I have my 8-Core Quad Xeon 3.0GHz Mac Pro with 8GB of ram and four (300GB/sec) 500-GB hard drives striped. I can tell you it is the machine of my dreams. I am in multi-core heaven dreaming about parallel software algorithms and how to apply this horsepower to real world problems. I just decided that I was unwilling to throw any more hardware money at Windows. The Mac Pro is sweet. Booting in a few seconds was only the first joy. I have no doubt that this machine is capable of great things. I look forward to the Leopard release when it occurs, but Tiger is a fine operating system for the time being. I recently purchased the Quad Mac Pro, and returned it on the last day to upgrade to 8-core. I am so glad I did. I would have been kicking myself for quite some time. I reviewed various vendors' offerings of workstation class equipment, and even Sun's 25 Year Anniversary Sale had nothing to top this machine. Dual 1.8 GHz Sparc IIIis with 4GB or Ram didn't stand up. I have four 2GB ram strips with four empty slots available. When the day actually comes that I need more memory, I can go to 16GB. Beyond all that, the Mac Pro is a maintenance delight with the pull out hard drive drawers. After my recent debacle with Dell, dealing with Apple was a no brainer. I did buy Apple Care because the machine cost real money and I want assurance of problem resolution. No doubt about it, this machine is a "Workstation". When 16-cores come around, I don't think I will pine for that because for me, 8-cores is enough headroom for development. If my clients need 16 for production, cool!
I respect your opion, and the eloquent way you stated it. I appreciate the polite way you responded to me. My feelings about Intel revolve around my being a low-level programmer with a lot of experience in embedded systems and driver writing. I continued to write assembly language long after others had moved to higher level languages. I have a talent for visualizing chips, their modes and registers. I have written a few debuggers. One of the things I like about Intel is that they manufacture a wide variety of processors, supports chips, and peripherals. I even went through a brief phases as a hardware designer during which I created several working systems using a variety of Intel chips. For a long time I had a wire-wrap gun in one hand and a logic probe in the other.
I haven't spent much time keeping up with the specifics of Intel's marketing techniques or pricing policies. I do remember they have had some problems over the years about memory pricing, but that was several decades ago I thought. I have spent a lot of time thinking about RISC vs. CISC and have used both extensively. Over the course of time, my decision to stay primarily with Intel as opposed to Motorola has worked out pretty well, and Apple's recent move to Intel CPUs was a welcome change for me as I like Apple and Intel, but not Power PC programming.
Leadership for me includes aspects such as architecture wide component compatibility. Longevity of skillset viability. For the most part, x86 code has remained fairly consistent and backward compatible. We knew in our hearts to be careful what we loaded into segment registers and should not have been surprised when they became more like selectors. I have never been sorry about time I spent learning about Intel parts. Most of what I learned is still valuable.
In the early 1980's, Tom Rolander showed me a terminal (text) based office interface he was working on where you clicked on a file cabinet, clicked on a file folder, and displayed the contents of the file. I am pretty sure the folder was a form of tab. I was in the basement with Gary Kildall and Tom Rolander and their Vax on Lighthouse Ave in Pacific Grove, CA. That was back when I worked in OEM Systems at Digital Research.
While I agree it is a shame to call the stuff, "American Cheese", I believe it was targeted at children. When I was a child I wasn't ready for stronger tasting cheeses. It seemed ok to me at the time, although later I was very happy to learn here was something better.
When I was in the UK, I ate at a stake house and found the cheese at the salad bar too bland. I made a suggestion to the manager and got read off about how their cheese was specially formulated for the tastes of their clients.
My friend Robert Singleton would say, "People don't really like American Cheese, they just think they do..."
I joined the Navy to become a "Data Systems Technician". This was the obvious best and highest use of me since I was a talented computer person even in my teens. Instead they decided I would make a good catapult operator on the flight deck of the Enterprise. I had three years to regret my mistake. I believe the military is often inefficient because they would rather retrain you than take advantage of skills you already possess. I started out honored to serve my country, but my counry would have been better served by using me in my chosen field of interest (passion). After my Honorable discharge, I returned to my software engineering career, and stayed there ever since. They could have used some of my help in technology, IMHO.
I don't think that anyone that's truly interested in the technical aspects of CPUs thinks Intel is a leader in this decade.
I have always been and continue to be primarily interested in the technical aspects of CPUs. In some respects you could say I am an Intel fanboy because I have unwavering confidence in their long term vision and ability to continue the advancement of microprocessor technology. I have primarily used Intel chips since the 8080 and while the Motorola chips had nice general purpose registers, I held on and waited for Intel to evolve the way I wanted.
Starting with the 80286, Intel provided the hardware required to build secure, reliable microcomputers with solid operating systems. The fact that operating system vendors decided not to use the chip features that would have protected the software was an obvious shame. Leadership in the CPU industry is about more than clock rate, or even throughput. A clear vision of the problem domain, the programming languages that would best model and solve the problems, and the best price/performance hardware offerings to integrators and OEMs is what counts in my mind.
