The only version of Windows available for the last ~5 years has been Windows NT. My assumption that Windows NT was what you were talking about, was quite valid.
Interesting, when talking about the design of windows, we're not allowed to mention all the win32 backwards compatability goodnes that was ported from the 9x branch?
Riiiiiiiight, in your windows world, windows was completely redesigned from the ground up with NT, all of the APIs were chucked out, the A:, b:, c: naming conventions were thrown away, the UI changed completely, filetypes were no longer based on the extension, but on the file's header. In other words, Microsoft completely threw out backwards compatability.
Do you honestly believe you can talk about windows 'design' (and again, I state, that's a kind word for windows) without considering its past? (back through 9x & dos?)
I apologise for calling you a bigot - you're clearly a shill.
Oh, and I never said windows was stealing from unix - I don't believe in terminology like that - I said it was becoming more unix-like, this means unless you're playing silly games, that windows is introducing features and workflows that are common (not unique) to Unix-like operating systems.
1) I'm a man fanboy. 2) Have been for years. 3) Rand MS bash (Internet deplorer) 4) Sadness for Apple's decline. 5) Mac not so insanely great for games 6) Win 95 better for games. 7) Enough of a fanboy to buy 2nd hand mac to play command & conquer. 8) Bah! Enough, this article is boring....
*shakes head* - a story on mac gaming that doesn't mention the (sniff) bungie tragedy!
The funny thing is that anyone who changes their mind based on this stupid marketing campaign really is a sheep.
You know, now I think about it, perhaps such a negative (and as others have pointed out, blatantly astroturfing & subculture mining) campaign won't work so well.
I do partially agree with you - I think anyone who changes their mind and buys a sandisk based on this stupid marketing campaign really is a sheep, but I think someone who sees this campaign and just thinks about it a little more next time they buy a mp3 player is not....
*heh* - and look how that ad managed to unseat IBM & establish Apple as the dominant player in the PC space from the mid 80s on;-)
Guess it goes to show that a clever campaign by itself isn't going to be enough - lets hope they do support rockbox. Tt could become the firefox of firmware!
he only "proprietary" format is the DRM from the Music Store, and maybe ALAC lossless (I don't know if ALAC is open or not). It plays industry standard MP3 and AAC files just fine.
Apple got it's dominant position largely through a clever (and cool, and the early) advertising campaign. They're firmly fixed as the 'cool' mp3 player to get.
Everyone else who's tried to take on Apple has (as the article notes) has tried to differentiate themselves through technological features (doesn't work 'cause most people don't understand) or price (doesn't work 'cause people don't want a "cheap and nasty" music player). Differentiating by making iPod users seem like sheep is a pretty effective idea.... perhaps! (I am sure the inevitable replies will correct me).
The rockbox news is far more interesting - vendor supported rockbox would be a cool thing to have (wish Rockbox worked on my 3g iPod - soon I will have ogg goodness). But (according to the article), its just a rumour, not a confirmed fact) - the submitter should perhaps have linked to another article?
(Oh, and this was my favorite poster - allthough I think the "shackled" image is more appropriate for an iTunes Music Store mp4 than an ipod itself)
By what measure is Windows NT not "designed" ? Have you read anything about its history ?
But I said "calling windows 'designed' in the first place" - not windows NT.
You can make exactly the same arguments about unix & windows evolving, then getting a major overhaul in later years.
(You see, I'm not a unix bigot, I'm just exposing you to be a windows bigot).
The whitepaper (which I've read before) **snip** (or even which things were new in Windows 2000 that can only be otherwise found in unix OSes).
If you actually read the white paper, you would know that it was talking about introducing things post windows 2000.
If you'd actually read my comment you would have seen that nowhere did I say they could only be found in Unix.
If you'd actually read the conclusions you would have seen plenty of reccomendations to basically "make it more unix like".
In short, I hope you're not a MS shill - because MS would be wasting their money on you (all you can do is play silling semantic games, rather then try to discuss something).
There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out.
The moral of the story here ladies and gents, is that its fine to spy on your neighbours, but not upon your family.
If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.
Demonstably incorrect. Texas already has cameras in public, and already has legislation allowing for secret camera locations.
Sorry, your going to have to find another state for your hard-man scenarios. Texans rolled over as quickly & quietly as the brits did.
Why do you say that? All I could see in the article was: Representatives of Microsoft and Adobe were not immediately reachable for comment. - that's not refusing to comment.
Now, I suspect the reason Microsoft & Adobe have been negotiating, is over rights to use Adobes proprietary DRM extensions (the ones that are not implemeneted by openoffice, Apple's print to PDF feature, etc).
When negotiations broke down (who knows what reason for, perhaps Adobe was trying to screw MS or vice versa), MS was left without being able to fully support PDF.
There's no reasonable reading of the story that doesn't include an Adobe threat of legal action.
You haven't been following Microsoft stories for long have you?
When you whine without reading the article, someone will point out to you that Adobe hasn't threatened anything.
