This sort of response is typical of those that don't really understand the Microsoft stack.
You mean, like you?
COM is not OLE renamed. COM is the basic transport structure that OLE, and other MS technologies, are based on. OLE is the name of a specific set of COM interfaces involving such things as Compound Documents, Automation, In-place activation, etc.. OLE also describes a lot of things that don't technically involve COM.
Actually, it kind of is... OLE was released in 1990, while COM was released in 1992... so COM started as a subset of OLE that OLE relies on. Revisionist history aside, or current dependencies aside, COM was based off the components of OLE that were "bundled" into what MS later called (and released as) COM.
Other examples include ActiveX, DirectX, COM+ (despite it's name, it's not a new version of COM, it's just a specific set of interfaces like the others I mention), OLEDB, etc..
Which are all based off OLE/COM - I fail to see your point.
"With Windows 2000, that significant extension to COM was incorporated into the operating system (as opposed to the series of external tools provided by MTS) and renamed COM+."
Which also invalidates your later statement at the bottom... since with SOM/DSOM, the extensions wouldn't be necessary... anyone can subclass or superclass a class/object to add whatever functionality they want without needing IBM to write "significant extension(s)" to SOM/DSOM... we've proven that already with OS/2 and eComStation by subclassing and superclassing numerous WPS "functions" to add tons of other functionality with very tiny code and not a single piece of the WPS needing to be re-written. Try that with COM+/++/+++/++++...
So, in the sense that both COM and SOM are the transport layers of the technology, they are roughly equal, even if their implementations are very different. Other technologies get built on these layers.
They are far from roughly equal - except in the limited sense you are discussing... it's like saying an apple and an orange are roughly equal because they are both fruit... SOM/DSOM is far more than "transport layers of the technology" - perhaps you just haven't programmed for both? See above for a very very basic example. Heck, playing with stuff like "IBM Works" or "Describe" or some of Stardock's Object Desktop components for OS/2 alone would help you understand that there are major differences in implementation and functionality - even with NO updates for SOM/DSOM in roughly a decade... it, just quite simply, is that good.
Set itself apart from what exactly?... Unix (variations) has used/had/does have SOM...
You must mean AIX - or you are predicting the future when IBM open sources SOM so your statement comes true...
and so has Apple, however Steve Jobs ended that "idea" when he returned to Apple...
You mean Taligent? Which was an IBM & Apple co-project?
Microsoft has a very similar concept COM+
You mean MS markets something they pretend is very similar, but any programmer who has used both will tell you they are light years apart, and that no matter how many ++++++++ MS adds to the end of COM, or how many times they change the name of OLE, it still will be light years behind SOM/DSOM.
You ARE on the right track with all of your comment - your just heading the wrong direction...
If the great innovation offered by SOM is basically a design pattern or interface technique, do we really need IBM's source code? It seems to me that the great thing about SOM is the idea of how something is done, and that we could pretty quickly write our own implementation of that idea. No?
Sadly no - on all counts. In over a decade and a half, no one (but maybe Apple) came close. DSOM/SOM hasn't been worked on in many years, and still, with kludge after kludge, MS cant come close. (some of) The Linux community wanted the WPS open sourced just because of how powerful it was - even though I dont think they even realized that it meant also open sourcing SOM/DSOM. With many attempts at numerous windowing environments, though the Linux community has made both some pretty and some pretty useful windowing environments, they still haven't come close...
And of course, SOM/DSOM is far more than the WPS... (just a requirement for the WPS to work).
Also, saying SOM/DSOM is just "the idea of how something is done" is like looking at cars, bicycles, sneakers and skateboards and calling the car engine "an idea of how something moves" - it is far more than that. It is a technology that allows anyone on almost any language, to interact with and integrate with any other device, network resource, app, GUI or OS that is SOM/DSOM enabled. Almost 8? 10? years of little to no development on SOM/DSOM and there is still nothing half as powerful for any PC based operating system. Yeah, MS can keep writing inelegant, bloated (which is a massive understatement when compared to SOMObjects of better capabilities) kludges to achieve some of the functionality on a limited scale...
SOM/DSOM is truly what most OO programmers truly want - even if they dont know it (which would simply be because they dont understand it, or love VB that much).
The Betamax/VHS analogy to standard/DRM'd processors is interesting, but the argument fails because of user perseption. Most users of...
You are indeed correct, I could have picked a better analogy (or even one more/. friendly like Windows/Linux = $$$/$0 = bloated/fast or something;-) ), but hopefully people will understand the INTENT of the comparison, even if my selection of anaolgies was inadequate;-)
Also, I hope (and would tend to believe) you are correct about AMD... in the end, I dont know if that would be a good thing or not as it would pretty much end their competition in the CPU market (and thus possible innovation and performance gains on such a regular basis)... but who knows?
Don't ever use this as your example of why DRM is bad, because it's complete bullshit.
Go on, tell me why Betamax was better than VHS. You don't know why. Why? Because it wasn't in the real world. You can spout some meaningless statistics about Betamax, but it had so many things wrong with it, that the "technical superiority" was almost irrelevant.
Lets see a small example of what was wrong with Betamax and why it failed completely and utterly.
