From what I read months ago, Jackson can bring this right to the US Supreme Court and bypass Micros~1 from bringing it to the Appellate Courts. Jackson was burned a couple of times when Micros~1 questioned Jacksons judgements through appeals. The Supreme Court can decide not to rule and assign it to an Appellate Court if they wish. This is what I've read and I am NOT a lawyer or even close. Thank goodness. In a nutshell, the case could end pretty quick should the Supreme courts get the case and decide to hear the case.
Take the serial cable from the UPS the NT system is connected to and connect it to another machine. You now can cycle power remotely! You can also put in one of those LAN cards that control power....;) Doah!
> Actually, I think that if AOL keeps the > protocol closed, then Microsoft will create > their own closed protocol in their new > MS-message client that is pre-installed on > Win2000. It will of course also be included in > the next security patch for IE4 and IE5. You know they are going to do this anyway since there is soooo much history in favor it it happening. So why should AOL give its millions of users to Microsoft without a fight?
> Now - any messanger program is useless if you > can't reach the people that you want to > send messages to, and most people only want to > run one message-client anyway. AOL has millions of users already and it already has the distribution channel it secured with Microsoft because it uses IE for its browser.
> That means that > as soon as the MS-message client has gained a > certain market-share it's gonna snowball to > total dominanse (it also means that it's gonna > have a tough time to gain the first > market-share though). Exactly, why should AOL give them the marketshare right off the bat? It would be dumb for AOL to give Microsoft equal access to its users and just watch them then wrestle control of the protocol out of its hands and onto legacy Windows-only systems? By legacy, I mean all Windows OS's since the market is moving to devices very quickly.
> With an open protocol > everyone can make their own client with a > various degrees of complexity and > GUI-fancyness, and they can share the market. Take a look behind you and you'll find the road littered with many who thought like you. Microsoft does NOT share any market with anyone and this isn't new. Read the Halloween document for a refresher course on who is really under that costume of Open Standards Supporter.
AOL did open the protocol and I think AIM is the product that resulted from that. Now a monster like Microsoft comes along and wants to suck your life giving blood from your body to feed its minions. The best thing to do is build a mote. If Microsoft had a different history AOL might have acted differently. Open protocol standards are good but one has to be able to make money from a idea. Maybe there should be an allowance of X years before the protocol is opened when over 50% of the market uses the protocol? AOL should be allowed to make money off its property but not allowed to control the market.
This is not new for Microsoft. They do this whenever they aren't in control of a popular product. This is not new, they're doing it with Java also. It's in their financial interest to get a protocol open so they can 'enhance' it so it will only work with Windows apps. Look at FrontPage and how it only posts to NT servers instead of the standard ftp protocol as others do. Microsoft is NOT your friend just because they want someone to open up their protocol and they are NOT doing this for our sake.
A better solution needs to be found for the opening of dominant network protocols. That solution must apply to Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and all others. Personally, I applaud AOL for doing to Microsoft what was done to Bill Gates in Belgium (in your face, succa). They deserve it and more for all they have done to others in the past. IMHO
If they can make it so it still fits in my shirt pocket and the batteries last 4 weeks then that is GREAT. If they are going to be another bulky device that has a 1 week battery life, forget it. I like the Palm because it is good at what it does and it doesn't try to be another bloated Windows interface. Windows Everywhere is dumb. IMHO
Must be nice to be independently wealthy or self employed. The rest of us have to 'speak' to someone and those someones aren't technical enough to know what is a Microsoft lie/press release and what is REALLY going on.
2008 would be nice for a NT 5 release date but I think you're dreaming. Microsoft will likely ship it within the next 6-9 months and release fixes shortly after to stop the bleeding. They can't afford to let Linux run the press as it has and they can't pull a 3 year delay like Win95. They need the product shipping. I think you're right in that it will be a flop because of the bloat.
In the Internet age............. Linux: A fighter jet is far more usefull because of its speed...
NT: A tank with 12" thick armor, which only covers 60% of the vehicle, will be useless even though it might keep lumbering along IF the armor is hit....NT
The last time Microsoft had some REAL competition in the OS sector was in 1994 when IBM dumped $200Million on marketing of OS/2 Warp v3. Microsoft was waaay late with Windows 95 and to keep its market they spent over $500Million on a worldwide campaign to tell the world where they wanted them to go. Windows 98 had nothing close to even IBMs silly ads. Stealth marketing because they wanted most to be going to Windows NT. Well, that is very late and has competition from Linux. I predict NT v5/2000 is going to get a pretty big sendoff. Will the press swallow that pill? If they do, Linux will be hurt in the eyes of the unanointed (read IT/IS Management) by not having mindshare. History lesson concluded.:)
DataQuest has been wrong so many times that they look like they get their numbers from Microsoft. The fact that the story has so many errors or inaccuracies tells me that this may just be another Microsoft funded report. Note that they say Linux hype will fade after service pack #1 ships for Windows NT v5/2000.....
