I'd like to agree with this, but I used to work in a small photography store. We also used software that often cost between $2,000 to $10,000 a pop, and was designed to run on NT4.
It shocked me... shocked... how little of that software ran on Win2K, including the apps that didn't require a hardware dongle attached to the parallel port. These apps didn't need special drivers or network support. They were things like compiling customer images into photo CD ISO, which you then had to burn yourself with an app like Nero. These were apps where if you tried to run them under Win2K, some of the GUI buttons would be missing, or they'd just freeze with 100% CPU utilization.
Anyone can have anecdotes like this for all kinds of arcane and possibly poorly authored software. If the software's well-known and even of somewhat reasonable quality, why not simply provide a name and version? More details are necessary too -- for example if you go out and buy a Win2k disk the day it becomes available it's not surprising if smaller ISVs have not yet had time to test on the latest version, release updates, etc. It's a serious claim -- ISVs look out for Alpha/Beta/RC releases and scramble to patch their software if they find issues. Why would they risk losing customers?? Why else do you think MS releases a Beta and RC for every Windows version?
By couching all of your assertions in terms of likelihood, shouldn't you be willing to admit that you ultimately don't know what the hell you're talking about either?
It's really simple -- I'm not attempting to dress us what's likely and present it as a fact.
3. It's likely that the upgrade would cost $10,000 even if she wasn't changing OS versions
Irrelevant; that was $10k she didn't need to spend if not upgrading.
Completely illogical response. Is she upgrading for the latest Windows version (she should not care about that) or is she upgrading for the latest features in the medical software. It should be the latter, and hence point 3 is entirely relevant. Remember, this is a fixed function machine that shouldn't need internet access. This is all conjecture until the idiot that wrote that article at least clarifies which s/w he's talking about and what version.
The only information in the article is that specialty software can be very expensive. That fact stands alone and would do so on any OS and any version.
Specialty software almost certainly requires a support contract (or when it breaks, you're SOL, and if your business depends on it, that's not an option). Support contract says "XP", you run XP. There may also be some question of licensing.
This is a Windows-specific issue how exactly?
Has Slashdot become this gullible??
Thanks again for your naive input from lack of actual experience.
It's not always the software that is the problem - drivers connecting a $100,000 piece of equipment may not be available for current versions of the O/S.
It may net even be possible to get them written if the company no longer trades, or refuses to support older equipment.
That could happen anytime you replace a 10 year old machine, with any OS version.
1. It's unlikely that the version she currently uses does not run on Win7
If she tried firing it up on Windows 7, it would probably run, yes, although having it fail is more likely than you might think. But it's not *certified* on Windows 7, so she can't do that. She likely would be legally liable if she did.
You simply do not know that. The guy that wrote the linked article doesn't know that. He in fact, doesn't even state that it isn't the case. It seems like important information don't you think? He could have erased any doubt by simply stating the name of the software and the version. But that would be counter-productive since it would probably demolish the premise of his idiotic article.
2. It's unlikely that the version she would upgrade to does not run on XP
Same deal as #1. It's not certified, you can't do that.
You're stating with so much confidence something that you simply do not know. It's absolutely not unheard of to
3. It's likely that the upgrade would cost $10,000 even if she wasn't changing OS versions
Yes, but she doesn't need to upgrade unless she changes the OS.
You don't know that. You don't know what new features are present in the new software. You don't know that because you don't even know what software you are talking about. You've taken a stance absent of any information whatsoever.
And so while yes, "it's not a Windows thing" specifically, it is definitely a case of Microsoft enabling and even encouraging this type of behavior.
I'm sorry -- this is garbage, and you know it. Why will Microsoft encourage behavior that makes it harder to switch to a new OS?
The fact is that the scenario in the linked article is unlikely, the data is insufficient, and Slashdot in it's glee to welcome any negative reporting regarding MS has suspended any curiosity for facts/information/specifics.
Think about it. Let's say you as an OEM used to make software for eye doctors in 2005. Obviously you would want that software to run on XP considering it's installed base. 3 years later MS comes out with some next version of Windows -- are you going to update that software to work on the next version, but not on XP? You're going to make sure that all your existing customers are unable to install your newest software, until they first upgrade their OS?? You're basically going to ensure there's a nice hurdle that your most important target clientele have to jump over before they purchase the next version from you?