You are wrong in this instance. They've opened the format for anyone to implemement since it's good for them gaining market share and ubiquity.
Now that Microsoft wants to add PDF support like thousands other 3-rd party PDF writer products out there (including OpenOffice), they're spreading FUD about adobe, rather then just quietly implementing PDF support.
Adobe isn't "Threatening Microsoft With a Suit" - Microsoft is speculating that Adobe will file an antitrust suit in Europe.
I think its FUD on MS's part: From Adobe's PDF Reference page:
The PDF Reference provides a description of the Portable Document Format and is intended for application developers wishing to develop applications that create PDF files directly, as well as read or modify PDF document content.
Unless MS extends PDF in a manner imcompatable with adobe's PDF. (but that would never happen)
Probably because they wanted something that was designed better than unix (even calling unix "designed" in the first place is being fairly generous).
Maybe they wanted something better designed then unix, but they didn't get it! (calling windows 'designed' in the first place is being fairly generous)
The only way Windows is becoming more like unix, is if your worldview starts and ends at Windows and unix. If anything, unix is becoming more like Windows.
Errr right, I suggest you read this Microsoft whitepaper written in 2000. It points out a lot of problems with win2k found during the unix -> windows migration for hotmail. Many of the reccomendations are basically "make it more unix like" and many of them have been implemented in the time since.
In other words - you have no idea what you're talking about.
The more I hear about Vista, the more I believe that Microsoft's next operating system will be built from the ground up using a pre-existing OS like BSD or Linux as its foundation.
I remember reading someone reminiscing about NT & saying (speculating? guessing?) that MS had some sort of non-compete clause as part of the deal to sell xenix to sco that said they would not enter the unix OS market - and thats why they didn't ship a unix OS (after all every competing OS is unix-like & windows becomes more so with each release).
If googled around for it & not found anything - anyone know?
Slashdot Mirror
The only version of Windows available for the last ~5 years has been Windows NT. My assumption that Windows NT was what you were talking about, was quite valid.
Interesting, when talking about the design of windows, we're not allowed to mention all the win32 backwards compatability goodnes that was ported from the 9x branch?
Riiiiiiiight, in your windows world, windows was completely redesigned from the ground up with NT, all of the APIs were chucked out, the A:, b:, c: naming conventions were thrown away, the UI changed completely, filetypes were no longer based on the extension, but on the file's header. In other words, Microsoft completely threw out backwards compatability.
Do you honestly believe you can talk about windows 'design' (and again, I state, that's a kind word for windows) without considering its past? (back through 9x & dos?)
I apologise for calling you a bigot - you're clearly a shill.
Oh, and I never said windows was stealing from unix - I don't believe in terminology like that - I said it was becoming more unix-like, this means unless you're playing silly games, that windows is introducing features and workflows that are common (not unique) to Unix-like operating systems.
check out wednesday night on the weekly graph
Errr, right, your fluff (it was all attributed to a MS spokesperson) piece link pretty much confirmed what this guy said
*sighs* - it was a mistake OK!
As someone else in this thread quipped - perhaps I was using a das keyboard!
He did it on purpose
Nope. I never bash mac users (or anyone else) for there supposed sexual preferences.
At first I couldn't tell whether you mistyped "mac", were referring to man pages, or were just gay.
:-)
:-/
*snort* - nicely put - and three retorts instead of the inevitable one
(and unfortunately I can't use the typo defense having savaged someone for accidentally calling me a mac fag instead of a mac fan)
-1 Waffle.
The funny thing is that anyone who changes their mind based on this stupid marketing campaign really is a sheep.
You know, now I think about it, perhaps such a negative (and as others have pointed out, blatantly astroturfing & subculture mining) campaign won't work so well.
I do partially agree with you - I think anyone who changes their mind and buys a sandisk based on this stupid marketing campaign really is a sheep, but I think someone who sees this campaign and just thinks about it a little more next time they buy a mp3 player is not....
*heh* - and look how that ad managed to unseat IBM & establish Apple as the dominant player in the PC space from the mid 80s on ;-)
Guess it goes to show that a clever campaign by itself isn't going to be enough - lets hope they do support rockbox. Tt could become the firefox of firmware!
Please see my sig.
he only "proprietary" format is the DRM from the Music Store, and maybe ALAC lossless (I don't know if ALAC is open or not). It plays industry standard MP3 and AAC files just fine.
mp3 & aac are both proprietary formats too.
Apple got it's dominant position largely through a clever (and cool, and the early) advertising campaign. They're firmly fixed as the 'cool' mp3 player to get.
Everyone else who's tried to take on Apple has (as the article notes) has tried to differentiate themselves through technological features (doesn't work 'cause most people don't understand) or price (doesn't work 'cause people don't want a "cheap and nasty" music player). Differentiating by making iPod users seem like sheep is a pretty effective idea.... perhaps! (I am sure the inevitable replies will correct me).