1. Beta tapes lasted 1 hour, instead of two. How many 1 hour movies did you watch back then? None? This made the tapes next to useless for movies. Back then, recording movies off of HBO and shit was the thing to do... can't do it with Betamax! Tapes are too short. Those VHS tapes, though, they are just long enough!
Or 5 hours? Perhaps it is just because I am old enough to remember instead of reading (only part of) what is online about Beta? Very shortly after the initial format was released, Sony addressed that issue, which resulted in longer format tapes (hence movies being available on Beta), and different recording speed selections (as our Beta deck had).
2. How many Beta tapes did you see for rent back then? A small section in the local video store, maybe? Even if that section started out the same size as the VHS section (30 or 40 tapes each), each month, the VHS section grew, and the Beta section stayed the same or shrank. Why? Because Sony tried to suck the blood out of the market, like we see them continue to do, with their ridiculous licensing requirements.
Almost as many as VHS... but maybe it's because in NY there were a bigger selection of Beta tapes - or because I am old enough to actually remember....
3. Ever go try to buy a Betamax? 30 - 40% more than a VHS in a lot of cases. So, shorter tapes, less availability and they cost more? Yeahhhh, that's going to win market share. That is until VHS started beating down Sony with consumers, then suddenly the prices dropped drastically. There goes Sony again, using their monopoly to rape consumers, then wondering why consumers flee their products in droves when other companies start offering the same or similar things for half the price.
Irrelevant (cost) as has been proven in such areas as Windows ($$$) vs Linux ($0)
4. The last point I'm going to make here is the fact that consumers, Joe Average, could not distinguish between Beta and VHS pictures under any circumstance. The difference was not vast enough like VHS and DVD. On top of this, given the equipment available at the time, even audiophiles really couldn't distinguish between the two, since the TVs and such were so crappy (compared to today) anyway. It would take tens of thousands of dollars of equipment for someone to see the difference. Given that people don't mind MP3's in 128k today, and people still watch VHS when they have DVD available, do you really think the supposed difference between VHS and Beta made a lick of difference?
Sure it was... TV's weren't good enough to SHOW the difference... but you are on the right track with that one... the difference made no difference to the average consumer, because they didnt have anything to watch it on to notice the difference.
How long do you think it will take for them to get educated once they notice their 20Gb of downloaded mp3's won't play anymore?
Oh, I dunno... as long as it takes them to realize that they could have stuck with XP, as opposed to buying new Vista compatible versions of various programs because once they upgraded (even with tons of gripes - often exaggerated - about incompatibilities) they still upgraded to Vista and were forced to upgrade (buy newer versions of) software as well.
So, your guess is as good as mine - because I surely don't have on on this subject... just stating the current situation... and even if they "educate" themselves quick enough, do you think the CPU manufacturers will suddenly, re-revise everything leaving out the DRM features, followed by the same with the chipset manu's, and the same again with MS getting rid of the new drivers and functions that rely on those new DRM features that are part of the CPU? Perhaps... if enough people complained... but even educated users rarely complain to the right people (or in the right way) about such things... look at all the gripes on/. that are legitimate, that rarely ever get to those who can address the issues...
I hope your inference is correct, in that they will learn quickly, and my guess on your further inference (that they CPU manufacturers will correct such a problem by dropping in CPU/chipset DRM support) is also on target... but current track records on such matters seem to indicate otherwise - though with a smaller, vocal set of people "in the know" about such issues... maybe you are right in that what the computer industry needs is a Snafu on such a big level that the "average user" is affected to an extent that they complain...
3rd problem: I'm pretty sure you could find someone offended by some aspect of every single article written in wikipedia to varying levles and with varying density.
Not just are you correct, but as it applies to this particular discussion, I'd say that any article that discusses religion in any form, has the (mathematically impossible) 1000% chance of offending people - just as how some religious zealots will see, experience and co-exist with a known (aspect of) reality and dismiss it in favor of religious rhetoric.
I'm impressed that they will not allow such changes though... reality and religious beliefs/desires dont always go hand in hand... no offense to anyone who is religious intended...
Then, no one will buy a new CPU. Intel and AMD aren't stupid. they know the consumer will run if they add this crap to thier products.
This is where I sadly think you are wrong - in what would happen - even though you are right in what consumers' reactions should be.
Most "high end electronics" consumers do not have the knowledge or tech savvy to make such a decision, and will continue to buy the "latest and greatest" they are told to buy - unless it sufficiently curtails their actions. Most of the people who will be affected by such a theoretical move (by the CPU manufacturers) are the tech savvy computer community - not the computer users who are otherwise (technologically) computer illiterate.
Unfortunately, they comprise the far larger share of computer users, leaving those of us who are technologically literate, stuck with such theoretical choices because that will thus become all that is available.
It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.
I'd expect (most) everyone here on/. who has the friend/relative/neighbor who comes to them to solve (what to us are simple) computer problems, would remember that when looking at the tech world, what is better (technology wise, user rights wise, performance wise, could keep on going on this list all day) is irrelevant to the mainstream user community, regardless of what the small (yet vocal in places like this) tech oriented community knows is the actual truth.
Just my thoughts... which covers my quota for thinking for the week...:-)
You are probably correct with the underlying issues and reasoning for the naming. I'd just think that someone would check what the "marketdroids" wrote and have corrected them. Love the term, BTW.