Why don't we all just use what works best today and let the future unfold itself instead of letting Microsofts PR decide the future?
There was a reason to cry 'unfair' at the first benchmarks from MindCraft. The tests were plan wrong and very little could be gleaned from them. The third test ( second test was private and the results weren't published ) provided information which allows corrections to be made.
I think you'll someday find that Microsoft is feeding the press with data to show Linux's weaknesses. That is how they 'compete'. Unfortunate for them, they aren't 'competing' with IBM, its Linux. Weaknesses will be patched quickly and tested by the community too quickly for Microsoft. They won't be able to wait for a liquid cooled CPU to become the norm so NT v5/2000 can beat Linux in future tests.
Fair benchmarking and reporting is not the norm in this industry. Recently IBMs Warp Server for e-business was hammered on InfoWorld (the link is now broken to the article....). It turns out the guy who wrote the column is the Senior Contributing Editor and Columnist of Windows NT Systems magazine. See "Hatchet Job"
Complaining/exposing a injustice is how we open the eyes of the unknowing. Example: At my stock investment club meeting last night, one member insisted that NT was faster then Linux in all cases and that Linux had a weak GUI. I booted OpenLinux v2.2 on my P120 laptop an he started questioning his beliefs. The rest of the goup was surprised at the polish they saw. All but one member are professionals in the technology industry though mostly embedded/realtime systems.
>OS/2 sucked rocks...its got a weird GUI based on win3.1 and DOS Huh? I guess you haven't tried OS/2 after 1990 because the post-80's GUI on OS/2 is based on the CORBA object model. If you're talking API's then you don't get the idea of an OS being built in layers. Just because the GUI API's start WinXXXXX and the OS calls start with DosXXXXX does not mean it is anything like Win3.x and DOS. Think of it more like Linux and X11.
>and some sort of REX style thing.. About that REXX thing, it is a very powerfull scripting language which can be used to access most all of the OS. There are REXX hooks for the WPS Desktop, MultiMedia, Networking, etc and it's a ANSI accepted standard.
I used to pay ~$1300 for x86 UNIX back in the 80286 and 80386 days and DOS/Windows (Win9x inc) suck rocks. IMHO. At first it was multitasing, or the lack of it, then it was the GUI, and then it was the API's especially the threading. Linux is a blast still but OS/2 running Linux apps and shells ROCK's. Nothing matches its flexability. IMO
When milliseconds matter, try using 'C' and then try using assembly code.;) Using Java to measure realtime events like in a racecar would not be a good use of the technology. Using it within the scoreing system and crew information system make alittle more sense. Remember the saying, "Use the right tool for the right job."
Re:Original P6 (PPro) was good but Windows wasn't
on
Intel Undercuts AMD
·
· Score: 1
Call it what you will but I think it was Microsofts flawed design of Windows 95 that did the PPro in. It was loudly advertised as a 32bit OS when it really wasn't/isn't. So legacy code didn't get a boost, neither did the brand spank'n code written to Win32c. Intel was designing the PP back in 1990 when a 32bit 486 was still very popular though it was running 16bit Dos/Windows and only OS/2 was 32bit in 1991 and viable on a desktop as opposed to the workstation (read NT). IBM beat Microsoft by almost 5 years with an advanced OS for the desktop and all they could do was produce marketing for a new shell on a 16bit OS. Did Intel make the mistake or was it Microsofts lack of innovation? I think it was more the former then the latter.
> Oh please. If Intel bests AMD in less than a > year, hooray for Intel.
Yeah, it's a good thing to have all competition wiped out. That'll make for cheaper systems and more performance in the future. NOT! Horray for Intel and to-bad for us....
Competition => innovation at a good price. ~Competition => stagnation at a high price.
> If AMD wants public acceptance, they have to > earn it. No sh$t sherlock and I hope they can do it before Intel gets back on its feet. My Intel stock might not far as well but we as consumers will get better products for a good price. I'm buying AMD too, to even out my portfolio.
> Cyrix needed "running room" too. Perhaps AMD > *and* Intel should have shut down their R&D > lab's while Cyrix caught up... Lighten up Francis! Who the heck said anything about anyone deserving some running room? I'm saying that it will be good for 'US'(not U.S.) if Intel keeps stumbling long enough (~1yr) for AMD to get its finances back enough to continue the competition. Funny, Intel wouldn't even be in this position if Microsoft hadn't released a 16bit OS in late 1995. Then again Intel probably wouldn't be helping out Linux and BeOS if Microsoft producted a 32bit desktop OS back then.
