Read the Meryl Lynch analysis on the link I posted. You will quickly learn that the Xbox will be costing MS about $250 a unit this spring and the PS3 will be costing Sony $500. The problem for Sony is that it will stay that way for over a year, while the Xbox keeps costing MS less and less. MS is releasing the Xbox 360 at about cost for them, at a cost of $500, Sony will be losing from day one. The link is in my thread above.
I disagree. If you look at who MS has said they are
targeting then you understand the decision. They are looking to bring in young
women and soccer moms to this market. The hardcore gamers are going to buy it
no matter what it looks like, and it isn't so ugly that they don't want it
(frankly I don't think its ugly at all, but we disagree about that point.) The
important thing to note is that the Xbox 360 design doesn't look intimidating or
complicated or as you put it a "boring beige box". It has sleek curves,
simply design and not to flashy. Those are important things because the largest deterrent
for women is it seems like a "boys" toy and the systems are intimidating and
complicated. They are trying to break that stigma and grow the market.Its a
very good design considering their stated objectives for the device. The
objectives also make good sense, grow the market, make more money.
Those are all hideous. I can't imagine the ONLY decent looking one is the one they went with. Also, anyone wonder why they don't have the shiny metal look (e.g. PS3) for any of the prototypes? Its pretty common, and you would think that with all the money they spent it would they would have gotten at least one.
All and all, those are interesting, but I doubt that's it, or any of them were finalists.
First, you are welcome. And let me continue to enlighten you.
"If they're going to change their APIs they need to have some backwards compatibility."
THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEM! THEY WERE ENTIRELY NEW. ADDED TO THE OS. These features didn't exist before SP2.
And as far as "backwards" compatibility. NO they shouldn't in this case. There are 1000's of antivirus programs and version in existence. MS should not be building unique custom validation (installed and working) for them in Windows Service Packs. It is up to the anti-virus maker to provide update to their software (like Symantec did).
If MS made loopholes in the security center so some software could be listed without proper validation then it would be a SECURITY HOLE! To do that they would be in essence "hacking" the virus software in itself. Kinda defeats the purpose of the Security Center doesn't it?
"You don't release an API spec and expect everyone to instantly adapt to it." When it's something like this you do. SP2 was almost considered a new OS for WELL OVER a year before its release, and offered many betas and RCs. The Security Center was well documented, and conferences on how to develop for it were given. This didn't sneak up on anymore. This comment suggests that you clearly are not a software developer; probably don't even know what an API is.
Seriously, you zealots are so desperate to complain about MS its pathetic. There are lots to complain about, but this isn't one of them.
PS. your list, 1,2,3. Yes that is accurate. Its not theory, they are historical facts.
"If they made the OS better so it did not have so many bugs and was not so susceptible to viruses"
That is stupid. Many viruses are files that users are tricked into opening. "Look Pamela Anderson naked" and they click the.exe. There is no way for windows to distinguish what programs a user wants to run vs not run. That program could be a virus or it could be a spread. If it's a spread the user would be pissed they couldn't see it (if windows blocked it).
PS. ALL Operating Systems are susceptible to this type of attack. Its just the other markets are puny and virus writers don't often waste their time on them.
"It is a textbook abuse of a monopoly"
Actually no its not. IE and Windows Media were textbook cases. They entered a new unrelated market and bundled the software for free to do it. Your case is comparable to saying Automatic Updates is an anti-trust issue. Of course it's not. This software is designed to protect the OS (or the 'product') from threats, just like auto-updates.
"Of course that would require good coding and development, and MS 'just doesn't do that sort of thing.'"
You can't be serious. MS might put out some crappy products, but they also put out some really good ones. Office comes to mind. Bad coding? Server 2003 is very well written and is the OS that has given them huge increases in market share for the server market. It's not cheap either.
MS has recruited some of the best "coders" in the word. Ever hear of Ray Ozzie's Groove Networks? Stop spreading FUD or get a clue.
"Maybe you should take a look at anti-trust law and think about how many companies this will put out of business before you decide it is legal and "right." What makes you think this is either, other than the fact that you get stuff "free" even though the price of the OS goes up mysteriously? "
Abuse of a monopoly isn't decided based on "how many companies this will put out of business". Maybe YOU should read up on antitrust law.
You are what has become the cliché of Slashdot: an average guy with mediocre intellect trying to "come of age" by blindly bashing MS... most likely over weight playing in his mom's basement, with an unoriginal and stereotypical arrogant zealot mentality who has no original thought of his own.