"the team cites that they want everyone to have a 'great install experience'."
Come off it already. "great install experience"... hey, its not a f*cking condo timeshare!
I hate to feed the trolls, but he does have a point. It's a Service Pack. "I agree" -> "Install/Next/OK" -> "Reboot Now"
How much greater can they make it? There isnt much to add to that. Are they thinking of playing a movie for the user while it is installing? Define MS's new definition of "great install experience" when it comes to installing a Service Pack.
If they mean "wont hose a working system" there are other terms for that. A great install experience means making an understandable installer where user options are clearly and simply displayed on the screen. A Service Pack has no such need for that... you agree to the EULA and install - or dont.
Mods: Sometimes even self proclaimed trolls like trolltalk can be right. Mod on content, not slashdot name.
Good question... which leads me to this statement:
"This shows just how worried Microsoft is by Google," says David B. Yoffie. "Microsoft has faced competitive threats before, but none with the size, strength, profitability and momentum of Google."
Though probably true to one extent or another, this is just normal business for Microsoft. They routinely buy their competitors, whether they (or we) think their competitors have a better product or not. Thus, I am sure that DBY has not hit upon MS's full reasoning behind this move. Even if MS Live Search were the best "product" out there, this would be a way for MS to gain more market share in a very short period of time, and thus also increase revenue (ad and services generated), while wiping out yet another competitor.
Also, keep in mind, Yahoo does more than just search engines, and some of their other services also compete with MS's online services (and dont have similar Google services to compete with)... all of the above EXCEPT the Google aspect still apply.
You are indeed correct... I had planned on putting the obligatory **AA, which got me thinking of the RIAA - add that to not enough coffee and you see what happens!:-)
While they are at least admitting that THIS report is highly erroneous, it does not even begin to address the plethora of similar reports they have bombarded the media and Internet with that have similar figures.
So... which reality are they going with? Agreeing that this report is highly off compromises many of their financial claims of the damages file sharing does... or perhaps they will just admit this report is wrong due to "human error" - but the others are right "Please believe everything else we are saying - even though it contradicts our admission of error here."
C'mon... who does the RIAA think they are fooling? (RIAA) retract all your ridiculous claims - or dont bother... the rest of us know the truth - and have for years.
I sincerely doubt IBM will be launching lawsuits against anyone who wanted to use the concepts in WPS, if someone found them useful anyway.
I'd think it useful... everything is an object - even individual text entry fields. Every field or object can interact with other objects. Nothing yet is as object oriented - and all tied to REXX at the same time.
Seriously, I'd like to know what it is that OS/2's code would help the open source world accomplish.
Really? How about JFS? Thank OS/2 (and AIX) for that. How about the new thread scheduling code that IBM has donated to the Linux community? The WPS? The MMIO Codec system (allowing anything and everything that wants to, to be able to interact with any audio, image or video format seamlessly - all tied to the object oriented WPS - oh, and to REXX as well)? The (AIX derived, rock solid) firewall code - which could be used in conjunction to the Linux efforts?
I could probably list other things as well... namely much of the technology that went into OS/2 PPC - which ran on top of a true microkernel - and still supported DOS and Windows sessions in virtual machines - on a PPC chip, (and included the fixes for the WPS that the Intel version never got).
Anyway, there are things that would benefit the OSS community - as well as the eComStation/Warp community.
The source to an old OS strongly tied to a specific architecture that is becoming extinct?
The PPC version isn't tied to any specific hardware - swap a microkernel, and run on anything. And the written microkernel ran on more machines than it was planned for (like some AIX boxes).
A large percentage of the code is NOT under MS copyrights. IBM rewrote many large chunks of OS/2 for version 2, and then continued to replace code in versions 2.1, 3, 4, 4.5, 4.51 and 4.52 - MS has code cross licensing agreements on big chunks of the code though, and much of the multimedia stuff (codecs, etc) and some of the graphics stuff was written for IBM by others. They are the LEAST beholden to MS in that respect.
So, your premise is correct... but MS isnt the biggest issue in that respect (though they still are one). Many such aspects (like NetBIOS and such) aren't needed anyway since we (OS/2 community) have Samba. As for the kernel and WPS... those are not MS's - nor ever were - and those are the key things we want. As for PM - that can be grabbed from the OS/2 PPC model (as could a true microkernel version of the kernel). As for REXX - we'd rather have the code than the portion open sourced, since the OS/2 code has various OS/2 only functions (virtually the entire OS can be controlled by the OS2 version of REXX) and has various OS/2 enhancements that are tied into how the kernel can handle memory, disk, IO, etc...
(I'm one of the people involved in this petition - one of the reviewers before it was sent)
You are very close to the truth - much of the wording comes from IBM's standard policy regarding OS/2 which could be found on their website. Basically, the response was the legal statement (which primarily echo'd our statements regarding understanding that certain parts could not be released OS because of such matters), followed by the standard "Help your customers migrate, or tell them to contact us for such help or for defect support, but we plan no further enhancements" (paraphrased).
The situation as we believe it stands, is simply that IBM is not willing to spend the time (ie: MONEY) to dig through the code to determine which pieces of code are free of any restrictions to allow them to release it.