That article stinks, it has nothing to do with Windows, it has no specifics (why not simply name the software -- so very easy to get credibility by doing that -- but no!), and offers no rationalization as to why a vendor would do something so illogical, and your post has the exact same problems. Worse -- you go one step beyond the article and claim that Microsoft encourages this behavior.
In the linked article, the doctor couldn't afford to upgrade her specialty medical software.
1. It's unlikely that the version she currently uses does not run on Win7
2. It's unlikely that the version she would upgrade to does not run on XP
3. It's likely that the upgrade would cost $10,000 even if she wasn't changing OS versions
So what does this have to do with Windows? Nothing. The only information in the article is that specialty software can be very expensive. That fact stands alone and would do so on any OS and any version.
And when the maker says it conforms to standards and it does not, what do you do? If it is proprietary, you can't modify the code.
Can't get away with that -- the test suite is available to all to run (not talking about gimmicks like ACID)
MS did not conform to standards when designing IE. Only MS could have fixed it but they did not.
You have some axe to grind with MS I guess. I don't even know which version of IE you're talking about, because the latest version does a great job regarding standards compliance. They're clearly taking compliance seriously. This is a distracting tangent anyway, because it has no bearing on the fact that you can absolutely have an open source browser implementation that is not compliant.
Also not everything in a browser is HTML. The javascript engine is different with each browser. Chrome uses V8 which is not JavascriptCore that Apple uses which is different than TraceMonkey that Mozilla uses.
So what? Apply the appropriate standard for the appropriate feature. ECMA or what have you.
And then you get a fork! If Apple sticks with mainline, and everyone else goes with the forked branch, web developers have to code for both. Or somebody ends up implementing a quirks mode. Open source is not a panacea.
Open Source solves the exact problem of standards compliance. If a mainline doesn't want to follow a standard, someone can fork it.
You ignored the content and answered by repeating yourself. How will you force Apple or Google to adopt your fork?
You do realize that a browser does more than render HTML right and that many parts of the how a browser is coded are not cookie-cutter code?
This is extremely vague.
You have a standard, you have a test suite to prove adherence to the standard, and the test suite should be complete so that passing the test 100% leaves no wiggle room. The "permissible" wiggle room then comes from proposed standards.
If there is an issue with standards compliance with WebKit and the originators don't want to adhere to standards then someone can fork it.
And then you get a fork! If Apple sticks with mainline, and everyone else goes with the forked branch, web developers have to code for both. Or somebody ends up implementing a quirks mode. Open source is not a panacea.
In this case, Apple still has to handle costs for credit card processing, international currency and VAT handling, some customer care for billing etc.
That doesn't add up. Apple artificially inserts themselves into the recurring transaction to get a cut -- they don't need to be involved in it at all. And 30% is still other-worldly ridiculous.
This is not allowed. What is allowed, and many companies do, is that you sign up on their web site and can then access the service on iOS. Or you get free access if you already have the service, the IOS app is just another delivery mechanism - e.g. you get The Economist [economist.com] free on the iPad if you subscribe on paper.
Right -- bad example on my part -- but the larger point is that Apple's disallowing all kinds of things because they want to get that 30% -- and that's inconveniencing users (paying by the easiest method possible, and not having price of all apps increase by 30% would be the convenient thing) -- and in that way they're actually screwing their own ecosystem, the effect of which will be felt over time.
Right -- which is why they're doomed to fail eventually. They just refuse to learn from their own past -- they've had their 5 years of glory with the iPhone and the decline is on hand now.
Oh absolutely these issues exist currently, and are not exclusive to MS. The only difference is that MS was the only one big enough to fight Apple on this matter (though it looks like even MS has caved now).
Companies might have to start issuing license keys in this manner for their s/w to get around Apple's stubbornness..
- Download app for free from the store
- On first launch, app sends you to a webpage where you can buy a license
- Copy-paste license key into app (or something like that)
Apple's basically messing with the user experience by being stubborn.
So Microsoft had to follow the same rules as every other developer...even after all of their stalling & complaining? Either pay the 30% cut to have in app purchases or have the purchase separate on the web & sync it separately.
For you the customer (or potential customer) either the convenience of in-app purchases gets lost, or the purchases cost you 30% more for no good reason. You're happy about this why?
Office is a potential 3 or 4 billion dollar business on the iPhone. That would make Apple roughly 1 billion dollars in revenue, for work they didn't do. Obviously that cost is passed on to customers. It's not just Microsoft -- it's kindle books from Amazon and many other things. Why do you want to pay more?
