> Due to the cross platform requirements of firefox and safari, they'd > implement their own event loops, which on a windows system > would involve more wake ups per second.
So what we've got here, is IE8 showing the benefits of one browser using highly platform specific system calls in a way that other browsers do not or cannot use for one reason or another.
Looks like the Microsoft Desktop Monopoly hitting the browser market again.
> I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image > will take at worst a few hours. But I can certainly understand > the cost of testing will be considerable.
Diddums.
Then they'll just have to bill Microsoft for the inconvenience of making a profit out of being a Microsoft re-seller. Won't they.
> What I don't get is why doesn't MSFT buy them out? Seems like it > would be cheaper in the long run and less of a hassle just to buy > the whole damned company than risk royally pissing off the OEMs (who > might even get ticked off enough to ship OO.o instead) over such a > small company compared to MSFT.
What you wrote would be logical if Microsoft's only goal was that it wants to use technology that company owns.
But as you know that isn't Microsoft's only goal.
It also takes great delight in screwing over other companies - especially if they're smaller ethical companies with good people.
> Firstly, arguably the biggest player in the software business is now on > the wrong side of a software patents lawsuit, which is going to mean > probably the most powerful legal team in the business is going to be > looking for all sorts of arguments to get such patents overturned.
How did IBM get involved in this case? And why would IBM get its own inhouse lawyers to do this for Microsoft?
Oh dear. A woman has done some work and is now noticeably better than other women.
Frankly, the whole idea of segregating sports based on sex is, well, sexist and therefore is contradictory to human rights.
Female athletes should quit being so bitchy about other women and just get on with enjoying their sports otherwise we might just bite the bullet and unify the currently sex-segregated teams.
The whole concept of what is female and what is male is a difficult issue especially when you get down to the fact that some persons are chimeras (constituted of parts with different genetic makeup)
Best just to keep to inspecting genitals to see if "she" lacks a penis and balls, and/or checking to see if "she" has a prostate gland.
> No they can't continue to sell MS Office, they CAN sell a new version of Office > with that feature removed. That's quite a difference and will be very expensive > to do since it involves brick-and-mortar stores, not just updating a download.
Selling a new release of Microsoft Office is still selling Microsoft Office.
The important thing is that they remove the patent-infringing features.
BTW, most sold versions of MS Office are OEM versions. All Microsoft would have to do is to merely provide another CD copy.
Given that CDs are extremely inexpensive to manufacture, and given that Microsoft is so extremely wealthy due to the massive profit margins that it has been extorting over the years I see negligible harm against Microsoft for having to recall unsold copies of Microsoft Office and replace them with non-infringing copies.
Actually, I think that Microsoft should go a step further and issue a critical service pack to remove the infringing features in all extant versions of Microsoft Office - because the patent owner has already been significantly harmed by Microsoft's actions and this should be remedied. And in this respect I think that the judge was too lenient on Microsoft.
> If they stole code line for line, why is this a > patent case and not a copyright infringement case?
Because they can potentially get more money from a patent infringement case, and because if they only sued for copyright infringement Microsoft could simply rewrite the infringing section of code to not include the infringing lines of code and then still be using Custom XML in violation of the patent in question.
They CAN continue to sell MS Office - so long as they remove support for customized-XML based documents. As most users still use the older binary file formats this will not be an issue for them.
Also, if Microsoft wants to continue to use XML based documents they can always correct its poor implementation of the ISO-approved Open Document file formats as these are based on the published XML standard (along with several other tried and proven standards) and have been confirmed as not infringing this patent.
[rolls eyes] Oh yeah - Microsoft doesn't want to use a well documented file format that is already implemented in multiple office productivity suites as that would promote [shudder] "Interoperability" and we all know how keen (ie it isn't!) Microsoft is to have its software behaving nicely with the software of other developers.