Certain components like JFS were easy since they were from AIX (then ported to OS/2, then ported to Linux) and REXX (which was ported to/created for virtually every IBM OS. The rest (the important ones) are intermingled with code tied up by various copyright agreements and cross-code sharing agreements. The easier thing to do would be for them to Open Source the PPC code, which was much less reliant on either 3rd party code - and/or - not covered by technology sharing agreements with other companies (ie: Microsoft). An excellent kernel, and better implementation of the WPS would be the result - but we in the OS/2 World are coming to the conclusions that (a) they don't know where that code is (and it wouldnt be the first chunks of code they lost), (b) digging it up and providing it would cost more money than they are willing to spend (which is nothing - and they have already spent a lot of money in porting ideas - if not code - from the OS/2 kernel for the benefit of the Linux scheduler) and/or (c) the people at IBM who responded are unaware of the technical, legal and other differences between OS/2 PPC and OS/2 Intel (much less the existance of OS/2 PPC).
Anyone who wants to read the original PDF can check out www.OS2World.com - once it's no longer slashdotted (just keep hitting reload - it will come up... the relevant link is here: http://www.os2world.com/content/view/16595/2/
In addition to power consumption, a heavily accessed server (email, multi-homed web, etc) would benefit from the decrease in access time, which of course is a wonderful boon for reading fragmented files.
I've found, that even with very large disk cache (1/2 a gig), when hosting numerous high traffic sites, even with NO fragmentation (HPFS or a defragged drive), many disk reads (from different files) are required. With no fragmentation, the seek/access time goes from the HDD standard to much nearer to zero (respectively). With fragmentation, the difference is remarkably greater.
It's amazing what head movement to handle a few hundred reads from different files/threads can do to data throughput. And with 50GB of data and a few gigabytes of images, a 1/2 gig disk cache is only so helpful in minimizing disk reads (and thusly only so efficient in minimizing throughput loss from trying to handle a few hundred simultaneous non-cached requests). Even with striping, heads need to move...
And of course, since most admins like maintaining logs, every read requires a write someplace else on a disk (though of course the smart thing to do is have the logs on a different disk on a different SCSI/SATA/IDE chain (SCSI for me, thanks) - but sometimes that isnt an option (my backup server - not worth it for the few times it is used).
What I'd love to see are these released with a U640 SCSI interface... I'd love to chain 14 on a cable...
As for me, I am keeping (and using) all of my Model M's till someone pries them from my cold dead fingers - and as they make nice bludgeoning weapons (and then can be cleaned in the dishwasher) they'll have quite a fight on their hands if they try to take 'em.;-)
My guess is (based off the test results) that it would be more difficult to sleep in an area with no signal, than in one with a signal. The issue according to the test seems to be the cell phone's signal - not that of the towers. That being the case, in an area with no signal, your cell phone is most likely transmitting more often (attempting to obtain a signal) than it's normal periodic connections when within range. Of course, it may vary depending on cell phone - but I know all of mine try every few seconds.
A good test that works with many cell phones is to put it near/on a speaker and see when it causes interference... try that test in an area with - and without a signal...
The only problem with the premise is that too many decent bands have already sold away their rights to the record companies - for their current albums, as well as upcoming ones. Many artists have quite some time to wait before they can release music on their own due to that fact. Sad but true. Many artists not in that boat, can't afford alternative methods, because even as cheap as they are, the cost is still above what they can afford - and that doesn't even take into account paying for air-play or advertising - which is what makes signing a deal with the devil (I mean a record label) more attractive due to the initial artist payout and the fact that the label will promote the album(s).
As more people move to the Internet to find their sources of music, and better (non label affiliated) methods of advertising music come into existence, things will change - but the day when every artist can just up and jump ship from the record label conglomerate is not yet today - and still (sadly) a while off.
Most people, due to want (it is nice having $$$$ in one's pocket at signing before a single CD is sold), due to need (family to feed, rent/mortgage to pay, etc) would (need to) opt for a distribution method that puts money in their pockets immediately so they can survive... the labels know that - and ensure that the contracts grant them (the labels) ownership of the next (and the next, and the next) album produced - thus locking in the poor artist who is just trying to survive.
I'm not sure how many of those people actually worked (or work) for AOL. The DialUp team did NOT. We worked for UUNet, then MCI/Worldcom. Who AOL used after that I dont know... but I doubt they installed the tons of access numbers needed when MCI/WC went under. AlterDial (and UUDial) was owned and operated by UUNet, and used mostly for AOL and MSN. Authentication and such were done by us too. Support was handled by a different group.
Viol8, both SerpentMage and 0racle are correct - and you're a bit weird - at least in your inference. Perhaps you are speaking of your own personal experiences? Or (incorrectly) thought you were being humorous?
Many large dogs just make wonderful, gentle companions - no need for inadequacy to want to own one. My ex-roommate had a 160lb rottweiler that was one of the nicest dogs I met. Not just was he both smart and gentle, but he hated violence of any kind and would not allow any violence in the house. If someone raised their hand in a threatening manor, he'd either reach up and pull the person's arm down and hold it or shove his way inbetween them and butt them apart with his head and keep them separated. He loved being petted, curling up with us to watch TV, go for runs and was very friendly... with one of his best non-human friends being a (my) silver tabby (cat).