The rockbox news is far more interesting - vendor supported rockbox would be a cool thing to have (wish Rockbox worked on my 3g iPod - soon I will have ogg goodness). But (according to the article), its just a rumour, not a confirmed fact) - the submitter should perhaps have linked to another article?
(Oh, and this was my favorite poster - allthough I think the "shackled" image is more appropriate for an iTunes Music Store mp4 than an ipod itself)
Still not enough context for me. *shrugs*
I can't really discuss without being able to read the article. Sorry.
Because I'm not aware of any cameras on the streets of Austin, Dallas, or Houston.
You're not aware because you're not paying attention.
* Dallas has them
* Austin has them
* The police have allready been caught for selling footage from the (now allegedly not recording, but still present) Deep Ellum cameras.
And the thing is, while UT had to publish the locations, that requirement no longer exists for street CCTV.
They could be installing hundreds of cameras - and wouldn't have to tell you. If you're Texan, then presume you're being watched.
By what measure is Windows NT not "designed" ? Have you read anything about its history ?
But I said "calling windows 'designed' in the first place" - not windows NT.
You can make exactly the same arguments about unix & windows evolving, then getting a major overhaul in later years.
(You see, I'm not a unix bigot, I'm just exposing you to be a windows bigot).
The whitepaper (which I've read before) **snip** (or even which things were new in Windows 2000 that can only be otherwise found in unix OSes).
If you actually read the white paper, you would know that it was talking about introducing things post windows 2000.
If you'd actually read my comment you would have seen that nowhere did I say they could only be found in Unix.
If you'd actually read the conclusions you would have seen plenty of reccomendations to basically "make it more unix like".
In short, I hope you're not a MS shill - because MS would be wasting their money on you (all you can do is play silling semantic games, rather then try to discuss something).
The lack of context makes it unclear as to whether those comments were before these allegations from MS or after.
Can you post the entire article please?
There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out.
The moral of the story here ladies and gents, is that its fine to spy on your neighbours, but not upon your family.
If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.
Demonstably incorrect. Texas already has cameras in public, and already has legislation allowing for secret camera locations.
Sorry, your going to have to find another state for your hard-man scenarios. Texans rolled over as quickly & quietly as the brits did.
I now have a new 'worst imaginary job':(I can't ever see that sentence being finished)
Why is Adobe refusing to comment on it?
Why do you say that? All I could see in the article was: Representatives of Microsoft and Adobe were not immediately reachable for comment. - that's not refusing to comment.
Now, I suspect the reason Microsoft & Adobe have been negotiating, is over rights to use Adobes proprietary DRM extensions (the ones that are not implemeneted by openoffice, Apple's print to PDF feature, etc).
When negotiations broke down (who knows what reason for, perhaps Adobe was trying to screw MS or vice versa), MS was left without being able to fully support PDF.
There's no reasonable reading of the story that doesn't include an Adobe threat of legal action.
You haven't been following Microsoft stories for long have you?
How is it that Apple is able to get away with allowing easy generation of PDFs
How is it that the MS fanbois leap to defend MS & Bash Apple without reading the article?
Adobe's threatened nothing. Microsoft is spreading FUD.
(and Apple uses PDF for a helluva lot more then what you've mentioned)
When you whine without reading the article, someone will point out to you that Adobe hasn't threatened anything.
You are wrong in this instance. They've opened the format for anyone to implemement since it's good for them gaining market share and ubiquity.
Now that Microsoft wants to add PDF support like thousands other 3-rd party PDF writer products out there (including OpenOffice), they're spreading FUD about adobe, rather then just quietly implementing PDF support.
PDF is an open format for anyone to implement.
I think its FUD on MS's part: From Adobe's PDF Reference page:Unless MS extends PDF in a manner imcompatable with adobe's PDF. (but that would never happen)
With innovation like that, I'm surprised Microsoft wasn't on the list of participating companies!
Probably because they wanted something that was designed better than unix (even calling unix "designed" in the first place is being fairly generous).
Maybe they wanted something better designed then unix, but they didn't get it! (calling windows 'designed' in the first place is being fairly generous)
The only way Windows is becoming more like unix, is if your worldview starts and ends at Windows and unix. If anything, unix is becoming more like Windows.
Errr right, I suggest you read this Microsoft whitepaper written in 2000. It points out a lot of problems with win2k found during the unix -> windows migration for hotmail. Many of the reccomendations are basically "make it more unix like" and many of them have been implemented in the time since.
In other words - you have no idea what you're talking about.
The more I hear about Vista, the more I believe that Microsoft's next operating system will be built from the ground up using a pre-existing OS like BSD or Linux as its foundation.
I remember reading someone reminiscing about NT & saying (speculating? guessing?) that MS had some sort of non-compete clause as part of the deal to sell xenix to sco that said they would not enter the unix OS market - and thats why they didn't ship a unix OS (after all every competing OS is unix-like & windows becomes more so with each release).
If googled around for it & not found anything - anyone know?