According to your first post. "Kind of like how XP SP2 didn't recognize Norton Anti-Virus as a anti-virus software and warned you that you didn't have any anti-virus software installed? Symantec had a patch that disabled this warning right after XP SP2 came out."
When Symantec wrote that version they didn't have the Security Center's APIs. Why you ask? SP2 wasn't out when they wrote their software and the info wasn't available for them to interface. Since the launch of SP2 Symantec's NEW anti-virus software is seen by the Security Center, Why? Because they now have the APIs and can interface.
Why is this important? Well, to make your program seen by the sp2 security center in windows, you have to tell windows you are installed. How do you do that? With the APIs written for the Security Center.
Symantec didn't know the code to interface with windows when they wrote your anti-virus software... it didn't exist at that time.
Don't be such a dumbass. It's not like this stuff is complicated.
well to be fair, the newer versions were noticed. You are talking about an older one that didn't follow the windows anti-virus api's for the security center.
The only potential conflict of interest I see is if MS charges for the software. As long as it is free its a GREAT addition to Windows.
However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry. That is a problem, but not MS's problem. Its a free market issue, and the market will adjust.
As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.
All in all I tihnk this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do? MS is making the correct decision to include it in Vista. If they charge extra for it, or turn it into a paid subscription service, that is an entirely new issue. That would be a conflict of issue, and morally wrong, maybe not legally, but it would hurt their business.
How many times are we going to discuss this topic? I mean I get posting it again IF there were some new/significant developments, but there aren't. Enough already.
Yet we see nothing about Riots in France, International Lawsuits against Apple over the IPod, Sony announcing no X-Box live-style servers, Meryl Lynch's analysis on how MUCH the PS3 is going to cost Sony, and the list goes on and on and on. There is some NEW news, its just we are getting it on Slashdot.
Does anyone else feel this way? About seeing this post again, and not getting to see other news that is worthy of discussion?
This is a HUGE blow to satellite tv providers. At this point they just can't offer anything like this. Eventually this could take a big bit in Ad Revenue for prime time shows, but out of the gate, it's a pretty big win for the broadcast networks.
Very savvy move by Comcast too, Verizon and SBC have already announced their plans to do this with services like FIOS. Comcast at that point didn't have any plans to do it, but they certainly can move much faster and are first to market. Kudos to the execs at comcast.
from what I've read they are taking the C# stored procedures and converting them into t-sql.
I think the idea is allot of developers are writing crapping procedures because they don't really understand the t-sql syntax... so they are trying to help them by letting them write it in a syntax/logic they are familiar with. But from what I understand (again, I could be wrong, but) the C# is getting converted into sql before it actually gets stored.
I beta test their software and don't have to pay them to "test" it.
I do pay for MSDN, but that money is going to the developing tools and code I get for the subscription. Hence the DN in MSDN, Developers Network. Also I get access to any MS software released since DOS. The betas of their software is more of a "perk" if you will.
As far as "people who just want to learn the tool before it is released to the public", "just"? It's a friggen business man. If MS opened up all their programs to the public before the release, the world would be using betas and less inclined to use the final product when it got out. Not to mention you guys wouldn't start flaming them for any problems with the software, even IF it were in beta. I've seen tons of flames on Visual Studio 2k5 on Slashdot for months now, and it was just released today.
Try and be a little fair with your MS complaints... I'm sure you don't trash Firefox for crashing on its betas. I mean I understand this is a anti-ms site, but come on. Do you complain about oracle not giving everyone their betas? How about ibm?
needham & co, in the financial world doesn't carry allot of weight. I would hardly call them "Wall Street".
"If we assume that all of the growth in Mac shipments during the past three quarters resulted from Windows users purchasing a Mac, then purchases by Windows users exceeded one million,"
That statement alone should have made this post rejected by slashdot. What a load of crap. Lets talk about all the kids that go to college and buy their first computer, tons of that market is MAC. How about Business' expanding their creative departments. I have two clients that doubled their art departments and added almost 100 macs. That doesn't mean they artists were Windows users.
I believe its possible that there are allot of converts, but certainly can't conclude that by this logic or post.
I think God not creating women first is proof that he is all knowing. God knew how irritating women would be, and that is why he didn't give adam "a mate". Adam wanted women/mate... but little did he know.
Now WE are paying for his mistake.... nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag...