I wonder how a dual or quad PIII(or K7 someday) would compare, pricewise, to the Alpha? You are correct in that a Alpha version would be great but I think it is too high up the scale right now when a dual Celeron is very cheap and a Quad Xeon is available too. It is the SMP capabilities in BeOS that allow this. Of course dual/quad Alphas might be quicker then a O2, but that is a very highend target that is too high and small for Be to shot for now. Good ideas but the comodity x86 market is a good place for Be now. IMHO
I think it would be a bad thing if Intel bested AMD in less then one years time. AMD needs some time to gain public acceptance at this scale of the CPU power curve and it need some $$ to keep its business going. Competition is good but I think most will agree that AMD needs alittle running room in order to STAY a competitor. The same goes with Microsoft competition, if they don't get some time to gain customers, Microsoft can yank their profits by preannouncing a product that almost always is late. The competition dies from lack of cash flow. I hope AMD can keep the lead for 12 months. We'll all, OEM's included, benefit.
Original P6 (PPro) was good but Windows wasn't
on
Intel Undercuts AMD
·
· Score: 1
Intel did a decent job with the PPro with its 32bit optimizations but Micros~1 kept Windows a Dos-based operating environment. This forced Intel to start spewwing out junk to keep the buyers thinking things were moving forward and not backward. MMX and double the cache helped it sell more lagging Pentiums while a hacked up P6 was being developed, the PII. I think we can thank Micros~1 for AMD's ability to compete today. Intel was knocked back about 2+ years just because Windows 9x is very much a 16bit OS and this allowed the K6 to step in and give AMD a name more were willing to accept. This is why I feel Wintel has had such a rocky partnership since 1995 and that Intel is pushing for OS's like BeOS and GNU/Linux. IMHO
I bought mine months ago for under $300 and you can even find sites that sell with free shipping and no tax (that won't last). They are an awesome organizer and I wouldn't want to be without it. It goes everywhere I go....
Well said. Even though I really like what OS/2 has to offer I always have the fear that it could become 'Darkened'. I've thought about how to reduce that fear and to date all I can figure is to write to a cross platform framework. QT, V++, etc seem to be the best though I really like Java. Sun has the potential of 'Darkening' but they also NEED to keep control to keep it away from Microsoft corruption. I guess all we can do is keep our skills up so moving isn't out of the question. Microsoft developers really don't have that option IMO. All Microsoft developers that I know of never look at anything outside of their world and worst, they don't know of technical solutions outside of the one from Microsoft. A win for Microsoft but a loss for those developers. I understand not all Microsoft developers are this way but every one I know personally react this way.
What would you say to OS/2? You can recompile many Linux/GNU applications to run native on OS/2 with OSS tools. It got XFree86 (latest stable) and egcs so there's nothing new here either. The only drawback that I see is that it is owned by IBM. It is a breeze to configure if you know Linux and easier then Linux is you know Windows. I would really like to see more OS agnostic considerations. The PalmOS has its place, Linux and others do too, we just need to let the market decide and work on getting them to work together. Windows would even have its place if Microsoft would stop killing technology because it isn't Windows. We do ourselves an injustice by only promoting one OS. OS/2 is another commercial OS but its VM architecture allows for great OS compatibilities. Heck, Win32 was possible until Microsoft made it to load parts up above 1GB of address space. You see, OS/2 supports only 512 MB of address space per process (Warp 5 doesn't have that barrier) so it currently can't run Win32 applications. I can run Enlightenment and GIMP though and QT v2.0 was just ported too. Sounds like a hackers dream OS since you can pick your language and pick your runtime environment but do it all from within ONE OS. Why do you think IBM came up with the ideas that was the WorkPlaceOS? OS/2 was already doing it for the most part. I'm still planning on looking at BeOS because I heard it has a nice OO system through and through.
I think you're correct in that the open source nature of Linux has opened the industry to the concept of something other then Windows. I also think that Microsoft has alot to do with this. They have most likely been feeding the press to do stories about other OS's since the trial began. I feel this way because for almost 10 years the press had bashed OS/2 as I tried to make a living at developing for it. There was a nice silence in the press for almost 2 years prior to the DOJ vs MSFT trial and then boom, articles about OS/2 show up. Articles about Linux Mac, and BeOS showed up too though today Linux gets most of the press. I do believe it is the press that makes this all happen. If you don't believe me just look around and all the managers require NT because everyone else is supposed to be using it. Our companies products are being ported to NT even though it is an embedded-type system (preconfigured and shipped with the PC). Not because of features but because the customer never hears about OS/2 and hears about NT all the time. The guy (customer) even was upbeat about Linux. This has 100% to do with press coverage if you ask me and not capabilities. So in a way you are correct in that BeOS exists because of Linux but Linux exists (popularity wise) today because of the press. This isn't flame bait, I know it wouldn't die without press but it sure in heck wouldn't have EVER been tested against NT without the press popularizing it beyond the hackers systems. Remember that OS/2 had 15 million users in 1994 and the press bashed it for having too few users to survive. NT had under 500,000 licenses sold in 1995 and 700,000 in 1996 while OS/2 was selling 1,000,000 per month. NT got the press and OS/2 got sh*t, so I doubt that even if Linux ran 50% of the web servers and 70% of the universities, it would not have todays popularity without the press. To bad IBM has non-expiring licenses for code in OS/2 because it prevents them from open sourcing it or dropping its price. I think by the end of July we will know if IBM licenses it to Stardock and what Stardock will sell it for. I do know that it will be packaged for developers in the beginning.
