That was the last time Windows had enough market share on mobile devices to care. The increase in mobile device market share and numbers is the basis of the OP. Besides, it shows this is not new.
regarding the Vista comment, FYI, Microsoft is always trying to convince people that their products aren't really all that bad.
I read the first two points as meaning that their standard tools won't work and they'll have to find other vectors to exploit. As I mentioned elsewhere, there is lots more to be had on the Windows PC side so if anything, attack attempts should start off slowly as long as the NFC doesn't pick up and leave CC's #s wide open. IMO
it is possible but it is not like the market of Windows PCs has shrunken significantly so there's plenty to continue feeding on there as opposed to trying to attack low resource embedded devices like phones.
this reminds me of how the CEO of Green Hills was spreading FUD saying how insure Linux was because anyone could embed backdoors in not only Linux but into gcc. He was trying to say how much better their software was because it was not open source. Some of this stuff just doesn't add up when you look at the bigger picture and what the motivation behind the info often tells the real story. For Green Hills, Linux is a threat to their business model so they wanted to spread FUD to limit its effects. I wonder what the motivation is here?
Just wondering, are NDA's with the DoD the same duration as the classification of the project or data? As a US citizen, doesn't exposure to classified information require you to keep that information to yourself until it is made public regardless of the NDA you might have signed? I get it that the military is not the government but they are still VERY closely tied.
Performance observations are subjective and that device ships with Windows 7 Starter. YMMV
They need to cut the cord to desktop Windows or most will be confused by a mix. That is very dangerous for them either way they go because it threatens their profit machine, desktop Windows. IMO
they have a huge problem in that they have based everything on Windows and that is tied to a standard desktop type of device. Their development base and all their software is for PC based Windows and with that power they have kept their position in the market. If they do anything which weakens that position, they will be standing at the edge of a large cliff and can lose it all. As you said, Apple came in and defined a new market and moved it into the PC space by doing the iPad tablet but Microsoft has nothing and can do very little without a to-the-bone type of business change. Twenty something years of business methods and market protection mechanisms would not be available on this new platform and they would be losing many Windows customers to this platform.
This is probably why they are forcing the.Net subset onto Windows Phone 7 developers since it might allow those apps back onto Windows desktops, tablets, or netbooks. So any Windows tablet with any hope of competing with the likes of Apple or Google devices mean customers have to accept something different than the Windows they know. Once they accept that, it's nothing to accept there might be value in something other than Microsoft. And really, the iPhone has already shown that but lots of people don't see this. I still hear people telling my, "but it's not Windows so how useful can it really be". They totally miss that the iPhone and Android show that people don't need Windows to have useful software on computing devices.
it also seems the OS does not scale well down to devices without a power cord, ie battery powered devices. Even XP required more hardware than the original Linux based netbooks and from what I've heard, Windows 7 is still slower and more resource consuming than XP was. Not something well suited to compete with the likes of the iPad nor Android or Chrome OS devices. Yes these others are trimmed down OSs but that is what Microsoft is up against so if they can't produce something which will run in the same price point with good responsiveness, demo all you want, people won't buy them.
I was just reading how Intel's x86 based Moorestown can't run Windows and but has another x86 based chip called Oakdale which will run Windows. Something about Windows requiring a PCI bus. Not surprisingly, others are already mentioning the higher power usage and poor performance of Windows 7 on the Atom based devices. More demo's like last years HP Slate and no products will not make investors happy. IMO
I've seen this but I'm still very skeptical. The extents that they go to make it sounds like so much work was done to find the bug it almost sounds like an excuse or their are trying too hard. I saw this type of thing in the commission report also. It is the kind of thing I would expect from them to hide any facts which pointed that a Windows computer virus could do so much harm. They would not want this out and neither would the Fed gov.