Viol8, please explain to me what inadequacy one must have to want such a loyal, caring, gentle pet?
Slashdot Mirror
This sort of response is typical of those that don't really understand the Microsoft stack.
You mean, like you? COM is not OLE renamed. COM is the basic transport structure that OLE, and other MS technologies, are based on. OLE is the name of a specific set of COM interfaces involving such things as Compound Documents, Automation, In-place activation, etc.. OLE also describes a lot of things that don't technically involve COM.Actually, it kind of is... OLE was released in 1990, while COM was released in 1992... so COM started as a subset of OLE that OLE relies on. Revisionist history aside, or current dependencies aside, COM was based off the components of OLE that were "bundled" into what MS later called (and released as) COM.
Other examples include ActiveX, DirectX, COM+ (despite it's name, it's not a new version of COM, it's just a specific set of interfaces like the others I mention), OLEDB, etc..Which are all based off OLE/COM - I fail to see your point.
"With Windows 2000, that significant extension to COM was incorporated into the operating system (as opposed to the series of external tools provided by MTS) and renamed COM+."
Which also invalidates your later statement at the bottom... since with SOM/DSOM, the extensions wouldn't be necessary... anyone can subclass or superclass a class/object to add whatever functionality they want without needing IBM to write "significant extension(s)" to SOM/DSOM... we've proven that already with OS/2 and eComStation by subclassing and superclassing numerous WPS "functions" to add tons of other functionality with very tiny code and not a single piece of the WPS needing to be re-written. Try that with COM+/++/+++/++++...
So, in the sense that both COM and SOM are the transport layers of the technology, they are roughly equal, even if their implementations are very different. Other technologies get built on these layers.They are far from roughly equal - except in the limited sense you are discussing... it's like saying an apple and an orange are roughly equal because they are both fruit... SOM/DSOM is far more than "transport layers of the technology" - perhaps you just haven't programmed for both? See above for a very very basic example. Heck, playing with stuff like "IBM Works" or "Describe" or some of Stardock's Object Desktop components for OS/2 alone would help you understand that there are major differences in implementation and functionality - even with NO updates for SOM/DSOM in roughly a decade... it, just quite simply, is that good.
Oooops! Long night for me... yes I mean OpenDoc. :-) Thanks for correcting that for me.
-Rob
You must mean AIX - or you are predicting the future when IBM open sources SOM so your statement comes true...
and so has Apple, however Steve Jobs ended that "idea" when he returned to Apple...You mean Taligent? Which was an IBM & Apple co-project?
Microsoft has a very similar concept COM+You mean MS markets something they pretend is very similar, but any programmer who has used both will tell you they are light years apart, and that no matter how many ++++++++ MS adds to the end of COM, or how many times they change the name of OLE, it still will be light years behind SOM/DSOM.
You ARE on the right track with all of your comment - your just heading the wrong direction...
Sadly no - on all counts. In over a decade and a half, no one (but maybe Apple) came close. DSOM/SOM hasn't been worked on in many years, and still, with kludge after kludge, MS cant come close. (some of) The Linux community wanted the WPS open sourced just because of how powerful it was - even though I dont think they even realized that it meant also open sourcing SOM/DSOM. With many attempts at numerous windowing environments, though the Linux community has made both some pretty and some pretty useful windowing environments, they still haven't come close...
And of course, SOM/DSOM is far more than the WPS... (just a requirement for the WPS to work).
Also, saying SOM/DSOM is just "the idea of how something is done" is like looking at cars, bicycles, sneakers and skateboards and calling the car engine "an idea of how something moves" - it is far more than that. It is a technology that allows anyone on almost any language, to interact with and integrate with any other device, network resource, app, GUI or OS that is SOM/DSOM enabled. Almost 8? 10? years of little to no development on SOM/DSOM and there is still nothing half as powerful for any PC based operating system. Yeah, MS can keep writing inelegant, bloated (which is a massive understatement when compared to SOMObjects of better capabilities) kludges to achieve some of the functionality on a limited scale...
SOM/DSOM is truly what most OO programmers truly want - even if they dont know it (which would simply be because they dont understand it, or love VB that much).
You are indeed correct, I could have picked a better analogy (or even one more /. friendly like Windows/Linux = $$$/$0 = bloated/fast or something ;-) ), but hopefully people will understand the INTENT of the comparison, even if my selection of anaolgies was inadequate ;-)
Also, I hope (and would tend to believe) you are correct about AMD... in the end, I dont know if that would be a good thing or not as it would pretty much end their competition in the CPU market (and thus possible innovation and performance gains on such a regular basis)... but who knows?
-Rob
Go on, tell me why Betamax was better than VHS. You don't know why. Why? Because it wasn't in the real world. You can spout some meaningless statistics about Betamax, but it had so many things wrong with it, that the "technical superiority" was almost irrelevant.
Lets see a small example of what was wrong with Betamax and why it failed completely and utterly.
1. Beta tapes lasted 1 hour, instead of two. How many 1 hour movies did you watch back then? None? This made the tapes next to useless for movies. Back then, recording movies off of HBO and shit was the thing to do... can't do it with Betamax! Tapes are too short. Those VHS tapes, though, they are just long enough!