Sorry, but that's how I feel on the matter, and that's the dominant behaviour that I can see demonstrated in Microsoft's track record stretching from as recently as it forcefully ramrodding a flawed >6000-page MS Office Open XML specification through a fast-tracked standardization process and as far back as MS-DOS... [blah blah blah]
I have to admit a bias given that I am opposed to all software patents due to my fundamental belief that mathematics and mathmatical algorithms cannot be patented and that software is entirely and only mathematics and algorithms.
Microsoft has used its giant collection of software patents to stifle innovation and competition and I see this as merely some other company's patent being used to stifle innovation and competition, but this time the target is Microsoft. Heh heh - I see it as a good example of corporate karma in action.
In this case there is negligible impact against Microsoft as a result of the injunction, as MS Office already has proprietary file formats owned by Microsoft that can be used.
> Actually, this is hardly surprising. HIPAA compliance is for the geeks > to worry about, not the HARDCORE ER STAFF who's job is SAVING LIVES
_Actually_, the only people who worry about using Google Apps are the bean counters who don't care at all about protecting the confidentiality of their business's data or intellectual property, and only care entirely about shaving cents from the cost of operating their business.
Nobody else would even contemplate using Google Apps in a commercial context.
> "...but also looks like 'the operating system that both > Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for."
Lets see...
The first officially released version of MS Windows was released way back in 1985 (1.01) - two years after Apple released its first version of the MacIntosh and 12 years after Xerox developed the Alto.
Microsoft has subsequently re-released it 21 times.
Windows 1.0 Windows 2.0 Windows 2.1x Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows 4.0 (marketed as "Windows 95") WindowsNT4.0 Windows 95A Windows 95B Windows 95B USB (included basic USB support) Windows 95C Windows 98 (original release) Windows 98 ("Second Edition") WindowsNT5.0 (marketed as Windows 2000) WindowsNT5.1 (marketed as WindowsXP) WindowsNT5.2.x (marketed as Windows Server 2003) WindowsNT5.2.x (re-released and marketed as Windows Server 2003 R2) WindowsNT6.0 (marketed as Windows Vista) WindowsNT6.0 R6002 (marketed as Windows Vista Service Pack 2) WindowsNT6.1 (marketed as Windows Server 2008) WindowsNT6.1.7600 (marketed as Windows Server 2008 service Pack 2 and also as Windows 7)
Now this review of Microsoft's most recent re-release of Microsoft Windows describes it as the "operating system that Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for".
That is truly a _long_ awaited piece of software that is neither original nor innovative!
MS Windows is crippleware - in that the full version is always installed, but features are crippled depending on how much $$$ has been paid. Not even this fact is innovative.
Please feel free to contribute additional facts about the history of MS Windows.
> This much is true, though: There are certain costs involved with building, maintaining and > connecting to the grid that are present whether the subscriber uses a single watt of electricity > or not. It is perfectly reasonable for the company to try to recoup those costs from all their > customers, so making that portion of your bill a fixed fee as opposed to a percentage of usage > is quite reasonable.
While I agree that it is reasonable for an electric power board to cover the costs of supplying the electricity and maintaining the reticulation network I don't agree that frugal users should be effectively penalised while wasteful or large scale users are rewarded with substantial - even heavily subsidised - reduced costs per unit of electricity supplied.
I hold the view that a community resource should be operated for the benefit of all citizens and not just for large (multinational) corporations; and those who reduce their dependency on the electricity reticulation system should be rewarded and not penalised.
> They didnt say that it was a "connection fee", it is a "connectivity fee". > The on going costs are meant more for maintenance than for the initial connection.
Whatever you call it, it is effectively what electricity companies charge you in order to prevent them from removing the fuse that connects your house's wiring to the reticulation network going past your house.
When charged by a gangster it is called extortion.
When charged by a large corporation it is called "Legitimate Cost Recovery".
When paid by a modest ordinary consumer of electricity it is called "bloody expensive" and "the largest component in my power bill".
Large corporations may not even be charged it if their usage is massively large.