It could be it was the app software which failed but I would not trust what the company spokes person says, nor any partial body or commission. And even less when they explain things in ways which don't really explain the problem but go out of their way to explain how much work it was and that it was a UNIX system when so often it's not Windows but just a computer virus/etc. strange IMO
right, 49 not 39. For some reason I recall incorrectly as 39 days and always have. I recall though that it OS software which had the failure and it was the OS which failed, not the app software. If it was an uptime wrapping thing at the app level then the LAX thing would have been fixable with a very narrow scope of change. Since I believe it was OS based, they whole system would have had to be re-certified once the OS was patched.
prove my statements wrong before blowing out your bullshit. Just calling them FUD and bullshit and telling me I have to prove the statements does not make you even remotely correct.
I could no longer find anything on the LAX computer crash, nor could I find the info on the CSX signal system virus issue but they happened. As for the blackout, they would not say directly there were computer viruses to blame but after reading the news reports and blogs at the time and reading the commission report along with the timing of the blackout and one of the big spreading viruses at the time it all pointed to network collisions keeping warning messages from getting to the display system.
I don't have proof of the invention of the wheel but it really did happen Mr/Ms Noob.
LoB
"Black day for power programmers" Windows virus
on
When Computers Go Wrong
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
to comments, I thought the deal with the big blackout was that the network(TCP/IP) was flooded with a Windows virus infection and if you know TCP/IP, it's not very good with lots of traffic. There was so much traffic that the computer( a UNIX box ) sending status messages to the control room display system could not get messages out of it's buffers. TCP/IP does this thing where the message isn't put on the network if there's going to be a collision and it waits some before trying again. With the network flooded with Windows based computers trying to infect each other, the warning messages were stuck in the UNIX box and eventually the buffers filled up as more and more warning messages queued up. They seem to be blaming the UNIX box software because the software ended up crashing because they didn't catch the situation where they buffers overflowed. IMO, that was caused by Windows and it's ability to be a great petri dish for viruses and the idiots who keep putting Windows systems on critical networks.
The second comment I have on this is about missing the LAX Communications system software crash which caused multiple near misses on the tarmac and in the air when air traffic controllers could not communicate with pilots because of the crash. The cause of the software crash was a UNIX system was replaced with a Windows based system which had a known flaw. The flaw was that the OS could not run for more than 39 days no matter what was running on it. The system and software was still approved and put inplace with a maintenance instruction of rebooting the computer every 30 days. In comes a new employee who sees things are working fine so he/she doesn't reboot the computer and 9 days later the system crashes. The backup does the same and both are unable to recover and it takes hours to get the system back running again. That should have been in the list IMO.
There was also the CSX Railway situation when lots of its signals go offline because they are run by Windows and their Windows computers got a virus.
It would be nice to see a more complete and more accurate list of these kinds of computer software failures.
yes but you're talking about the US DoD and aren't they not the same ones who have no way to secure data being removed from their secure computers via USB or CD/DVD? I thought I read recently that they are now going back to eliminating those interfaces on some of their systems but not all and still have no way to secure using those devices on their secure network. So I would not look for logic here.
causes like providing "free" Microsoft software for schools and libraries with restrictions that the schools and libraries can't use open source software. I'm with the parent on this one because they mentioned Bill Gates and his foundation is a front for addicting children to Microsoft software. IMO
Is Avast not malware? I once saw how many times Avast would throw up popups on one computer and how difficult it was to remove so I thought Avast was malware.
I would think that businesses would want to integrate these phone apps with their services, not every PC on desktops.
As for Silverlight, I don't recall it being sold as a subset of MS.Net and I agree that there are probably tons of API's in MS.Net which would be of no use on a phone. I had thought that Silverlight was designed to displace Adobe Flash in browsers so it being discussed as a phone platform threw me off.
That also explains why Silverlight isn't getting as much traction on the interweb since it's tied to Microsofts platform(s) being an MS.Net API.
so what's great about WP7 is that it will tie the phone to the Windows Desktop PC? Leveraging that desktop worked for desktop products but it has never worked for them otherwise. Seeing how Android is already hear and moving forward fast, WP7 without any compelling reason over the competition is a yawner.
