I think there's a "with his money" missing off the end of that quote.
There are honestly many other senior managers at Microsoft that would make better Executive Branch material than Bill.
Most enterprise customers would disagree with you. Deploying Windows is not easy. Deploying Office is not incredibly hard, but I also wouldn't use the word "easy" to describe it. Most companies of any size use imaging - which results in a completely clean install of the OS with all applications. Thus, deployment - the most expensive aspect of migration - is reduced, since you have to only test one entire platform, not multiple applications at multiple times. May not be the way you work, but it's the way most customers I ever worked with did.
Not true. Same was the case with XP upgrades - whenever the driver model changes, apps that have drivers installed (filter or others) have to be uninstalled and have compatible versions installed after.
Huh? You've had to do that with EVERY version of Windows! The leading cause of upgrade failure from Windows 2000 to Windows XP was a Roxio CD burning filter driver that wasn't compatible with XP.
Microsoft won't be using the native API's either. McAfee and Symantec just want to use the crappy, cobbled together kernel hooking mechanisms they've used in the past, which will no longer be available for any vendor - including Microsoft, to use. McAfee and Symantec need to grow up a little and learn the proper ways to do this without needing to hack the Windows kernel.
If you're a user, you also have to specify ANOTHER user's account and password - meaning whatever you're about to do runs out of context from you. Great for installers and applications with profile-specific configuration
Actually, many of the child posts already said this - but the key is in doing the video stream decompression on the device side. Microsoft did quite a bit of work in Windows XP Service Pack 2 with the network stack and QOS specifically around this, so that the Xbox 360 could serve as a Media Center Extender (MCX), which is basically all that iTV is, without the actual TV-integration that an MCX provides. The Xbox 360 is capable of displaying HDTV content (live or pre-recorded) from a Media Center machine, in another room, even if they are separated over a wireless network.
So it's been done before - and iTV could do it - it's just a question of engineering. And as to the child post that said "pull a cable" - the reality is that this will be a horrible failure in the market if you HAVE to pull a cable in order to get a decent experience. Wireless is a must.
Honestly all of the questions you ask above have already been answered by Microsoft with MCX devices - it will be interesting to see how much Apple mimics Microsoft for a change in the implementation of this "new" device.
With few exceptions, games generally exist to provide an alternate reality. Enforcing laws from the real world into a virtual world would seem to render the whole point of the game moot. If the game's authors want to enforce certain aspects of normally accepted culture or law into the game, it would seem they would do so.
This is complete BS. Microsoft would love nothing more than to have Windows be a modular snap-together, snap-to-upgrade, easily patched model like this. But to do it properly will require a good decade of work, and a complete redesign of Windows.
Windows as it is designed today is monolithic. You can't separate one layer from another in the "dreamy" way that Gartner is wishing for. The irony is that Netscape once used the term "spaghetti code" to describe the pre-Mozilla rewrite. The same could be easily used to describe Windows in it's current condition.
Gartner analysts often amaze me. I've met a few who deserve the respect of people in the industry. But I've met many more who have an amazing talent for talking out of their bottoms about technology they don't understand. Analysts have the best job. They get to make crack-filled predictions about the future. And nobody ever calls them on them, because in 3-5 years, when it hasn't come true, nobody remembers it, and the analyst is there preaching some hazy, totally new vision of the future (that probably contradicts their earlier "prediction").
Companies don't file for patents. Individuals who work at those companies do (the company just often picks up the tab, runs the process, and simply asks the signer(s) to sign over exclusive rights to the patent). So you would have to somehow constrain the ability for individuals at a company to be eligible for patents, even if their employer was willing to file them.
Advantage: Both Linux and Windows XP know to trim the image a bit on suspend, so it won't be a whole memory image, just relevant stuff. Truly native speed.
Disadvantage: If I'm wrong, then you won't be able to properly resume on a different box
Windows doesn't trim anything - the snapshot of RAM is 1:1 with how much RAM is in the system it is hibernating. You also can't do what you've proposed - hibernate once and use it with multiple heterogeneous systems - with Windows. You CAN do it with Windows XP Embedded - or at least will be able to when the next version of it releases. But not Windows itself.
Depending on the apps they run, and the server they are running on, getting the number of concurrent users of Terminal Services into the hundreds is definitely possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Methinks you read the wrong number.
That's not the same thing - this also picks up an image off of a Windows PC... though frankly the Parallels tool sounds rather hacky.
Sorry - I think you mistyped. Here, I fixed it for you.
are there other tradeoffs
Yes, you have to align yourself with a company which is actively trying to develop commercial software. Think about that.
Gasp. The horror. It can't really be that simple, can it?
People are far less focused on "destroying Free Software" at Microsoft than you give them credit for.
DOS wasn't stolen.
I think there's a "with his money" missing off the end of that quote. There are honestly many other senior managers at Microsoft that would make better Executive Branch material than Bill.