Warning: [OS/2 soapbox] If you're not hell bent on a free kernel then OS/2 is still the OS to beat Microsoft and to get sh*t done. If you want usability, configurability, ability to run DOS, Windows 3.x and Win32s, Java, X11(local/clients and remote), and OS/2 (did I forget anything?) there is only one OS that can do that. It has the latest XFree86 system, GNUbin, GNUutils, and the egcs compiler to write free software and to use existing free software. I still have to say that if the press were to put the effort into writting about OS/2 that they are putting into Linux, the DOJ would easily lose its case because the software works and works well just nobody seems to care about these things anymore unless they are free. Linux is a cool OS but it still has a year or so before it has a chance of having a easy configuration utility. Todays OS/2 is like tomorrows Linux except the kernel isn't from Linus and it isn't OSS. Think about it, 3 years ago it beat NT server in PCWeek tests when OS/2 was running on ONE CPU and NT was running on FOUR CPU's. Today they compare Linux to NT without mention of OS/2, go figure. It even has the fastest Java on Intel so what is up? Maybe once IBM licenses OS/2 to Stardock, for resale, we will see another piece taken out of Microsofts pie and people can get sh*t done while Linux grows up. Anyway, OS/2 can do for you what you are likely to want BeOS for. [end soapbox]
Re:Linux SMP performance sux, but what about....
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
I'm wondering why all these other OS's get tested but OS/2 Warp and Warp Server aren't ever tested? I mean it is multithreaded at the kernel, runs SMP quite well, and with the free EMX and XFree86OS2 you can run many recompiles Linux applications and daemons. It seems to me that it is really more likely to beat NT because of its design and you get Linux compatibility via the OSS that is EMX/EGCS/XFree86 for OS/2. It was OS/2 that outperformed NT when NT was running 4 CPUs and OS/2 was running on only 1. We should be promoting choice from all players and yes OS/2 is still being sold by IBM you just have to ask or go find it. If we knock NT down we all win even if it is knocked down a notch by that obscure OS formally built by Microsoft themselves. Wouldn't that take the cake? (I love it, QT v2.0 is already available on OS/2)
We must look at this this way: The first tests MindCraft did returned very little data to help in fixing the problems and it was 80% NT marketing. This was bad for Linux because we got nothing from it. We were able to get a rematch where we get reams of data on what/how/why the results fell where they did. Linux still did pretty well when you consider it can run on a 4MB 486 router up to multi CPU servers in a cluster to rival super computers. We got tons of data from this and can only make things better. This wouldn't have been posible without this test. We should thank MindCraft for working with that Linux group and get back to fixing/testing Linux. I don't think Microsoft can scream as loud as it wanted the first time the test were run. We win on these two issues. IMO.
Thankyou for that info, I'm glad to see that Apple is getting some real value from that settlement. This generally doesn't happen. Microsft usually steals technology and puts the owner under so much financial pressure (lost sales) that they have no choice but to sell/settle out of court for a fraction of the potential sales. If any one of us patented an idea that would put $10, for every computer sold, in our pocket do you think we would ever get close to that value from the product? No way! Microsft would tell the world your idea sucks then come up with something pitifully resembling it. They would force it into Windows, on OEMs, and tell the press to thrash your product. You would take them to court on patent infringment but you would have little money to fight them. You walk away with all your employees out of work and maybe you get a small fractional percentage of your ideas REAL potential. The innovators of the world aren't rewarded in this model. I wonder if Microsft has a virtual graveyard somewhere on their campus that represents all the people and businesses they have put under in this manner?
They mentioned why, it is because when they have a corrupted OS (Windows never gets that way.;) they have to send a hard disk, with a working OS image, to the site. They don't want IT people at every HomeDepot and I don't blame them. What they plan to do with Linux is boot the OS image from a server and remote control is very easy on Linux. They could be using WorkSpaceOnDemand from IBM but nobody like OS/2. Even if it has the fastest Java on Intel. Then again, they would have to maintain it at the server which is at each location. Linux makes sense and in this case cents. I only wish Linux has a marketing/PR department....