In my country one large multinational corporation consumes so very much electricity that a power station was built specifically to supply their electricity, and the unit charge is minuscule in comparison with what ordinary members of the general public pays per unit of electricity!
Basically, electricity is supplied in such a way that they get the most profit from each customer per year relative to the cost of providing that customer with the electricity.
The biggest fault with the electricity industry is the whole idea of supplying electricity "for profit" - it should be an essential resource supplied only for the cost of generation/distribution, providing for future requirements, and guaranteeing the ongoing security of supply.
I would suggest that electricity should be a community owned resource administered for the greater good of the entire community and not for the profiteering of a small number of generating companies.
Alas a secure reticulated supply of electricity/water/gas at a moderate cost is not something that the capitalist model of the economy is good at delivering for ordinary citizens.
> Microsoft quickly denied that any GPL violation was a driver for their decision to > donate the code; the company's senior director of platform strategy, Sam Ramji, said > at the time: "Microsoft's decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to > the GPLv2 license." Now the Software Freedom Law Center confirms that Microsoft was > indeed in violation of the GPLv2 when it distributed its Hyper-V Linux Integration > Components without providing source code.
"Never believe something until it has been officially denied".:o)
> He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still > driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them. The problem > is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long > gone, but the habits of those days remain.
I am not a software developer.
However, I am a user of Free software.
It is my opinion that those persons who put in the time and effort to write the Free software (or to assist with testing, or the production of supporting documentation) are the persons who have a right to have an input in what direction that Free software is heading in, and what features it has.
I am thankful that so many software developers have produced such a rich and diverse wealth of Free software, and that by virtue of the GNU General Public License all that software continues to give all users and developers the 4 fundamental software freedoms.
I think ordinary users should not have a deciding voice in what direction Free software goes - I think that much more deservingly belongs to those whose hard work actually gives us that Free software.
You want the privilege of a vote? How about you putting in some time working on some of those applications you want?
> And for the record Silverlight 1 and large parts > of 2 work on linux.
Do you sincerely believe that Microsoft Silverlight will be available and reliably supported on the Unix and Linux platforms _by Microsoft_ in the long term?
Why would that support be any different from the (lack of) support currently offered by Microsoft for Internet Explorer and for Microsoft's alternative to PDF on Linux and Unix?
Microsoft has a history of attempting to subvert standards based technology.
Also, for quite a number of years now Microsoft has not supplied a version of its browser for Unix or Linux - especially since being put under pressure to make its browser comply with the published HTML standards - despite having previously supported those popular platforms.
Also, Microsoft had previously attempted to embrace-extend-extinguish the multi-OS Java platform by modifying it with features that only worked on a Microsoft operating system.
The Flash browser plugin is available for most if not all major browsers on all major operating systems.
Silverlight is not available on Unix or Linux platforms. Not sure if it is available on MacOS.
In your view do you think that Microsoft will behave any differently with Silverlight?
Do you genuinely believe that MS will in the long term support that browser plugin for all major browsers on all major platforms?
While I would hope that would be the case, I do not trust MS to behave any differently from its entire history to date, of entirely attempting to kill any and all products or services offered by any organisation or corporation that it perceives to be a threat or competitor in a "market" that Microsoft is either already dominating or is seeking to dominate.
In the last browser war as soon as Microsoft had killed its opposition it stopped actively developing its browser.
Do not be deceived. Silverlight is Microsoft's attempt to kill Adobe/Shockwave Flash. Microsoft also attempted to kill the standards approved "PDF" Portable Document File format originally developed by Adobe and freely available on all major platforms and many minor ones too.
We are now experiencing a Browser Plugin war being relentlessly waged by Microsoft against Adobe. Does Microsoft really deserve your support to help it kill Adobe? If not then why do you have Silverlight or "Moonlight" installed on your computer?
> For example, things like COM, WMI, DirectX,.NET, or ? the new WDF toolkit for driver development in Windows > Vista. I don't see how you can separate any of this > from the rest of the OS.
That's very easy to do.