And what's up with using Sliverlight as the "native" development platform for WP7? I would have figured it would have been MS.Net. Way to go Microsoft for looking pretty schizophrenic on the vision thing. You know, that stuff you seem to say Google has none of when spreading your FUD about other companies instead of taking care of your own house.
And they have always brought a barrel full of dollars to the table when bringing out products. They have to pay vendors to use it long enough to get people to think it really is worth using. WP7 is nothing new in this regard. IMO
why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco
I wonder how many times GM executives thought about this question once they started working on the EV2^h^h^hVolt.
for some background, GM sold their majority stake in the NiMH patent to Texaco around the time they were crushing the EV1: http://pppad.blogspot.com/2007/05/nimh-held-hostage-by-chevron-texaco.html
I also read that the 16KWh Li battery used in the Volt can only be run to about 50% so only 8KWh are usable. A 400lb NiMH made of EV-95 batteries would provide 12KWh and provide more power because they could be run down much lower than 50%. Shoulda, coulda, woulda GM is run by idiots.
if it can be shown that multi-touch really is _that_ useful then the vertical touchscreen would have value as long as it also included standard mouse support. The continuous curved surface only has a benefit if there's a use case for touch usage from one screen to the other. And _throwing_ objects on the screen from one to the other surface completely bypasses the need for the curved screen.
This does make me wonder if anyone's made a camera based multi-touch display using a standard LCD display minus the backlight instead of using projectors. You'd still need a box behind it so the camera(s) can see the touches but a lighted box behind a standard LCD might be cheaper than using projectors. Will have to google this.
not really new but I can imagine anyone working in and round this field would have used or considered using a projected display to cause reaction patterns on the material. Using a projected keyboard having two projectors(1 visiable light, one UV light) projecting on a flat material such as made from the above mentioned polymers must be what they have "invented" and patented.
So now, anyone who wants to use these PH sensitive polymers combined with a computer display system is SOL without paying Microsoft. this sucks IMO
When I read the title of the post I figured they couldn't be talking about lighted pixels of even a flexible display since flexible displays are still just prototypes and they can only roll and bend, not stretch. Flexible to the point of pixel to pixel distances changing enough to be visible means the pixel connections must be stretching and that's probably 1+ decades away. I figured they must be talking about a flexible/rubber-like surface with actuators under it to give it a relief and then lighted by a projected display. Just reading the first paragraph of TFA says that it's about projected displays and not any kind of LCD or OLED type of display.
Where is the invention?
Unless they've come up with a material which is light sensitive and expands from the light and if so why is everyone here talking about LCD displays? If they do not have this light sensitive expanding material and are patenting the idea of this being a reality some day then once again it's another BS type of patent because it's obvious. IMO
yes, and their reaction sounds exactly what you would expect from them since their business is money from threats. I hope it works out for the better for Mr Syfert.
they also are using max capacity figures for the cars/batteries and reality is not that everyone will be draining their battery every day. Not to mention the charging goes on over many hours and the majority of that will occur in the evening. What this is probably all about is spreading FUD so that they can get PUC approval for increasing charges so they can push selling their own charging systems. I would not doubt that they have lobbyists working on legislation requiring EV manufacturers require Utility approved charging stations.
There are too many shock and awe comments in the article to think it's not a PR effort.
that might apply more to a product or company without a known brand but Microsoft and Windows need brand recognition? I don't quite buy that and although Microsoft has billions to put behind this, they've hit the apex and _need_ a success. I say they've hit an apex because they were found to have pulled revenue from other productlines and pumped up the Windows product lines. I don't believe they have ever had to make the Windows productline look good revenue wise.
If this really is a branding thing, which I doubt, they had better have another play lined up showing why people would want their phone over the iPhone, Androids, Blackberrys or even Symbians.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the last time Windows had enough market share on mobile devices to care. The increase in mobile device market share and numbers is the basis of the OP. Besides, it shows this is not new.
regarding the Vista comment, FYI, Microsoft is always trying to convince people that their products aren't really all that bad.