Slashdot Mirror
From what I read months ago, Jackson can bring this right to the US Supreme Court and bypass Micros~1 from bringing it to the Appellate Courts. Jackson was burned a couple of times when Micros~1 questioned Jacksons judgements through appeals. The Supreme Court can decide not to rule and assign it to an Appellate Court if they wish. This is what I've read and I am NOT a lawyer or even close. Thank goodness. In a nutshell, the case could end pretty quick should the Supreme courts get the case and decide to hear the case.
Take the serial cable from the UPS the NT system is connected to and connect it to another machine. You now can cycle power remotely! You can also put in one of those LAN cards that control power.... ;) Doah!
> Actually, I think that if AOL keeps the
> protocol closed, then Microsoft will create
> their own closed protocol in their new
> MS-message client that is pre-installed on
> Win2000. It will of course also be included in
> the next security patch for IE4 and IE5.
You know they are going to do this anyway since there is soooo much history in favor it it happening. So why should AOL give its millions of users to Microsoft without a fight?
> Now - any messanger program is useless if you
> can't reach the people that you want to
> send messages to, and most people only want to
> run one message-client anyway.
AOL has millions of users already and it already has the distribution channel it secured with Microsoft because it uses IE for its browser.
> That means that
> as soon as the MS-message client has gained a
> certain market-share it's gonna snowball to
> total dominanse (it also means that it's gonna
> have a tough time to gain the first
> market-share though).
Exactly, why should AOL give them the marketshare right off the bat? It would be dumb for AOL to give Microsoft equal access to its users and just watch them then wrestle control of the protocol out of its hands and onto legacy Windows-only systems? By legacy, I mean all Windows OS's since the market is moving to devices very quickly.
> With an open protocol
> everyone can make their own client with a
> various degrees of complexity and
> GUI-fancyness, and they can share the market.
Take a look behind you and you'll find the road littered with many who thought like you. Microsoft does NOT share any market with anyone and this isn't new. Read the Halloween document for a refresher course on who is really under that costume of Open Standards Supporter.
AOL did open the protocol and I think AIM is the product that resulted from that. Now a monster like Microsoft comes along and wants to suck your life giving blood from your body to feed its minions. The best thing to do is build a mote. If Microsoft had a different history AOL might have acted differently. Open protocol standards are good but one has to be able to make money from a idea. Maybe there should be an allowance of X years before the protocol is opened when over 50% of the market uses the protocol? AOL should be allowed to make money off its property but not allowed to control the market.
This is not new for Microsoft. They do this whenever they aren't in control of a popular product. This is not new, they're doing it with Java also. It's in their financial interest to get a protocol open so they can 'enhance' it so it will only work with Windows apps. Look at FrontPage and how it only posts to NT servers instead of the standard ftp protocol as others do. Microsoft is NOT your friend just because they want someone to open up their protocol and they are NOT doing this for our sake.
A better solution needs to be found for the opening of dominant network protocols. That solution must apply to Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and all others. Personally, I applaud AOL for doing to Microsoft what was done to Bill Gates in Belgium (in your face, succa). They deserve it and more for all they have done to others in the past. IMHO
If they can make it so it still fits in my shirt pocket and the batteries last 4 weeks then that is GREAT. If they are going to be another bulky device that has a 1 week battery life, forget it. I like the Palm because it is good at what it does and it doesn't try to be another bloated Windows interface. Windows Everywhere is dumb. IMHO
>Who cares if.......yadi yadi yada
Must be nice to be independently wealthy or self employed. The rest of us have to 'speak' to someone and those someones aren't technical enough to know what is a Microsoft lie/press release and what is REALLY going on.
2008 would be nice for a NT 5 release date but I think you're dreaming. Microsoft will likely ship it within the next 6-9 months and release fixes shortly after to stop the bleeding. They can't afford to let Linux run the press as it has and they can't pull a 3 year delay like Win95. They need the product shipping. I think you're right in that it will be a flop because of the bloat.
In the Internet age.............
Linux: A fighter jet is far more usefull because of its speed...
NT: A tank with 12" thick armor, which only covers 60% of the vehicle, will be useless even though it might keep lumbering along IF the armor is hit....NT
The last time Microsoft had some REAL competition in the OS sector was in 1994 when IBM dumped $200Million on marketing of OS/2 Warp v3. Microsoft was waaay late with Windows 95 and to keep its market they spent over $500Million on a worldwide campaign to tell the world where they wanted them to go. Windows 98 had nothing close to even IBMs silly ads. Stealth marketing because they wanted most to be going to Windows NT. Well, that is very late and has competition from Linux. I predict NT v5/2000 is going to get a pretty big sendoff. Will the press swallow that pill? If they do, Linux will be hurt in the eyes of the unanointed (read IT/IS Management) by not having mindshare. History lesson concluded. :)
DataQuest has been wrong so many times that they look like they get their numbers from Microsoft. The fact that the story has so many errors or inaccuracies tells me that this may just be another Microsoft funded report. Note that they say Linux hype will fade after service pack #1 ships for Windows NT v5/2000.....