After all, there are at least three operating systems (and I don't mean three iterations of one developer's OS) that don't use at all.net, DirectX, WMI, or WDF - all proprietary Microsoft products and completely irrelevant to other operating systems.
> As it will be a year before it is evaluated, tested, > patched, and approved, they have time... Look how > long it took Vista to get stable.
It's taken them this long to get MS Windows Vista (Ultimate blah blah) into the condition it should have been in when it was released over two years ago..
How long ago before that was MS WindowsXP released?
It could be argued that they could have expected Vista to be around for just as long as XP has been already.
It could also be argued that MS has already got the government of the USA already in its pocket and that "upgrading" (yeah right) is a necessary part of transferring more money to Microsoft in a way that appears to be legal.
If the USA's DOD was genuinely interested in "upgrading" their desktop computers, then they wouldn't have stayed with Microsoft - because they're using the same old software with fundamentally the same old bugs and same old security flaws!
Slashdot Mirror
> Due to the cross platform requirements of firefox and safari, they'd
> implement their own event loops, which on a windows system
> would involve more wake ups per second.
So what we've got here, is IE8 showing the benefits of one browser using highly platform specific system calls in a way that other browsers do not or cannot use for one reason or another.
Looks like the Microsoft Desktop Monopoly hitting the browser market again.
I didn't realise that browsers regulated laptop battery life.
I thought battery life was controlled by the Operating System regulating such things as CPU clock speed on that particular computer.
Or is this report really talking about how many CPU clock cycles a browser uses to render a page?
If so then the report should be re-written to say what it means. As it stands the headline appears to be misleading.
He was "proud" to apologize.
Turing's discoveries were significant and seminal contributions to the British war effort and no doubt resulted in Germany losing the war.
Given the above that "apology" was way to little, certainly way too late for Alan Turing.
It was also only offered under political pressure to do so.
Under those circumstances it is worthless!
> Imagine being able to choose any domain name you ... and choosing "Symbolics.com".
> wanted....
When it was registered the company that owned it was in the business of selling computers that used the Lisp programming language.
"Symbolics" is quite apposite for a company that sells a programming language.
> I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image
> will take at worst a few hours. But I can certainly understand
> the cost of testing will be considerable.
Diddums.
Then they'll just have to bill Microsoft for the inconvenience of making a profit out of being a Microsoft re-seller. Won't they.
> First of all "convicted monopolist" is the most over-used phrase
> on Slashdot. Can we please come up with something new?
How about "re-convicted monopolist"?
After all Microsoft has done this multiple times and has been convicted of monopolistic bullying tactics multiple times.
> What I don't get is why doesn't MSFT buy them out? Seems like it
> would be cheaper in the long run and less of a hassle just to buy
> the whole damned company than risk royally pissing off the OEMs (who
> might even get ticked off enough to ship OO.o instead) over such a
> small company compared to MSFT.
What you wrote would be logical if Microsoft's only goal was that it wants to use technology that company owns.
But as you know that isn't Microsoft's only goal.
It also takes great delight in screwing over other companies - especially if they're smaller ethical companies with good people.
> Firstly, arguably the biggest player in the software business is now on
> the wrong side of a software patents lawsuit, which is going to mean
> probably the most powerful legal team in the business is going to be
> looking for all sorts of arguments to get such patents overturned.
How did IBM get involved in this case? And why would IBM get its own inhouse lawyers to do this for Microsoft?
Oh dear. A woman has done some work and is now noticeably better than other women.
Frankly, the whole idea of segregating sports based on sex is, well, sexist and therefore is contradictory to human rights.
Female athletes should quit being so bitchy about other women and just get on with enjoying their sports otherwise we might just bite the bullet and unify the currently sex-segregated teams.
The whole concept of what is female and what is male is a difficult issue especially when you get down to the fact that some persons are chimeras (constituted of parts with different genetic makeup)
Best just to keep to inspecting genitals to see if "she" lacks a penis and balls, and/or checking to see if "she" has a prostate gland.