The only problem with that Theory is the bible says bluntly that Moses wrote the books. Either the bible is accurate or inaccurate. Christianity is based on the notion that the Bible is 100% accurate and inspired directly by God.
For your link to be correct, Christianity as we know it today would unravel entirely.
All puns intended. This is the Vatican's hailmarry at becoming relevant again. It has little to nothing to do with what the church believes or what the bible says. It is about what society believes. All this really is, is the church saying to people "see we aren't so different, come join us, again, please, pretty please."
Without expressing my personal belief on this subject; this is similar to the debate about homosexuality in the church. Either you believe what the bible says or not. It says very clearly in the old and new testaments that homosexuality is wrong ("an abomination"). It's pretty cut and dry. The same principal applies here; If you believe what the bible says, then you believe that the earth was created in 6 days.
Again, I am not expressing my personal views on those subjects, just my view that if you are going to say you believe in a religion that is based on a book (Christianity), you can't just change it every time something is unpopular. OR if the book is wrong, then you have to address the fact the book is wrong. The church can NOT reconcile LOGICALLY their position. They may be able to reconcile it scientifically, but the bible is very clear, and even clearer in its original transcripts. 6 days, not millions of years. Evolution requires millions of years, not 6 days.
I believe this will backfire on the church. People will see them as just blowing in the wind, and eventually even the third world countries will ignore them completely. The Catholic Church has lost its relevance in the modern world. I don't believe religion has, just the Vatican.
I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it. I odn't believe I'm alone with that opinion either.
First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.
I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.
A roll-out that size always has big problems, and the only thing will be remembered by the media is that this linux roll-out had big problems. It would be much smarter to transition little by little. It is good press for Linspire, but thats about it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great is they did move everything over, for no other reason it would be a great case study for the world. The only problem I see is the speed at which it would be done.
Slashdot Mirror
you are right. Maybe the kid should have called it Lindows Defender.
Read the Meryl Lynch analysis on the link I posted. You will quickly learn that the Xbox will be costing MS about $250 a unit this spring and the PS3 will be costing Sony $500. The problem for Sony is that it will stay that way for over a year, while the Xbox keeps costing MS less and less. MS is releasing the Xbox 360 at about cost for them, at a cost of $500, Sony will be losing from day one. The link is in my thread above.
MS isn't the only on who uses legal muscle to get what they want from the little guy.
That said, its a pretty shitty thing to do to a young kid. I mean, at least throw him a bone and give him a little money.
Sony's design isn't going after most women with the PS3, but to be fair they are doing lots of things different (no x-box live-style service, taking huge losses for years on each sale of the system, etc.).
Those are all hideous. I can't imagine the ONLY decent looking one is the one they went with. Also, anyone wonder why they don't have the shiny metal look (e.g. PS3) for any of the prototypes? Its pretty common, and you would think that with all the money they spent it would they would have gotten at least one.
All and all, those are interesting, but I doubt that's it, or any of them were finalists.
First, you are welcome. And let me continue to enlighten you.
"If they're going to change their APIs they need to have some backwards compatibility."
THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THEM! THEY WERE ENTIRELY NEW. ADDED TO THE OS. These features didn't exist before SP2.
And as far as "backwards" compatibility. NO they shouldn't in this case. There are 1000's of antivirus programs and version in existence. MS should not be building unique custom validation (installed and working) for them in Windows Service Packs. It is up to the anti-virus maker to provide update to their software (like Symantec did).
If MS made loopholes in the security center so some software could be listed without proper validation then it would be a SECURITY HOLE! To do that they would be in essence "hacking" the virus software in itself. Kinda defeats the purpose of the Security Center doesn't it?
"You don't release an API spec and expect everyone to instantly adapt to it."
When it's something like this you do. SP2 was almost considered a new OS for WELL OVER a year before its release, and offered many betas and RCs. The Security Center was well documented, and conferences on how to develop for it were given. This didn't sneak up on anymore. This comment suggests that you clearly are not a software developer; probably don't even know what an API is.
Seriously, you zealots are so desperate to complain about MS its pathetic. There are lots to complain about, but this isn't one of them.
PS. your list, 1,2,3. Yes that is accurate. Its not theory, they are historical facts.
"If they made the OS better so it did not have so many bugs and was not so susceptible to viruses"
.exe. There is no way for windows to distinguish what programs a user wants to run vs not run. That program could be a virus or it could be a spread. If it's a spread the user would be pissed they couldn't see it (if windows blocked it).