Why don't we all just use what works best today and let the future unfold itself instead of letting Microsofts PR decide the future?
I think you'll someday find that Microsoft is feeding the press with data to show Linux's weaknesses. That is how they 'compete'. Unfortunate for them, they aren't 'competing' with IBM, its Linux. Weaknesses will be patched quickly and tested by the community too quickly for Microsoft. They won't be able to wait for a liquid cooled CPU to become the norm so NT v5/2000 can beat Linux in future tests.
Fair benchmarking and reporting is not the norm in this industry. Recently IBMs Warp Server for e-business was hammered on InfoWorld (the link is now broken to the article....). It turns out the guy who wrote the column is the Senior Contributing Editor and Columnist of Windows NT Systems magazine. See "Hatchet Job"
Complaining/exposing a injustice is how we open the eyes of the unknowing. Example: At my stock investment club meeting last night, one member insisted that NT was faster then Linux in all cases and that Linux had a weak GUI. I booted OpenLinux v2.2 on my P120 laptop an he started questioning his beliefs. The rest of the goup was surprised at the polish they saw. All but one member are professionals in the technology industry though mostly embedded/realtime systems.
>OS/2 sucked rocks...its got a weird GUI based on win3.1 and DOS
Huh? I guess you haven't tried OS/2 after 1990 because the post-80's GUI on OS/2 is based on the CORBA object model. If you're talking API's then you don't get the idea of an OS being built in layers. Just because the GUI API's start WinXXXXX and the OS calls start with DosXXXXX does not mean it is anything like Win3.x and DOS. Think of it more like Linux and X11.
>and some sort of REX style thing..
About that REXX thing, it is a very powerfull scripting language which can be used to access most all of the OS. There are REXX hooks for the WPS Desktop, MultiMedia, Networking, etc and it's a ANSI accepted standard.
I used to pay ~$1300 for x86 UNIX back in the 80286 and 80386 days and DOS/Windows (Win9x inc) suck rocks. IMHO. At first it was multitasing, or the lack of it, then it was the GUI, and then it was the API's especially the threading. Linux is a blast still but OS/2 running Linux apps and shells ROCK's. Nothing matches its flexability. IMO
When milliseconds matter, try using 'C' and then try using assembly code. ;) Using Java to measure realtime events like in a racecar would not be a good use of the technology. Using it within the scoreing system and crew information system make alittle more sense. Remember the saying, "Use the right tool for the right job."
Call it what you will but I think it was Microsofts flawed design of Windows 95 that did the PPro in. It was loudly advertised as a 32bit OS when it really wasn't/isn't. So legacy code didn't get a boost, neither did the brand spank'n code written to Win32c. Intel was designing the PP back in 1990 when a 32bit 486 was still very popular though it was running 16bit Dos/Windows and only OS/2 was 32bit in 1991 and viable on a desktop as opposed to the workstation (read NT). IBM beat Microsoft by almost 5 years with an advanced OS for the desktop and all they could do was produce marketing for a new shell on a 16bit OS.
Did Intel make the mistake or was it Microsofts lack of innovation? I think it was more the former then the latter.
> Oh please. If Intel bests AMD in less than a
> year, hooray for Intel.
Yeah, it's a good thing to have all competition
wiped out. That'll make for cheaper systems and
more performance in the future. NOT!
Horray for Intel and to-bad for us....
Competition => innovation at a good price.
~Competition => stagnation at a high price.
> If AMD wants public acceptance, they have to
> earn it.
No sh$t sherlock and I hope they can do it before Intel gets back on its feet. My Intel stock might not far as well but we as consumers will get better products for a good price. I'm buying AMD too, to even out my portfolio.
> Cyrix needed "running room" too. Perhaps AMD
> *and* Intel should have shut down their R&D
> lab's while Cyrix caught up...
Lighten up Francis! Who the heck said anything
about anyone deserving some running room? I'm saying that it will be good for 'US'(not U.S.) if Intel keeps stumbling long enough (~1yr) for AMD to get its finances back enough to continue the competition.
Funny, Intel wouldn't even be in this position if Microsoft hadn't released a 16bit OS in late 1995. Then again Intel probably wouldn't be helping out Linux and BeOS if Microsoft producted a 32bit desktop OS back then.