LoB
I read the first two points as meaning that their standard tools won't work and they'll have to find other vectors to exploit. As I mentioned elsewhere, there is lots more to be had on the Windows PC side so if anything, attack attempts should start off slowly as long as the NFC doesn't pick up and leave CC's #s wide open. IMO
LoB
http://blogs.mcafee.com/mcafee-labs/windows-mobile-trojan-sends-unauthorized-information-and-leaves-device-vulnerable
it is possible but it is not like the market of Windows PCs has shrunken significantly so there's plenty to continue feeding on there as opposed to trying to attack low resource embedded devices like phones.
LoB
but I'm hopeful the vuvuzela requirement is forthcoming.
LoB
this reminds me of how the CEO of Green Hills was spreading FUD saying how insure Linux was because anyone could embed backdoors in not only Linux but into gcc. He was trying to say how much better their software was because it was not open source. Some of this stuff just doesn't add up when you look at the bigger picture and what the motivation behind the info often tells the real story. For Green Hills, Linux is a threat to their business model so they wanted to spread FUD to limit its effects. I wonder what the motivation is here?
Just wondering, are NDA's with the DoD the same duration as the classification of the project or data? As a US citizen, doesn't exposure to classified information require you to keep that information to yourself until it is made public regardless of the NDA you might have signed? I get it that the military is not the government but they are still VERY closely tied.
LoB
Performance observations are subjective and that device ships with Windows 7 Starter. YMMV
They need to cut the cord to desktop Windows or most will be confused by a mix. That is very dangerous for them either way they go because it threatens their profit machine, desktop Windows. IMO
LoB
they have a huge problem in that they have based everything on Windows and that is tied to a standard desktop type of device. Their development base and all their software is for PC based Windows and with that power they have kept their position in the market. If they do anything which weakens that position, they will be standing at the edge of a large cliff and can lose it all. As you said, Apple came in and defined a new market and moved it into the PC space by doing the iPad tablet but Microsoft has nothing and can do very little without a to-the-bone type of business change. Twenty something years of business methods and market protection mechanisms would not be available on this new platform and they would be losing many Windows customers to this platform.
.Net subset onto Windows Phone 7 developers since it might allow those apps back onto Windows desktops, tablets, or netbooks. So any Windows tablet with any hope of competing with the likes of Apple or Google devices mean customers have to accept something different than the Windows they know. Once they accept that, it's nothing to accept there might be value in something other than Microsoft. And really, the iPhone has already shown that but lots of people don't see this. I still hear people telling my, "but it's not Windows so how useful can it really be". They totally miss that the iPhone and Android show that people don't need Windows to have useful software on computing devices.
This is probably why they are forcing the
LoB
it also seems the OS does not scale well down to devices without a power cord, ie battery powered devices. Even XP required more hardware than the original Linux based netbooks and from what I've heard, Windows 7 is still slower and more resource consuming than XP was. Not something well suited to compete with the likes of the iPad nor Android or Chrome OS devices. Yes these others are trimmed down OSs but that is what Microsoft is up against so if they can't produce something which will run in the same price point with good responsiveness, demo all you want, people won't buy them.
I was just reading how Intel's x86 based Moorestown can't run Windows and but has another x86 based chip called Oakdale which will run Windows. Something about Windows requiring a PCI bus. Not surprisingly, others are already mentioning the higher power usage and poor performance of Windows 7 on the Atom based devices. More demo's like last years HP Slate and no products will not make investors happy. IMO
LoB
I've seen this but I'm still very skeptical. The extents that they go to make it sounds like so much work was done to find the bug it almost sounds like an excuse or their are trying too hard. I saw this type of thing in the commission report also. It is the kind of thing I would expect from them to hide any facts which pointed that a Windows computer virus could do so much harm. They would not want this out and neither would the Fed gov.
It could be it was the app software which failed but I would not trust what the company spokes person says, nor any partial body or commission. And even less when they explain things in ways which don't really explain the problem but go out of their way to explain how much work it was and that it was a UNIX system when so often it's not Windows but just a computer virus/etc. strange IMO
right, 49 not 39. For some reason I recall incorrectly as 39 days and always have. I recall though that it OS software which had the failure and it was the OS which failed, not the app software. If it was an uptime wrapping thing at the app level then the LAX thing would have been fixable with a very narrow scope of change. Since I believe it was OS based, they whole system would have had to be re-certified once the OS was patched.