That is stupid. Many viruses are files that users are tricked into opening. "Look Pamela Anderson naked" and they click the
PS. ALL Operating Systems are susceptible to this type of attack. Its just the other markets are puny and virus writers don't often waste their time on them.
"It is a textbook abuse of a monopoly"
Actually no its not. IE and Windows Media were textbook cases. They entered a new unrelated market and bundled the software for free to do it. Your case is comparable to saying Automatic Updates is an anti-trust issue. Of course it's not. This software is designed to protect the OS (or the 'product') from threats, just like auto-updates.
"Of course that would require good coding and development, and MS 'just doesn't do that sort of thing.'"
You can't be serious. MS might put out some crappy products, but they also put out some really good ones. Office comes to mind. Bad coding? Server 2003 is very well written and is the OS that has given them huge increases in market share for the server market. It's not cheap either.
MS has recruited some of the best "coders" in the word. Ever hear of Ray Ozzie's Groove Networks? Stop spreading FUD or get a clue.
"Maybe you should take a look at anti-trust law and think about how many companies this will put out of business before you decide it is legal and "right." What makes you think this is either, other than the fact that you get stuff "free" even though the price of the OS goes up mysteriously? "
Abuse of a monopoly isn't decided based on "how many companies this will put out of business". Maybe YOU should read up on antitrust law.
You are what has become the cliché of Slashdot: an average guy with mediocre intellect trying to "come of age" by blindly bashing MS... most likely over weight playing in his mom's basement, with an unoriginal and stereotypical arrogant zealot mentality who has no original thought of his own.
Good luck with that.
Seriously do you think before you type?
According to your first post. "Kind of like how XP SP2 didn't recognize Norton Anti-Virus as a anti-virus software and warned you that you didn't have any anti-virus software installed? Symantec had a patch that disabled this warning right after XP SP2 came out."
When Symantec wrote that version they didn't have the Security Center's APIs. Why you ask? SP2 wasn't out when they wrote their software and the info wasn't available for them to interface. Since the launch of SP2 Symantec's NEW anti-virus software is seen by the Security Center, Why? Because they now have the APIs and can interface.
Why is this important? Well, to make your program seen by the sp2 security center in windows, you have to tell windows you are installed. How do you do that? With the APIs written for the Security Center.
Symantec didn't know the code to interface with windows when they wrote your anti-virus software... it didn't exist at that time.
Don't be such a dumbass. It's not like this stuff is complicated.
well to be fair, the newer versions were noticed. You are talking about an older one that didn't follow the windows anti-virus api's for the security center.
That comment is quite misleading.
The only potential conflict of interest I see is if MS charges for the software. As long as it is free its a GREAT addition to Windows.
However, it would be horable for our economy. As they start to give away anti-virus/spy-ware software, that eliminates a multibillion dollar industry. That is a problem, but not MS's problem. Its a free market issue, and the market will adjust.
As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.
All in all I tihnk this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do? MS is making the correct decision to include it in Vista. If they charge extra for it, or turn it into a paid subscription service, that is an entirely new issue. That would be a conflict of issue, and morally wrong, maybe not legally, but it would hurt their business.
How many times are we going to discuss this topic? I mean I get posting it again IF there were some new/significant developments, but there aren't. Enough already.
Yet we see nothing about Riots in France, International Lawsuits against Apple over the IPod, Sony announcing no X-Box live-style servers, Meryl Lynch's analysis on how MUCH the PS3 is going to cost Sony, and the list goes on and on and on. There is some NEW news, its just we are getting it on Slashdot.
Does anyone else feel this way? About seeing this post again, and not getting to see other news that is worthy of discussion?
I thought Child's Play was a not so scary movie about a doll? ;)
This is a HUGE blow to satellite tv providers. At this point they just can't offer anything like this. Eventually this could take a big bit in Ad Revenue for prime time shows, but out of the gate, it's a pretty big win for the broadcast networks.
Very savvy move by Comcast too, Verizon and SBC have already announced their plans to do this with services like FIOS. Comcast at that point didn't have any plans to do it, but they certainly can move much faster and are first to market. Kudos to the execs at comcast.
LOL. I thought back in 82 MS wasn't evil yet?
Since MS wasn't on the list, I'm sure we are going to see allot of flames!
I am not trolling here, I honestly don't know allot about database software.