> No they can't continue to sell MS Office, they CAN sell a new version of Office
> with that feature removed. That's quite a difference and will be very expensive
> to do since it involves brick-and-mortar stores, not just updating a download.
Selling a new release of Microsoft Office is still selling Microsoft Office.
The important thing is that they remove the patent-infringing features.
BTW, most sold versions of MS Office are OEM versions. All Microsoft would have to do is to merely provide another CD copy.
Given that CDs are extremely inexpensive to manufacture, and given that Microsoft is so extremely wealthy due to the massive profit margins that it has been extorting over the years I see negligible harm against Microsoft for having to recall unsold copies of Microsoft Office and replace them with non-infringing copies.
Actually, I think that Microsoft should go a step further and issue a critical service pack to remove the infringing features in all extant versions of Microsoft Office - because the patent owner has already been significantly harmed by Microsoft's actions and this should be remedied. And in this respect I think that the judge was too lenient on Microsoft.
> If they stole code line for line, why is this a
> patent case and not a copyright infringement case?
Because they can potentially get more money from a patent infringement case, and because if they only sued for copyright infringement Microsoft could simply rewrite the infringing section of code to not include the infringing lines of code and then still be using Custom XML in violation of the patent in question.
They CAN continue to sell MS Office - so long as they remove support for customized-XML based documents. As most users still use the older binary file formats this will not be an issue for them.
Also, if Microsoft wants to continue to use XML based documents they can always correct its poor implementation of the ISO-approved Open Document file formats as these are based on the published XML standard (along with several other tried and proven standards) and have been confirmed as not infringing this patent.
[rolls eyes]
Oh yeah - Microsoft doesn't want to use a well documented file format that is already implemented in multiple office productivity suites as that would promote [shudder] "Interoperability" and we all know how keen (ie it isn't!) Microsoft is to have its software behaving nicely with the software of other developers.
Sorry, but that's how I feel on the matter, and that's the dominant behaviour that I can see demonstrated in Microsoft's track record stretching from as recently as it forcefully ramrodding a flawed >6000-page MS Office Open XML specification through a fast-tracked standardization process and as far back as MS-DOS... [blah blah blah]
I have to admit a bias given that I am opposed to all software patents due to my fundamental belief that mathematics and mathmatical algorithms cannot be patented and that software is entirely and only mathematics and algorithms.
Microsoft has used its giant collection of software patents to stifle innovation and competition and I see this as merely some other company's patent being used to stifle innovation and competition, but this time the target is Microsoft. Heh heh - I see it as a good example of corporate karma in action.
In this case there is negligible impact against Microsoft as a result of the injunction, as MS Office already has proprietary file formats owned by Microsoft that can be used.
> Actually, this is hardly surprising. HIPAA compliance is for the geeks
> to worry about, not the HARDCORE ER STAFF who's job is SAVING LIVES
_Actually_, the only people who worry about using Google Apps are the bean counters who don't care at all about protecting the confidentiality of their business's data or intellectual property, and only care entirely about shaving cents from the cost of operating their business.
Nobody else would even contemplate using Google Apps in a commercial context.
> "...but also looks like 'the operating system that both
> Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for."
Lets see...
The first officially released version of MS Windows was released way back in 1985 (1.01) - two years after Apple released its first version of the MacIntosh and 12 years after Xerox developed the Alto.
Microsoft has subsequently re-released it 21 times.
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1x
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 4.0 (marketed as "Windows 95")
WindowsNT4.0
Windows 95A
Windows 95B
Windows 95B USB (included basic USB support)
Windows 95C
Windows 98 (original release)
Windows 98 ("Second Edition")
WindowsNT5.0 (marketed as Windows 2000)
WindowsNT5.1 (marketed as WindowsXP)
WindowsNT5.2.x (marketed as Windows Server 2003)
WindowsNT5.2.x (re-released and marketed as Windows Server 2003 R2)
WindowsNT6.0 (marketed as Windows Vista)
WindowsNT6.0 R6002 (marketed as Windows Vista Service Pack 2)
WindowsNT6.1 (marketed as Windows Server 2008)
WindowsNT6.1.7600 (marketed as Windows Server 2008 service Pack 2 and also as Windows 7)
Now this review of Microsoft's most recent re-release of Microsoft Windows describes it as the "operating system that Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for".