Apple's rules certainly are clear. That's not the same as saying they make sense. 30% cut, one-size-fits-all-business models? Doesn't make sense.
That is precisely the problem. You could require that the doctor can only see your medical records in special bunker under the Pentagon, after he has submitted to a full cavity search and provided 20 forms of ID. It doesn't have any bearing on whether the next day he phones up his friendly drugs rep. to say he has an interesting new case. If you share information with someone it have to TRUST them to use it wisely, the is no technology that will help with that.
When you're authenticating over SSL, or sending credit card info over SSL, you could still lose your credit card or be tortured to give up your password (or share it with a friend). Does that make SSL a useless protocol? No, it does not! Similarly, the 'TRUST' issue you point out does not render DRM useless. Do not state with so much confidence that "That is precisely the problem" without thinking the issue through first.
Sending records securely over the public Internet is a solved problem and most people manage to do this every day. Storing records securely is also solved, though this is less uniformly applied.
I'm not sure these statements are helpful to the conversation. Sending records securely has been working for a bit, but the underlying protocols and algorithms do have advantages/disadvantages/expiry dates and need careful selection and continual updating. This has been the case for a while. And as I pointed out earlier, this information can be compromised just as easily as the 'TRUST' issue you pointed out.
Trying to give people information (digital or otherwise) and then controlling precisely what they do with that information is quite simply impossible.
This is also not helpful. Your claim for this being impossible but sending records securely being possible (in very absolute terms you claim this problem is solved) -- this just doesn't hold water. Use the same yardstick. Each scheme has strengths and weaknesses -- and *everything* can be broken (including SSL). A standard rule of security applies: the cost of breaking your protection scheme must be greater than the cost of what it protects.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to agree with this, but I used to work in a small photography store. We also used software that often cost between $2,000 to $10,000 a pop, and was designed to run on NT4. It shocked me... shocked... how little of that software ran on Win2K, including the apps that didn't require a hardware dongle attached to the parallel port. These apps didn't need special drivers or network support. They were things like compiling customer images into photo CD ISO, which you then had to burn yourself with an app like Nero. These were apps where if you tried to run them under Win2K, some of the GUI buttons would be missing, or they'd just freeze with 100% CPU utilization.
Anyone can have anecdotes like this for all kinds of arcane and possibly poorly authored software. If the software's well-known and even of somewhat reasonable quality, why not simply provide a name and version? More details are necessary too -- for example if you go out and buy a Win2k disk the day it becomes available it's not surprising if smaller ISVs have not yet had time to test on the latest version, release updates, etc. It's a serious claim -- ISVs look out for Alpha/Beta/RC releases and scramble to patch their software if they find issues. Why would they risk losing customers?? Why else do you think MS releases a Beta and RC for every Windows version?
You're talking Simatic on Win8. I think giving them a few months would be fair.
By couching all of your assertions in terms of likelihood, shouldn't you be willing to admit that you ultimately don't know what the hell you're talking about either?
It's really simple -- I'm not attempting to dress us what's likely and present it as a fact.
3. It's likely that the upgrade would cost $10,000 even if she wasn't changing OS versions
Irrelevant; that was $10k she didn't need to spend if not upgrading.
Completely illogical response. Is she upgrading for the latest Windows version (she should not care about that) or is she upgrading for the latest features in the medical software. It should be the latter, and hence point 3 is entirely relevant. Remember, this is a fixed function machine that shouldn't need internet access. This is all conjecture until the idiot that wrote that article at least clarifies which s/w he's talking about and what version.
The only information in the article is that specialty software can be very expensive. That fact stands alone and would do so on any OS and any version.
Specialty software almost certainly requires a support contract (or when it breaks, you're SOL, and if your business depends on it, that's not an option). Support contract says "XP", you run XP. There may also be some question of licensing.
This is a Windows-specific issue how exactly?
Has Slashdot become this gullible??
Thanks again for your naive input from lack of actual experience.
Thanks for being a typical Slashdot lemming.
VS 2003 needs to be supported in 2013 on *any* OS why exactly?
It's not always the software that is the problem - drivers connecting a $100,000 piece of equipment may not be available for current versions of the O/S. It may net even be possible to get them written if the company no longer trades, or refuses to support older equipment.
That could happen anytime you replace a 10 year old machine, with any OS version.
Random short-term-thinking product management people aren't typically tasked with lifecycle decisions for $10,000 medical software.