LoB
right, ethernet and not TCP/IP. Thanks for the correction, my bad.
LoB
prove my statements wrong before blowing out your bullshit. Just calling them FUD and bullshit and telling me I have to prove the statements does not make you even remotely correct.
I could no longer find anything on the LAX computer crash, nor could I find the info on the CSX signal system virus issue but they happened. As for the blackout, they would not say directly there were computer viruses to blame but after reading the news reports and blogs at the time and reading the commission report along with the timing of the blackout and one of the big spreading viruses at the time it all pointed to network collisions keeping warning messages from getting to the display system.
I don't have proof of the invention of the wheel but it really did happen Mr/Ms Noob.
LoB
to comments, I thought the deal with the big blackout was that the network(TCP/IP) was flooded with a Windows virus infection and if you know TCP/IP, it's not very good with lots of traffic. There was so much traffic that the computer( a UNIX box ) sending status messages to the control room display system could not get messages out of it's buffers. TCP/IP does this thing where the message isn't put on the network if there's going to be a collision and it waits some before trying again. With the network flooded with Windows based computers trying to infect each other, the warning messages were stuck in the UNIX box and eventually the buffers filled up as more and more warning messages queued up. They seem to be blaming the UNIX box software because the software ended up crashing because they didn't catch the situation where they buffers overflowed. IMO, that was caused by Windows and it's ability to be a great petri dish for viruses and the idiots who keep putting Windows systems on critical networks.
The second comment I have on this is about missing the LAX Communications system software crash which caused multiple near misses on the tarmac and in the air when air traffic controllers could not communicate with pilots because of the crash. The cause of the software crash was a UNIX system was replaced with a Windows based system which had a known flaw. The flaw was that the OS could not run for more than 39 days no matter what was running on it. The system and software was still approved and put inplace with a maintenance instruction of rebooting the computer every 30 days. In comes a new employee who sees things are working fine so he/she doesn't reboot the computer and 9 days later the system crashes. The backup does the same and both are unable to recover and it takes hours to get the system back running again. That should have been in the list IMO.
There was also the CSX Railway situation when lots of its signals go offline because they are run by Windows and their Windows computers got a virus.
It would be nice to see a more complete and more accurate list of these kinds of computer software failures.
LoB
yes but you're talking about the US DoD and aren't they not the same ones who have no way to secure data being removed from their secure computers via USB or CD/DVD? I thought I read recently that they are now going back to eliminating those interfaces on some of their systems but not all and still have no way to secure using those devices on their secure network. So I would not look for logic here.
LoB
causes like providing "free" Microsoft software for schools and libraries with restrictions that the schools and libraries can't use open source software. I'm with the parent on this one because they mentioned Bill Gates and his foundation is a front for addicting children to Microsoft software. IMO
LoB
Is Avast not malware? I once saw how many times Avast would throw up popups on one computer and how difficult it was to remove so I thought Avast was malware.
LoB
I would think that businesses would want to integrate these phone apps with their services, not every PC on desktops.
.Net and I agree that there are probably tons of API's in MS .Net which would be of no use on a phone. I had thought that Silverlight was designed to displace Adobe Flash in browsers so it being discussed as a phone platform threw me off.
.Net API.
As for Silverlight, I don't recall it being sold as a subset of MS
That also explains why Silverlight isn't getting as much traction on the interweb since it's tied to Microsofts platform(s) being an MS
LoB
so what's great about WP7 is that it will tie the phone to the Windows Desktop PC? Leveraging that desktop worked for desktop products but it has never worked for them otherwise. Seeing how Android is already hear and moving forward fast, WP7 without any compelling reason over the competition is a yawner.
.Net. Way to go Microsoft for looking pretty schizophrenic on the vision thing. You know, that stuff you seem to say Google has none of when spreading your FUD about other companies instead of taking care of your own house.