But of course that's just my opinion.
apples to oranges
Most enterprise customers would disagree with you. Deploying Windows is not easy. Deploying Office is not incredibly hard, but I also wouldn't use the word "easy" to describe it. Most companies of any size use imaging - which results in a completely clean install of the OS with all applications. Thus, deployment - the most expensive aspect of migration - is reduced, since you have to only test one entire platform, not multiple applications at multiple times. May not be the way you work, but it's the way most customers I ever worked with did.
Assume his comment was regarding Safari - the default browser on Mac OS X. Are you being sarcastic, or are you really that thick?
Yes - which is probably why Symantec and McAfee would be asking now. More detrimental. Smart, eh?
Not true. Same was the case with XP upgrades - whenever the driver model changes, apps that have drivers installed (filter or others) have to be uninstalled and have compatible versions installed after.
Huh? You've had to do that with EVERY version of Windows! The leading cause of upgrade failure from Windows 2000 to Windows XP was a Roxio CD burning filter driver that wasn't compatible with XP.
Microsoft won't be using the native API's either. McAfee and Symantec just want to use the crappy, cobbled together kernel hooking mechanisms they've used in the past, which will no longer be available for any vendor - including Microsoft, to use. McAfee and Symantec need to grow up a little and learn the proper ways to do this without needing to hack the Windows kernel.
If you're a user, you also have to specify ANOTHER user's account and password - meaning whatever you're about to do runs out of context from you. Great for installers and applications with profile-specific configuration
Wow that's a weird metaphor.
No, it's just a house in the Bay Area. The average dive in the Bay Area is stupidly overpriced.
Actually, many of the child posts already said this - but the key is in doing the video stream decompression on the device side. Microsoft did quite a bit of work in Windows XP Service Pack 2 with the network stack and QOS specifically around this, so that the Xbox 360 could serve as a Media Center Extender (MCX), which is basically all that iTV is, without the actual TV-integration that an MCX provides. The Xbox 360 is capable of displaying HDTV content (live or pre-recorded) from a Media Center machine, in another room, even if they are separated over a wireless network. So it's been done before - and iTV could do it - it's just a question of engineering. And as to the child post that said "pull a cable" - the reality is that this will be a horrible failure in the market if you HAVE to pull a cable in order to get a decent experience. Wireless is a must. Honestly all of the questions you ask above have already been answered by Microsoft with MCX devices - it will be interesting to see how much Apple mimics Microsoft for a change in the implementation of this "new" device.
Her. Her resume. Window Snyder is a woman.
With few exceptions, games generally exist to provide an alternate reality. Enforcing laws from the real world into a virtual world would seem to render the whole point of the game moot. If the game's authors want to enforce certain aspects of normally accepted culture or law into the game, it would seem they would do so.
This is complete BS. Microsoft would love nothing more than to have Windows be a modular snap-together, snap-to-upgrade, easily patched model like this. But to do it properly will require a good decade of work, and a complete redesign of Windows.
Windows as it is designed today is monolithic. You can't separate one layer from another in the "dreamy" way that Gartner is wishing for. The irony is that Netscape once used the term "spaghetti code" to describe the pre-Mozilla rewrite. The same could be easily used to describe Windows in it's current condition.
Gartner analysts often amaze me. I've met a few who deserve the respect of people in the industry. But I've met many more who have an amazing talent for talking out of their bottoms about technology they don't understand. Analysts have the best job. They get to make crack-filled predictions about the future. And nobody ever calls them on them, because in 3-5 years, when it hasn't come true, nobody remembers it, and the analyst is there preaching some hazy, totally new vision of the future (that probably contradicts their earlier "prediction").
Companies don't file for patents. Individuals who work at those companies do (the company just often picks up the tab, runs the process, and simply asks the signer(s) to sign over exclusive rights to the patent). So you would have to somehow constrain the ability for individuals at a company to be eligible for patents, even if their employer was willing to file them.
Could be an interesting proposition.
That's why FedEx is investing in a new fleet of spaceships...
No, you can't. Because they aren't identical from Windows POV - the machine name, Windows SID, and any domain membership information are not the same.
Advantage: Both Linux and Windows XP know to trim the image a bit on suspend, so it won't be a whole memory image, just relevant stuff. Truly native speed.
Disadvantage: If I'm wrong, then you won't be able to properly resume on a different box
Windows doesn't trim anything - the snapshot of RAM is 1:1 with how much RAM is in the system it is hibernating. You also can't do what you've proposed - hibernate once and use it with multiple heterogeneous systems - with Windows. You CAN do it with Windows XP Embedded - or at least will be able to when the next version of it releases. But not Windows itself.
Depending on the apps they run, and the server they are running on, getting the number of concurrent users of Terminal Services into the hundreds is definitely possible.