Or 5 hours? Perhaps it is just because I am old enough to remember instead of reading (only part of) what is online about Beta? Very shortly after the initial format was released, Sony addressed that issue, which resulted in longer format tapes (hence movies being available on Beta), and different recording speed selections (as our Beta deck had).
2. How many Beta tapes did you see for rent back then? A small section in the local video store, maybe? Even if that section started out the same size as the VHS section (30 or 40 tapes each), each month, the VHS section grew, and the Beta section stayed the same or shrank. Why? Because Sony tried to suck the blood out of the market, like we see them continue to do, with their ridiculous licensing requirements.Almost as many as VHS... but maybe it's because in NY there were a bigger selection of Beta tapes - or because I am old enough to actually remember....
3. Ever go try to buy a Betamax? 30 - 40% more than a VHS in a lot of cases. So, shorter tapes, less availability and they cost more? Yeahhhh, that's going to win market share. That is until VHS started beating down Sony with consumers, then suddenly the prices dropped drastically. There goes Sony again, using their monopoly to rape consumers, then wondering why consumers flee their products in droves when other companies start offering the same or similar things for half the price.Irrelevant (cost) as has been proven in such areas as Windows ($$$) vs Linux ($0)
4. The last point I'm going to make here is the fact that consumers, Joe Average, could not distinguish between Beta and VHS pictures under any circumstance. The difference was not vast enough like VHS and DVD. On top of this, given the equipment available at the time, even audiophiles really couldn't distinguish between the two, since the TVs and such were so crappy (compared to today) anyway. It would take tens of thousands of dollars of equipment for someone to see the difference. Given that people don't mind MP3's in 128k today, and people still watch VHS when they have DVD available, do you really think the supposed difference between VHS and Beta made a lick of difference?Sure it was... TV's weren't good enough to SHOW the difference... but you are on the right track with that one... the difference made no difference to the average consumer, because they didnt have anything to watch it on to notice the difference.
Oh, I dunno... as long as it takes them to realize that they could have stuck with XP, as opposed to buying new Vista compatible versions of various programs because once they upgraded (even with tons of gripes - often exaggerated - about incompatibilities) they still upgraded to Vista and were forced to upgrade (buy newer versions of) software as well.
So, your guess is as good as mine - because I surely don't have on on this subject... just stating the current situation... and even if they "educate" themselves quick enough, do you think the CPU manufacturers will suddenly, re-revise everything leaving out the DRM features, followed by the same with the chipset manu's, and the same again with MS getting rid of the new drivers and functions that rely on those new DRM features that are part of the CPU? Perhaps... if enough people complained... but even educated users rarely complain to the right people (or in the right way) about such things... look at all the gripes on /. that are legitimate, that rarely ever get to those who can address the issues...
I hope your inference is correct, in that they will learn quickly, and my guess on your further inference (that they CPU manufacturers will correct such a problem by dropping in CPU/chipset DRM support) is also on target... but current track records on such matters seem to indicate otherwise - though with a smaller, vocal set of people "in the know" about such issues... maybe you are right in that what the computer industry needs is a Snafu on such a big level that the "average user" is affected to an extent that they complain...
LoL!!!
Perhaps not if we stop doing free "friends and family" support if they buy the junk.Funny, sad, and too true... thanks for the humorous, insightful response!
Rob
Not just are you correct, but as it applies to this particular discussion, I'd say that any article that discusses religion in any form, has the (mathematically impossible) 1000% chance of offending people - just as how some religious zealots will see, experience and co-exist with a known (aspect of) reality and dismiss it in favor of religious rhetoric.
I'm impressed that they will not allow such changes though... reality and religious beliefs/desires dont always go hand in hand... no offense to anyone who is religious intended...
This is where I sadly think you are wrong - in what would happen - even though you are right in what consumers' reactions should be.
Most "high end electronics" consumers do not have the knowledge or tech savvy to make such a decision, and will continue to buy the "latest and greatest" they are told to buy - unless it sufficiently curtails their actions. Most of the people who will be affected by such a theoretical move (by the CPU manufacturers) are the tech savvy computer community - not the computer users who are otherwise (technologically) computer illiterate.
Unfortunately, they comprise the far larger share of computer users, leaving those of us who are technologically literate, stuck with such theoretical choices because that will thus become all that is available.
It didn't matter how many video geeks knew and understood that Beta was better than VHS, did it? They were the small minority of video users... the same sadly applies to the computer world.
I'd expect (most) everyone here on /. who has the friend/relative/neighbor who comes to them to solve (what to us are simple) computer problems, would remember that when looking at the tech world, what is better (technology wise, user rights wise, performance wise, could keep on going on this list all day) is irrelevant to the mainstream user community, regardless of what the small (yet vocal in places like this) tech oriented community knows is the actual truth.
Just my thoughts... which covers my quota for thinking for the week... :-)
You are probably correct with the underlying issues and reasoning for the naming. I'd just think that someone would check what the "marketdroids" wrote and have corrected them. Love the term, BTW.
Come off it already. "great install experience" ... hey, its not a f*cking condo timeshare!
I hate to feed the trolls, but he does have a point. It's a Service Pack. "I agree" -> "Install/Next/OK" -> "Reboot Now"
How much greater can they make it? There isnt much to add to that. Are they thinking of playing a movie for the user while it is installing? Define MS's new definition of "great install experience" when it comes to installing a Service Pack.