That is truly a _long_ awaited piece of software that is neither original nor innovative!
MS Windows is crippleware - in that the full version is always installed, but features are crippled depending on how much $$$ has been paid. Not even this fact is innovative.
Please feel free to contribute additional facts about the history of MS Windows.
> This much is true, though: There are certain costs involved with building, maintaining and
> connecting to the grid that are present whether the subscriber uses a single watt of electricity
> or not. It is perfectly reasonable for the company to try to recoup those costs from all their
> customers, so making that portion of your bill a fixed fee as opposed to a percentage of usage
> is quite reasonable.
While I agree that it is reasonable for an electric power board to cover the costs of supplying the electricity and maintaining the reticulation network I don't agree that frugal users should be effectively penalised while wasteful or large scale users are rewarded with substantial - even heavily subsidised - reduced costs per unit of electricity supplied.
I hold the view that a community resource should be operated for the benefit of all citizens and not just for large (multinational) corporations; and those who reduce their dependency on the electricity reticulation system should be rewarded and not penalised.
> They didnt say that it was a "connection fee", it is a "connectivity fee".
> The on going costs are meant more for maintenance than for the initial connection.
"Connectivity fee", AKA "Line Charge", "Line Rental", "Daily Supply Charge", "Reticulation Charge", "Monthly Hire", etc.
Whatever you call it, it is effectively what electricity companies charge you in order to prevent them from removing the fuse that connects your house's wiring to the reticulation network going past your house.
When charged by a gangster it is called extortion.
When charged by a large corporation it is called "Legitimate Cost Recovery".
When paid by a modest ordinary consumer of electricity it is called "bloody expensive" and "the largest component in my power bill".
Large corporations may not even be charged it if their usage is massively large.
In my country one large multinational corporation consumes so very much electricity that a power station was built specifically to supply their electricity, and the unit charge is minuscule in comparison with what ordinary members of the general public pays per unit of electricity!
Basically, electricity is supplied in such a way that they get the most profit from each customer per year relative to the cost of providing that customer with the electricity.
The biggest fault with the electricity industry is the whole idea of supplying electricity "for profit" - it should be an essential resource supplied only for the cost of generation/distribution, providing for future requirements, and guaranteeing the ongoing security of supply.
I would suggest that electricity should be a community owned resource administered for the greater good of the entire community and not for the profiteering of a small number of generating companies.
Alas a secure reticulated supply of electricity/water/gas at a moderate cost is not something that the capitalist model of the economy is good at delivering for ordinary citizens.
> Microsoft quickly denied that any GPL violation was a driver for their decision to
> donate the code; the company's senior director of platform strategy, Sam Ramji, said
> at the time: "Microsoft's decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to
> the GPLv2 license." Now the Software Freedom Law Center confirms that Microsoft was
> indeed in violation of the GPLv2 when it distributed its Hyper-V Linux Integration
> Components without providing source code.
"Never believe something until it has been officially denied". :o)
This data appears to be provided from one business only - Chitika, presumably from data that they gathered from their advertizing.
Has it been audited with a view to confirming that the click throughs are indeed actually happening?
Has that data been compared with data from all the many other advertizing businesses that spam websites via Search Engines?
To what extent is Chitika's advertizing only based on Microsoft Bing and not on the other search engines? :o)
> He points to instances of user backlash, and concludes 'Free software is still
> driven by developers working on what interests or concerns them. The problem
> is, the days when users of free software were also its developers are long
> gone, but the habits of those days remain.
I am not a software developer.
However, I am a user of Free software.