How does this compare to SQL 2k and the newly released SQL 2k5? I already know the comments about open source, free, etc.
THAT ASIDE, how do the released compiled programs compare? Does anyone know?
from what I've read they are taking the C# stored procedures and converting them into t-sql.
I think the idea is allot of developers are writing crapping procedures because they don't really understand the t-sql syntax... so they are trying to help them by letting them write it in a syntax/logic they are familiar with. But from what I understand (again, I could be wrong, but) the C# is getting converted into sql before it actually gets stored.
I beta test their software and don't have to pay them to "test" it.
I do pay for MSDN, but that money is going to the developing tools and code I get for the subscription. Hence the DN in MSDN, Developers Network. Also I get access to any MS software released since DOS. The betas of their software is more of a "perk" if you will.
As far as "people who just want to learn the tool before it is released to the public", "just"? It's a friggen business man. If MS opened up all their programs to the public before the release, the world would be using betas and less inclined to use the final product when it got out. Not to mention you guys wouldn't start flaming them for any problems with the software, even IF it were in beta. I've seen tons of flames on Visual Studio 2k5 on Slashdot for months now, and it was just released today.
Try and be a little fair with your MS complaints... I'm sure you don't trash Firefox for crashing on its betas. I mean I understand this is a anti-ms site, but come on. Do you complain about oracle not giving everyone their betas? How about ibm?
needham & co, in the financial world doesn't carry allot of weight. I would hardly call them "Wall Street".
"If we assume that all of the growth in Mac shipments during the past three quarters resulted from Windows users purchasing a Mac, then purchases by Windows users exceeded one million,"
That statement alone should have made this post rejected by slashdot. What a load of crap. Lets talk about all the kids that go to college and buy their first computer, tons of that market is MAC. How about Business' expanding their creative departments. I have two clients that doubled their art departments and added almost 100 macs. That doesn't mean they artists were Windows users.
I believe its possible that there are allot of converts, but certainly can't conclude that by this logic or post.
I think God not creating women first is proof that he is all knowing. God knew how irritating women would be, and that is why he didn't give adam "a mate". Adam wanted women/mate... but little did he know.
Now WE are paying for his mistake.... nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag...
The only problem with that Theory is the bible says bluntly that Moses wrote the books. Either the bible is accurate or inaccurate. Christianity is based on the notion that the Bible is 100% accurate and inspired directly by God.
For your link to be correct, Christianity as we know it today would unravel entirely.
All puns intended. This is the Vatican's hailmarry at becoming relevant again. It has little to nothing to do with what the church believes or what the bible says. It is about what society believes. All this really is, is the church saying to people "see we aren't so different, come join us, again, please, pretty please."
Without expressing my personal belief on this subject; this is similar to the debate about homosexuality in the church. Either you believe what the bible says or not. It says very clearly in the old and new testaments that homosexuality is wrong ("an abomination"). It's pretty cut and dry. The same principal applies here; If you believe what the bible says, then you believe that the earth was created in 6 days.
Again, I am not expressing my personal views on those subjects, just my view that if you are going to say you believe in a religion that is based on a book (Christianity), you can't just change it every time something is unpopular. OR if the book is wrong, then you have to address the fact the book is wrong. The church can NOT reconcile LOGICALLY their position. They may be able to reconcile it scientifically, but the bible is very clear, and even clearer in its original transcripts. 6 days, not millions of years. Evolution requires millions of years, not 6 days.
I believe this will backfire on the church. People will see them as just blowing in the wind, and eventually even the third world countries will ignore them completely. The Catholic Church has lost its relevance in the modern world. I don't believe religion has, just the Vatican.
I personally don't like OSX, but LOVE the Apple hardware. I would be interested in purchasing a Titanium (x86) and putting Windows and Linux on it. I odn't believe I'm alone with that opinion either.
First glance you may say, good for apple, they still get the money. However, what that starts to do is move mindshare for apple to a premium hardware supplier, not a platform supplier.
I believe there are many people that will consider doing this, and I think this could hurt OSX. This move could put Apple (overtime) going Head to Head with Dell not MS.
A roll-out that size always has big problems, and the only thing will be remembered by the media is that this linux roll-out had big problems. It would be much smarter to transition little by little. It is good press for Linspire, but thats about it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great is they did move everything over, for no other reason it would be a great case study for the world. The only problem I see is the speed at which it would be done.
wasn't paying attention I guess.