I wonder how a dual or quad PIII(or K7 someday) would compare, pricewise, to the Alpha? You are correct in that a Alpha version would be great but I think it is too high up the scale right now when a dual Celeron is very cheap and a Quad Xeon is available too. It is the SMP capabilities in BeOS that allow this. Of course dual/quad Alphas might be quicker then a O2, but that is a very highend target that is too high and small for Be to shot for now. Good ideas but the comodity x86 market is a good place for Be now. IMHO
I think it would be a bad thing if Intel bested AMD in less then one years time. AMD needs some time to gain public acceptance at this scale of the CPU power curve and it need some $$ to keep its business going. Competition is good but I think most will agree that AMD needs alittle running room in order to STAY a competitor.
The same goes with Microsoft competition, if they don't get some time to gain customers, Microsoft can yank their profits by preannouncing a product that almost always is late. The competition dies from lack of cash flow. I hope AMD can keep the lead for 12 months. We'll all, OEM's included, benefit.
Intel did a decent job with the PPro with its 32bit optimizations but Micros~1 kept Windows a Dos-based operating environment. This forced Intel to start spewwing out junk to keep the buyers thinking things were moving forward and not backward. MMX and double the cache helped it sell more lagging Pentiums while a hacked up P6 was being developed, the PII.
I think we can thank Micros~1 for AMD's ability to compete today. Intel was knocked back about 2+ years just because Windows 9x is very much a 16bit OS and this allowed the K6 to step in and give AMD a name more were willing to accept.
This is why I feel Wintel has had such a rocky partnership since 1995 and that Intel is pushing for OS's like BeOS and GNU/Linux. IMHO
You should look here for pricing, they list 20 or so sellers of Palm IIIx's and the current price is around $242:
3 01&a1=4
http://www.shopper.com/cgi-bin/nph-sort2?a0=307
I bought mine months ago for under $300 and you can even find sites that sell with free shipping and no tax (that won't last). They are an awesome organizer and I wouldn't want to be without it. It goes everywhere I go....
Well said. Even though I really like what OS/2 has to offer I always have the fear that it could become 'Darkened'. I've thought about how to reduce that fear and to date all I can figure is to write to a cross platform framework. QT, V++,
etc seem to be the best though I really like Java. Sun has the potential of 'Darkening' but they also NEED to keep control to keep it away from Microsoft corruption. I guess all we can do is keep our skills up so moving isn't out of the question. Microsoft developers really don't have that option IMO. All Microsoft developers that I know of never look at anything outside of their world and worst, they don't know of technical solutions outside of the one from Microsoft. A win for Microsoft but a loss for those developers. I understand not all Microsoft developers are this way but every one I know personally react this way.
What would you say to OS/2? You can recompile many Linux/GNU applications to run native on OS/2 with OSS tools. It got XFree86 (latest stable) and egcs so there's nothing new here either. The only drawback that I see is that it is owned by IBM. It is a breeze to configure if you know Linux and easier then Linux is you know Windows. I would really like to see more OS agnostic considerations. The PalmOS has its place, Linux and others do too, we just need to let the market decide and work on getting them to work together. Windows would even have its place if Microsoft would stop killing technology because it isn't Windows. We do ourselves an injustice by only promoting one OS. OS/2 is another commercial OS but its VM architecture allows for great OS compatibilities. Heck, Win32 was possible until Microsoft made it to load parts up above 1GB of address space. You see, OS/2 supports only 512 MB of address space per process (Warp 5 doesn't have that barrier) so it currently can't run Win32 applications. I can run Enlightenment and GIMP though and QT v2.0 was just ported too. Sounds like a hackers dream OS since you can pick your language and pick your runtime environment but do it all from within ONE OS. Why do you think IBM came up with the ideas that was the WorkPlaceOS? OS/2 was already doing it for the most part.
I'm still planning on looking at BeOS because I heard it has a nice OO system through and through.
I think you're correct in that the open source nature of Linux has opened the industry to the concept of something other then Windows. I also think that Microsoft has alot to do with this. They have most likely been feeding the press to do stories about other OS's since the trial began. I feel this way because for almost 10 years the press had bashed OS/2 as I tried to make a living at developing for it. There was a nice silence in the press for almost 2 years prior to the DOJ vs MSFT trial and then boom, articles about OS/2 show up. Articles about Linux Mac, and BeOS showed up too though today Linux gets most of the press. I do believe it is the press that makes this all happen. If you don't believe me just look around and all the managers require NT because everyone else is supposed to be using it. Our companies products are being ported to NT even though it is an embedded-type system (preconfigured and shipped with the PC). Not because of features but because the customer never hears about OS/2 and hears about NT all the time. The guy (customer) even was upbeat about Linux. This has 100% to do with press coverage if you ask me and not capabilities.