And what's up with using Sliverlight as the "native" development platform for WP7? I would have figured it would have been MS
And they have always brought a barrel full of dollars to the table when bringing out products. They have to pay vendors to use it long enough to get people to think it really is worth using. WP7 is nothing new in this regard. IMO
LoB
cept it is a sinister plan to control and monitor workers data connections. bwwwaaaaaaaa
LoB
why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco
why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco
why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco
why did I sell NiMH patent to Texaco
I wonder how many times GM executives thought about this question once they started working on the EV2^h^h^hVolt.
for some background, GM sold their majority stake in the NiMH patent to Texaco around the time they were crushing the EV1:
http://pppad.blogspot.com/2007/05/nimh-held-hostage-by-chevron-texaco.html
I also read that the 16KWh Li battery used in the Volt can only be run to about 50% so only 8KWh are usable. A 400lb NiMH made of EV-95 batteries would provide 12KWh and provide more power because they could be run down much lower than 50%. Shoulda, coulda, woulda GM is run by idiots.
LoB
if it can be shown that multi-touch really is _that_ useful then the vertical touchscreen would have value as long as it also included standard mouse support. The continuous curved surface only has a benefit if there's a use case for touch usage from one screen to the other. And _throwing_ objects on the screen from one to the other surface completely bypasses the need for the curved screen.
This does make me wonder if anyone's made a camera based multi-touch display using a standard LCD display minus the backlight instead of using projectors. You'd still need a box behind it so the camera(s) can see the touches but a lighted box behind a standard LCD might be cheaper than using projectors. Will have to google this.
LoB
looks like they are probably talking about some PH sensitive polymer where UV light is used to change the PH levels via ionization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH-sensitive_polymers
not really new but I can imagine anyone working in and round this field would have used or considered using a projected display to cause reaction patterns on the material. Using a projected keyboard having two projectors(1 visiable light, one UV light) projecting on a flat material such as made from the above mentioned polymers must be what they have "invented" and patented.
So now, anyone who wants to use these PH sensitive polymers combined with a computer display system is SOL without paying Microsoft. this sucks IMO
LoB
When I read the title of the post I figured they couldn't be talking about lighted pixels of even a flexible display since flexible displays are still just prototypes and they can only roll and bend, not stretch. Flexible to the point of pixel to pixel distances changing enough to be visible means the pixel connections must be stretching and that's probably 1+ decades away. I figured they must be talking about a flexible/rubber-like surface with actuators under it to give it a relief and then lighted by a projected display. Just reading the first paragraph of TFA says that it's about projected displays and not any kind of LCD or OLED type of display.
Where is the invention?
Unless they've come up with a material which is light sensitive and expands from the light and if so why is everyone here talking about LCD displays? If they do not have this light sensitive expanding material and are patenting the idea of this being a reality some day then once again it's another BS type of patent because it's obvious. IMO
LoB
yes, and their reaction sounds exactly what you would expect from them since their business is money from threats. I hope it works out for the better for Mr Syfert.
LoB
they also are using max capacity figures for the cars/batteries and reality is not that everyone will be draining their battery every day. Not to mention the charging goes on over many hours and the majority of that will occur in the evening. What this is probably all about is spreading FUD so that they can get PUC approval for increasing charges so they can push selling their own charging systems. I would not doubt that they have lobbyists working on legislation requiring EV manufacturers require Utility approved charging stations.
There are too many shock and awe comments in the article to think it's not a PR effort.
LoB
that might apply more to a product or company without a known brand but Microsoft and Windows need brand recognition? I don't quite buy that and although Microsoft has billions to put behind this, they've hit the apex and _need_ a success. I say they've hit an apex because they were found to have pulled revenue from other productlines and pumped up the Windows product lines. I don't believe they have ever had to make the Windows productline look good revenue wise.
If this really is a branding thing, which I doubt, they had better have another play lined up showing why people would want their phone over the iPhone, Androids, Blackberrys or even Symbians.
LoB