the Windows 3.x source code and I'm sure that helped. I was told that it was a combination of the OS2-DOS and the optimized Watcom compiler which made Windows run faster on OS/2 than on MS-DOS. After all, Windows 3.x and Windows 95/98/ME are all DOS based operating environments.
It must have been Microsofts lies to the press which lead people to believe they were not DOS based operating environments. But everybody knows that Microsofts statements to the public/press are never factual and very seldom have any element of truth to them. Yeah, right.
LoB
Good luck with that son, but I'm sorry to tell you that Microsft did NOT help IBM code OS/2 so it would run Windows. As a matter of fact, Microsoft did far more to STOP OS/2 from running Windows and Windows applications. When Microsoft was releasing betas of Chicago( Win95 ), IBM had Chicago apps running under OS/2. When Microsoft found out, they changed the OS so that a very small portion of the Win32 resources loaded up at the 1GB memory address. This was so OS/2 could not run ANY Chicago applications or the OS. It worked because OS/2 supported virtual memory up to 512MB.
So you got that WAY WRONG. The bit about Microsoft licensing issues preventing opensourcing OS/2 is correct.
LoB
There isn't any information on IBM cutting off Serenity Systems and their eComStation OS/2 variant. That would be a good place for continued support and purchases.
LoB
IBM has published a number of development articles on migrating from OS/2 to GNU/Linux. Just because they didn't list them in the press release doesn't mean they don't exist.
LoB