It is my opinion that those persons who put in the time and effort to write the Free software (or to assist with testing, or the production of supporting documentation) are the persons who have a right to have an input in what direction that Free software is heading in, and what features it has.
I am thankful that so many software developers have produced such a rich and diverse wealth of Free software, and that by virtue of the GNU General Public License all that software continues to give all users and developers the 4 fundamental software freedoms.
I think ordinary users should not have a deciding voice in what direction Free software goes - I think that much more deservingly belongs to those whose hard work actually gives us that Free software.
You want the privilege of a vote? How about you putting in some time working on some of those applications you want?
> And for the record Silverlight 1 and large parts
> of 2 work on linux.
Do you sincerely believe that Microsoft Silverlight will be available and reliably supported on the Unix and Linux platforms _by Microsoft_ in the long term?
Why would that support be any different from the (lack of) support currently offered by Microsoft for Internet Explorer and for Microsoft's alternative to PDF on Linux and Unix?
Microsoft has a history of attempting to subvert standards based technology.
Also, for quite a number of years now Microsoft has not supplied a version of its browser for Unix or Linux - especially since being put under pressure to make its browser comply with the published HTML standards - despite having previously supported those popular platforms.
Also, Microsoft had previously attempted to embrace-extend-extinguish the multi-OS Java platform by modifying it with features that only worked on a Microsoft operating system.
The Flash browser plugin is available for most if not all major browsers on all major operating systems.
Silverlight is not available on Unix or Linux platforms. Not sure if it is available on MacOS.
In your view do you think that Microsoft will behave any differently with Silverlight?
Do you genuinely believe that MS will in the long term support that browser plugin for all major browsers on all major platforms?
While I would hope that would be the case, I do not trust MS to behave any differently from its entire history to date, of entirely attempting to kill any and all products or services offered by any organisation or corporation that it perceives to be a threat or competitor in a "market" that Microsoft is either already dominating or is seeking to dominate.
In the last browser war as soon as Microsoft had killed its opposition it stopped actively developing its browser.
Do not be deceived. Silverlight is Microsoft's attempt to kill Adobe/Shockwave Flash. Microsoft also attempted to kill the standards approved "PDF" Portable Document File format originally developed by Adobe and freely available on all major platforms and many minor ones too.
We are now experiencing a Browser Plugin war being relentlessly waged by Microsoft against Adobe. Does Microsoft really deserve your support to help it kill Adobe? If not then why do you have Silverlight or "Moonlight" installed on your computer?
> Purdham told PC Pro. 'Why do you actually
? need to have something downloaded on your
> PC? The streaming idea is really the future.'"
Duh!
If you download that file you can play it multiple times without needing to pay for any more network bandwidth.
If you have to stream it to your computer you'll not only have to pay for the bandwidth each time, but you'll have to pay to listen to it each time.
Streaming is only the "future" of music on the Internet if you believe that in the past you could only listen to music via the radio.
> For example, things like COM, WMI, DirectX, .NET, or
? the new WDF toolkit for driver development in Windows
> Vista. I don't see how you can separate any of this
> from the rest of the OS.
That's very easy to do.
After all, there are at least three operating systems (and I don't mean three iterations of one developer's OS) that don't use at all .net, DirectX, WMI, or WDF - all proprietary Microsoft products and completely irrelevant to other operating systems.
> As it will be a year before it is evaluated, tested,
> patched, and approved, they have time... Look how
> long it took Vista to get stable.
It's taken them this long to get MS Windows Vista (Ultimate blah blah) into the condition it should have been in when it was released over two years ago..
How long ago before that was MS WindowsXP released?
It could be argued that they could have expected Vista to be around for just as long as XP has been already.
It could also be argued that MS has already got the government of the USA already in its pocket and that "upgrading" (yeah right) is a necessary part of transferring more money to Microsoft in a way that appears to be legal.
If the USA's DOD was genuinely interested in "upgrading" their desktop computers, then they wouldn't have stayed with Microsoft - because they're using the same old software with fundamentally the same old bugs and same old security flaws!