If they mean "wont hose a working system" there are other terms for that. A great install experience means making an understandable installer where user options are clearly and simply displayed on the screen. A Service Pack has no such need for that... you agree to the EULA and install - or dont.
Mods: Sometimes even self proclaimed trolls like trolltalk can be right. Mod on content, not slashdot name.
Good question... which leads me to this statement:
"This shows just how worried Microsoft is by Google," says David B. Yoffie. "Microsoft has faced competitive threats before, but none with the size, strength, profitability and momentum of Google."Though probably true to one extent or another, this is just normal business for Microsoft. They routinely buy their competitors, whether they (or we) think their competitors have a better product or not. Thus, I am sure that DBY has not hit upon MS's full reasoning behind this move. Even if MS Live Search were the best "product" out there, this would be a way for MS to gain more market share in a very short period of time, and thus also increase revenue (ad and services generated), while wiping out yet another competitor.
Also, keep in mind, Yahoo does more than just search engines, and some of their other services also compete with MS's online services (and dont have similar Google services to compete with)... all of the above EXCEPT the Google aspect still apply.
You are indeed correct... I had planned on putting the obligatory **AA, which got me thinking of the RIAA - add that to not enough coffee and you see what happens! :-)
Thanks
While they are at least admitting that THIS report is highly erroneous, it does not even begin to address the plethora of similar reports they have bombarded the media and Internet with that have similar figures.
So... which reality are they going with? Agreeing that this report is highly off compromises many of their financial claims of the damages file sharing does... or perhaps they will just admit this report is wrong due to "human error" - but the others are right "Please believe everything else we are saying - even though it contradicts our admission of error here."
C'mon... who does the RIAA think they are fooling? (RIAA) retract all your ridiculous claims - or dont bother... the rest of us know the truth - and have for years.
I'd think it useful... everything is an object - even individual text entry fields. Every field or object can interact with other objects. Nothing yet is as object oriented - and all tied to REXX at the same time.
Seriously, I'd like to know what it is that OS/2's code would help the open source world accomplish.Really? How about JFS? Thank OS/2 (and AIX) for that. How about the new thread scheduling code that IBM has donated to the Linux community? The WPS? The MMIO Codec system (allowing anything and everything that wants to, to be able to interact with any audio, image or video format seamlessly - all tied to the object oriented WPS - oh, and to REXX as well)? The (AIX derived, rock solid) firewall code - which could be used in conjunction to the Linux efforts?
I could probably list other things as well... namely much of the technology that went into OS/2 PPC - which ran on top of a true microkernel - and still supported DOS and Windows sessions in virtual machines - on a PPC chip, (and included the fixes for the WPS that the Intel version never got).
Anyway, there are things that would benefit the OSS community - as well as the eComStation/Warp community.
The source to an old OS strongly tied to a specific architecture that is becoming extinct?The PPC version isn't tied to any specific hardware - swap a microkernel, and run on anything. And the written microkernel ran on more machines than it was planned for (like some AIX boxes).
A large percentage of the code is NOT under MS copyrights. IBM rewrote many large chunks of OS/2 for version 2, and then continued to replace code in versions 2.1, 3, 4, 4.5, 4.51 and 4.52 - MS has code cross licensing agreements on big chunks of the code though, and much of the multimedia stuff (codecs, etc) and some of the graphics stuff was written for IBM by others. They are the LEAST beholden to MS in that respect.
So, your premise is correct... but MS isnt the biggest issue in that respect (though they still are one). Many such aspects (like NetBIOS and such) aren't needed anyway since we (OS/2 community) have Samba. As for the kernel and WPS... those are not MS's - nor ever were - and those are the key things we want. As for PM - that can be grabbed from the OS/2 PPC model (as could a true microkernel version of the kernel). As for REXX - we'd rather have the code than the portion open sourced, since the OS/2 code has various OS/2 only functions (virtually the entire OS can be controlled by the OS2 version of REXX) and has various OS/2 enhancements that are tied into how the kernel can handle memory, disk, IO, etc...
(I'm one of the people involved in this petition - one of the reviewers before it was sent)
You are very close to the truth - much of the wording comes from IBM's standard policy regarding OS/2 which could be found on their website. Basically, the response was the legal statement (which primarily echo'd our statements regarding understanding that certain parts could not be released OS because of such matters), followed by the standard "Help your customers migrate, or tell them to contact us for such help or for defect support, but we plan no further enhancements" (paraphrased).
The situation as we believe it stands, is simply that IBM is not willing to spend the time (ie: MONEY) to dig through the code to determine which pieces of code are free of any restrictions to allow them to release it.
Certain components like JFS were easy since they were from AIX (then ported to OS/2, then ported to Linux) and REXX (which was ported to/created for virtually every IBM OS. The rest (the important ones) are intermingled with code tied up by various copyright agreements and cross-code sharing agreements. The easier thing to do would be for them to Open Source the PPC code, which was much less reliant on either 3rd party code - and/or - not covered by technology sharing agreements with other companies (ie: Microsoft). An excellent kernel, and better implementation of the WPS would be the result - but we in the OS/2 World are coming to the conclusions that (a) they don't know where that code is (and it wouldnt be the first chunks of code they lost), (b) digging it up and providing it would cost more money than they are willing to spend (which is nothing - and they have already spent a lot of money in porting ideas - if not code - from the OS/2 kernel for the benefit of the Linux scheduler) and/or (c) the people at IBM who responded are unaware of the technical, legal and other differences between OS/2 PPC and OS/2 Intel (much less the existance of OS/2 PPC).