The linked article lacks specifics, GP lacked specifics, and you lack specifics. GP even went one step further and said Microsoft encourages this.
1. It's unlikely that the version she currently uses does not run on Win7
If she tried firing it up on Windows 7, it would probably run, yes, although having it fail is more likely than you might think. But it's not *certified* on Windows 7, so she can't do that. She likely would be legally liable if she did.
You simply do not know that. The guy that wrote the linked article doesn't know that. He in fact, doesn't even state that it isn't the case. It seems like important information don't you think? He could have erased any doubt by simply stating the name of the software and the version. But that would be counter-productive since it would probably demolish the premise of his idiotic article.
2. It's unlikely that the version she would upgrade to does not run on XP
Same deal as #1. It's not certified, you can't do that.
You're stating with so much confidence something that you simply do not know. It's absolutely not unheard of to
3. It's likely that the upgrade would cost $10,000 even if she wasn't changing OS versions
Yes, but she doesn't need to upgrade unless she changes the OS.
You don't know that. You don't know what new features are present in the new software. You don't know that because you don't even know what software you are talking about. You've taken a stance absent of any information whatsoever.
And so while yes, "it's not a Windows thing" specifically, it is definitely a case of Microsoft enabling and even encouraging this type of behavior.
I'm sorry -- this is garbage, and you know it. Why will Microsoft encourage behavior that makes it harder to switch to a new OS?
The fact is that the scenario in the linked article is unlikely, the data is insufficient, and Slashdot in it's glee to welcome any negative reporting regarding MS has suspended any curiosity for facts/information/specifics.
Think about it. Let's say you as an OEM used to make software for eye doctors in 2005. Obviously you would want that software to run on XP considering it's installed base. 3 years later MS comes out with some next version of Windows -- are you going to update that software to work on the next version, but not on XP? You're going to make sure that all your existing customers are unable to install your newest software, until they first upgrade their OS?? You're basically going to ensure there's a nice hurdle that your most important target clientele have to jump over before they purchase the next version from you?
That article stinks, it has nothing to do with Windows, it has no specifics (why not simply name the software -- so very easy to get credibility by doing that -- but no!), and offers no rationalization as to why a vendor would do something so illogical, and your post has the exact same problems. Worse -- you go one step beyond the article and claim that Microsoft encourages this behavior.
In the linked article, the doctor couldn't afford to upgrade her specialty medical software.
1. It's unlikely that the version she currently uses does not run on Win7
2. It's unlikely that the version she would upgrade to does not run on XP
3. It's likely that the upgrade would cost $10,000 even if she wasn't changing OS versions
So what does this have to do with Windows? Nothing. The only information in the article is that specialty software can be very expensive. That fact stands alone and would do so on any OS and any version.
Has Slashdot become this gullible??
And when the maker says it conforms to standards and it does not, what do you do? If it is proprietary, you can't modify the code.
Can't get away with that -- the test suite is available to all to run (not talking about gimmicks like ACID)
MS did not conform to standards when designing IE. Only MS could have fixed it but they did not.
You have some axe to grind with MS I guess. I don't even know which version of IE you're talking about, because the latest version does a great job regarding standards compliance. They're clearly taking compliance seriously. This is a distracting tangent anyway, because it has no bearing on the fact that you can absolutely have an open source browser implementation that is not compliant.
Also not everything in a browser is HTML. The javascript engine is different with each browser. Chrome uses V8 which is not JavascriptCore that Apple uses which is different than TraceMonkey that Mozilla uses.
So what? Apply the appropriate standard for the appropriate feature. ECMA or what have you.
And then you get a fork! If Apple sticks with mainline, and everyone else goes with the forked branch, web developers have to code for both. Or somebody ends up implementing a quirks mode. Open source is not a panacea.
Open Source solves the exact problem of standards compliance. If a mainline doesn't want to follow a standard, someone can fork it.
You ignored the content and answered by repeating yourself. How will you force Apple or Google to adopt your fork?
You do realize that a browser does more than render HTML right and that many parts of the how a browser is coded are not cookie-cutter code?
This is extremely vague. You have a standard, you have a test suite to prove adherence to the standard, and the test suite should be complete so that passing the test 100% leaves no wiggle room. The "permissible" wiggle room then comes from proposed standards.
If there is an issue with standards compliance with WebKit and the originators don't want to adhere to standards then someone can fork it.