So in a way you are correct in that BeOS exists because of Linux but Linux exists (popularity wise) today because of the press. This isn't flame bait, I know it wouldn't die without press but it sure in heck wouldn't have EVER been tested against NT without the press popularizing it beyond the hackers systems. Remember that OS/2 had 15 million users in 1994 and the press bashed it for having too few users to survive. NT had under 500,000 licenses sold in 1995 and 700,000 in 1996 while OS/2 was selling 1,000,000 per month. NT got the press and OS/2 got sh*t, so I doubt that even if Linux ran 50% of the web servers and 70% of the universities, it would not have todays popularity without the press.
To bad IBM has non-expiring licenses for code in OS/2 because it prevents them from open sourcing it or dropping its price. I think by the end of July we will know if IBM licenses it to Stardock and what Stardock will sell it for. I do know that it will be packaged for developers in the beginning.
Warning: [OS/2 soapbox]
If you're not hell bent on a free kernel then OS/2 is still the OS to beat Microsoft and to get sh*t done. If you want usability, configurability, ability to run DOS, Windows 3.x and Win32s, Java, X11(local/clients and remote), and OS/2 (did I forget anything?) there is only one OS that can do that. It has the latest XFree86 system, GNUbin, GNUutils, and the egcs compiler to write free software and to use existing free software.
I still have to say that if the press were to put the effort into writting about OS/2 that they are putting into Linux, the DOJ would easily lose its case because the software works and works well just nobody seems to care about these things anymore unless they are free. Linux is a cool OS but it still has a year or so before it has a chance of having a easy configuration utility.
Todays OS/2 is like tomorrows Linux except the kernel isn't from Linus and it isn't OSS. Think about it, 3 years ago it beat NT server in PCWeek tests when OS/2 was running on ONE CPU and NT was running on FOUR CPU's. Today they compare Linux to NT without mention of OS/2, go figure. It even has the fastest Java on Intel so what is up? Maybe once IBM licenses OS/2 to Stardock, for resale, we will see another piece taken out of Microsofts pie and people can get sh*t done while Linux grows up. Anyway, OS/2 can do for you what you are likely to want BeOS for.
[end soapbox]
I'm wondering why all these other OS's get tested but OS/2 Warp and Warp Server aren't ever tested? I mean it is multithreaded at the kernel, runs SMP quite well, and with the free EMX and XFree86OS2 you can run many recompiles Linux applications and daemons. It seems to me that it is really more likely to beat NT because of its design and you get Linux compatibility via the OSS that is EMX/EGCS/XFree86 for OS/2. It was OS/2 that outperformed NT when NT was running 4 CPUs and OS/2 was running on only 1. We should be promoting choice from all players and yes OS/2 is still being sold by IBM you just have to ask or go find it. If we knock NT down we all win even if it is knocked down a notch by that obscure OS formally built by Microsoft themselves. Wouldn't that take the cake? (I love it, QT v2.0 is already available on OS/2)
We must look at this this way: The first tests MindCraft did returned very little data to help in fixing the problems and it was 80% NT marketing. This was bad for Linux because we got nothing from it. We were able to get a rematch where we get reams of data on what/how/why the results fell where they did. Linux still did pretty well when you consider it can run on a 4MB 486 router up to multi CPU servers in a cluster to rival super computers. We got tons of data from this and can only make things better. This wouldn't have been posible without this test. We should thank MindCraft for working with that Linux group and get back to fixing/testing Linux.
I don't think Microsoft can scream as loud as it wanted the first time the test were run. We win on these two issues. IMO.
Thankyou for that info, I'm glad to see that Apple is getting some real value from that settlement. This generally doesn't happen. Microsft usually steals technology and puts the owner under so much financial pressure (lost sales) that they have no choice but to sell/settle out of court for a fraction of the potential sales.
If any one of us patented an idea that would put $10, for every computer sold, in our pocket
do you think we would ever get close to that value from the product? No way! Microsft would tell the world your idea sucks then come up with something pitifully resembling it. They would force it into Windows, on OEMs, and tell the press to thrash your product. You would take them to court on patent infringment but you would have little money to fight them. You walk away with all your employees out of work and maybe you get a small fractional percentage of your ideas REAL potential. The innovators of the world aren't rewarded in this model.
I wonder if Microsft has a virtual graveyard somewhere on their campus that represents all the people and businesses they have put under in this manner?
They mentioned why, it is because when they have a corrupted OS (Windows never gets that way.;) they have to send a hard disk, with a working OS image, to the site. They don't want IT people at every HomeDepot and I don't blame them. What they plan to do with Linux is boot the OS image from a server and remote control is very easy on Linux.
They could be using WorkSpaceOnDemand from IBM but nobody like OS/2. Even if it has the fastest Java on Intel. Then again, they would have to maintain it at the server which is at each location. Linux makes sense and in this case cents. I only wish Linux has a marketing/PR department....