Anyone who wants to read the original PDF can check out www.OS2World.com - once it's no longer slashdotted (just keep hitting reload - it will come up... the relevant link is here: http://www.os2world.com/content/view/16595/2/
In addition to power consumption, a heavily accessed server (email, multi-homed web, etc) would benefit from the decrease in access time, which of course is a wonderful boon for reading fragmented files.
I've found, that even with very large disk cache (1/2 a gig), when hosting numerous high traffic sites, even with NO fragmentation (HPFS or a defragged drive), many disk reads (from different files) are required. With no fragmentation, the seek/access time goes from the HDD standard to much nearer to zero (respectively). With fragmentation, the difference is remarkably greater.
It's amazing what head movement to handle a few hundred reads from different files/threads can do to data throughput. And with 50GB of data and a few gigabytes of images, a 1/2 gig disk cache is only so helpful in minimizing disk reads (and thusly only so efficient in minimizing throughput loss from trying to handle a few hundred simultaneous non-cached requests). Even with striping, heads need to move...
And of course, since most admins like maintaining logs, every read requires a write someplace else on a disk (though of course the smart thing to do is have the logs on a different disk on a different SCSI/SATA/IDE chain (SCSI for me, thanks) - but sometimes that isnt an option (my backup server - not worth it for the few times it is used).
What I'd love to see are these released with a U640 SCSI interface... I'd love to chain 14 on a cable...
If memory serves, it is due to the voltages required by the Model M - and the voltages that are put out on certain newer motherboards.
I am too lazy to check to see if my memory is correct - but I think the site listed above says why...
The link was http://www.clickykeyboards.com/index.cfm/fa/items.main/parentcat/11298/subcatid/0/id/131781
As for me, I am keeping (and using) all of my Model M's till someone pries them from my cold dead fingers - and as they make nice bludgeoning weapons (and then can be cleaned in the dishwasher) they'll have quite a fight on their hands if they try to take 'em. ;-)
My guess is (based off the test results) that it would be more difficult to sleep in an area with no signal, than in one with a signal. The issue according to the test seems to be the cell phone's signal - not that of the towers. That being the case, in an area with no signal, your cell phone is most likely transmitting more often (attempting to obtain a signal) than it's normal periodic connections when within range. Of course, it may vary depending on cell phone - but I know all of mine try every few seconds.
A good test that works with many cell phones is to put it near/on a speaker and see when it causes interference... try that test in an area with - and without a signal...
The problem wasn't the summary (of the previous /. article) - but the Washington Post article (referenced in the other /. post) - which was misleading.
The only problem with the premise is that too many decent bands have already sold away their rights to the record companies - for their current albums, as well as upcoming ones. Many artists have quite some time to wait before they can release music on their own due to that fact. Sad but true. Many artists not in that boat, can't afford alternative methods, because even as cheap as they are, the cost is still above what they can afford - and that doesn't even take into account paying for air-play or advertising - which is what makes signing a deal with the devil (I mean a record label) more attractive due to the initial artist payout and the fact that the label will promote the album(s).
As more people move to the Internet to find their sources of music, and better (non label affiliated) methods of advertising music come into existence, things will change - but the day when every artist can just up and jump ship from the record label conglomerate is not yet today - and still (sadly) a while off.
Most people, due to want (it is nice having $$$$ in one's pocket at signing before a single CD is sold), due to need (family to feed, rent/mortgage to pay, etc) would (need to) opt for a distribution method that puts money in their pockets immediately so they can survive... the labels know that - and ensure that the contracts grant them (the labels) ownership of the next (and the next, and the next) album produced - thus locking in the poor artist who is just trying to survive.
I'm not sure how many of those people actually worked (or work) for AOL. The DialUp team did NOT. We worked for UUNet, then MCI/Worldcom. Who AOL used after that I dont know... but I doubt they installed the tons of access numbers needed when MCI/WC went under. AlterDial (and UUDial) was owned and operated by UUNet, and used mostly for AOL and MSN. Authentication and such were done by us too. Support was handled by a different group.
Viol8, both SerpentMage and 0racle are correct - and you're a bit weird - at least in your inference. Perhaps you are speaking of your own personal experiences? Or (incorrectly) thought you were being humorous?
Many large dogs just make wonderful, gentle companions - no need for inadequacy to want to own one. My ex-roommate had a 160lb rottweiler that was one of the nicest dogs I met. Not just was he both smart and gentle, but he hated violence of any kind and would not allow any violence in the house. If someone raised their hand in a threatening manor, he'd either reach up and pull the person's arm down and hold it or shove his way inbetween them and butt them apart with his head and keep them separated. He loved being petted, curling up with us to watch TV, go for runs and was very friendly... with one of his best non-human friends being a (my) silver tabby (cat).
Viol8, please explain to me what inadequacy one must have to want such a loyal, caring, gentle pet?