And then you get a fork! If Apple sticks with mainline, and everyone else goes with the forked branch, web developers have to code for both. Or somebody ends up implementing a quirks mode. Open source is not a panacea.
In this case, Apple still has to handle costs for credit card processing, international currency and VAT handling, some customer care for billing etc.
That doesn't add up. Apple artificially inserts themselves into the recurring transaction to get a cut -- they don't need to be involved in it at all. And 30% is still other-worldly ridiculous.
This is not allowed. What is allowed, and many companies do, is that you sign up on their web site and can then access the service on iOS. Or you get free access if you already have the service, the IOS app is just another delivery mechanism - e.g. you get The Economist [economist.com] free on the iPad if you subscribe on paper.
Right -- bad example on my part -- but the larger point is that Apple's disallowing all kinds of things because they want to get that 30% -- and that's inconveniencing users (paying by the easiest method possible, and not having price of all apps increase by 30% would be the convenient thing) -- and in that way they're actually screwing their own ecosystem, the effect of which will be felt over time.
Dropbox certainly is, and Amazon is kinda tiny (not to mention new) to the consumer electronics segment no?
Secret APIs for an HTML5 implementation? Huh?
Sure, Chrome and Opera will behave the same as each other. How does being open source prevent it from behaving differently than WebKit based browsers?
Google's co-opted the language of open source, and many within the community are taking the ostrich approach.
Right -- which is why they're doomed to fail eventually. They just refuse to learn from their own past -- they've had their 5 years of glory with the iPhone and the decline is on hand now.
Oh absolutely these issues exist currently, and are not exclusive to MS. The only difference is that MS was the only one big enough to fight Apple on this matter (though it looks like even MS has caved now).
Excellent point. So much for people clamoring for MS to adopt WebKit.
Being open source means that Blink and WebKit will behave 100% identically? Huh?
Companies might have to start issuing license keys in this manner for their s/w to get around Apple's stubbornness..
- Download app for free from the store
- On first launch, app sends you to a webpage where you can buy a license
- Copy-paste license key into app (or something like that)
Apple's basically messing with the user experience by being stubborn.
So Microsoft had to follow the same rules as every other developer...even after all of their stalling & complaining? Either pay the 30% cut to have in app purchases or have the purchase separate on the web & sync it separately.
For you the customer (or potential customer) either the convenience of in-app purchases gets lost, or the purchases cost you 30% more for no good reason. You're happy about this why?
Office is a potential 3 or 4 billion dollar business on the iPhone. That would make Apple roughly 1 billion dollars in revenue, for work they didn't do. Obviously that cost is passed on to customers. It's not just Microsoft -- it's kindle books from Amazon and many other things. Why do you want to pay more?
Apple's rules certainly are clear. That's not the same as saying they make sense. 30% cut, one-size-fits-all-business models? Doesn't make sense.
That is precisely the problem. You could require that the doctor can only see your medical records in special bunker under the Pentagon, after he has submitted to a full cavity search and provided 20 forms of ID. It doesn't have any bearing on whether the next day he phones up his friendly drugs rep. to say he has an interesting new case. If you share information with someone it have to TRUST them to use it wisely, the is no technology that will help with that.
When you're authenticating over SSL, or sending credit card info over SSL, you could still lose your credit card or be tortured to give up your password (or share it with a friend). Does that make SSL a useless protocol? No, it does not! Similarly, the 'TRUST' issue you point out does not render DRM useless. Do not state with so much confidence that "That is precisely the problem" without thinking the issue through first.
Sending records securely over the public Internet is a solved problem and most people manage to do this every day. Storing records securely is also solved, though this is less uniformly applied.
I'm not sure these statements are helpful to the conversation. Sending records securely has been working for a bit, but the underlying protocols and algorithms do have advantages/disadvantages/expiry dates and need careful selection and continual updating. This has been the case for a while. And as I pointed out earlier, this information can be compromised just as easily as the 'TRUST' issue you pointed out.
Trying to give people information (digital or otherwise) and then controlling precisely what they do with that information is quite simply impossible.
This is also not helpful. Your claim for this being impossible but sending records securely being possible (in very absolute terms you claim this problem is solved) -- this just doesn't hold water. Use the same yardstick. Each scheme has strengths and weaknesses -- and *everything* can be broken (including SSL). A standard rule of security applies: the cost of breaking your protection scheme must be greater than the cost of what it protects.
Does it matter to you that his conclusion is incorrect?