When people think about computers, I believe they visualize desktop machines, most often running Windows. Desktop computers are only a small segment of the potential uses of microprocessors to make the world a better place. Windows unfortunately, is a rather poor operating system whose most valuable feature is it's abilty to run with a lot of different PC hardware. When I think about computers, I visualize microprocessors that monitor real-time conditions, and provide some form of useful output, controlling a device, or sending information to another system somewhere. The advent of cheaper hardware and free software has allowed us to posses powerful computer systems running derivatives of Unix (The Best OS ever). We have come to a place where there is enough hardware and software around to solve problems quickly that would have kept mathemeticians busy for decades or centuries.
The challenge now is not running games a little faster, or Windows apps a little faster. The challenge now is figuring ot how to apply the technology such that it benefits us all. Certain application hold great promise to make an actual difference in the real world such as automotive microprocessors that help tune the engines and reduce emmissions. Benchmarks don't make the world a better place. Benefits of the application of technology do though. There is a place for the absolutely fastest processors in critical servers, high end scientific workstations... I am glad there is competition in all areas if microprocessor technology, but I wish we could keep focus on the "golden ring" of making the world a better place.
I purchased a copy of Oblivion hoping to enjoy some time in another world. I asked for the advice of people at Best Buy and some other stores and was assured Oblivion was great. I was just getting interested after a few minutes when I was torn apart by rats. After a while it came to me I would have to learn to hack and slash if I wanted to survive long enough to experience the Oblivion world. The thing is, I am not a hack and slash kind of guy. The violence puts me off. Games for me would have to be fun. Losing is OK, dying is bad. Having more fun if you can be more nimble and clever is good. Games intended to be fun should allow for players at all levels of experience and talent. I am really hoping that I haven't made a mistake buying a game console and that I will eventually find games that aren't first person shooters. I purchased two driving games. In one, gangs were after me, and in the other, I scored -1 because I didn't kill anybody. I am still waiting for the "fun" part.
I find the expressed need to create different laws of robotics for war robots to be a form of denial. The original point of the robotic laws was that robots should not be harming humans... The desire to change the laws to make robots harming humans OK, denies the original intent. If we decide that autonomous weapon systems may harm humans, maybe we should not complain when software doesn't work as predicted and they turn on us. At least when humans are in the loop, there is a chance that ethical and moral concepts may come into play and moderate the decision to perform violence. I say leave the original laws as they are. Maybe it is ok for robots to fight robots. People wiser than I should debate that.
Re: Alcoholic Rights Management
on
AMD's New DRM
·
· Score: 1
A mug with a ARM cap that only allows authorized people to drink the contents. Microsoft employees only. Linux users will be dry.
[0006] As Internet usage continues to rise, it becomes increasingly important to identify the demographic characteristics of Internet users. Such characteristics can help businesses and advertisers provide services to Internet users in particular demographic groups and to attract and retain new customers. To obtain this demographic information, web sites may request Internet users to enter personal demographic information. However, such user-entered information may be incomplete, thus preventing a business from obtaining a full demographic picture of a given Internet user. In other cases, demographic information supplied by an Internet user may be false or mistakenly incorrect.
What I find interesting here is that they think their extrapolated information will be more accurate than the user supplied data.
I don't think the iPhone is a conspiracy to abandon the Macintosh. I do think that right now, with the release of Microsoft's flagshit operating system (Vista), doing a good job on the desktop is important. I am more convinced of that than I am that the iPhone is the computer. I am an operating system guy, and I recognize the value of portable Mac OS X. I do think though that the iPhone is missing crucial features/benefits and costs too much. Without 3G, the connectivity speed doesn't meet my needs. I think it costs too much, by several hundred dollars. ATT/cingular just spent a ton of money rolling out 3G that the phone doesn't support. What's with that? The market place may prove me wrong, and it won't be the first time:-)
As a software engineer, I am looking at this news as bad for third party software vendors trying to support the Mac marketplace. However exciting the release of a new phone is, the new phone is a product for Apple, that is a closed architecture. There will not be third party software for the phone in the near future. Independent software vendors writing software for the Macintosh platform have been counting on the June release of Leopart as the timeframe for the next wave of Mac software. Companies that are especially intent on the release date purchased membership in Apple's advanced leopard availability club which was not cheap. They did this to help assure their timely release of their software. I personally was waiting for the Leopard release in June to pick up a Mac Pro 8-core system for Leopard development. Waiting around for a few extra months for the new operating system impacts a lot of people who already have invested in the market opportunity of the Leopard release. Selling computers and the operating system are the main business of Apple. Putting their phone needs before their computer user's needs is selfish, IMHO. I think this decision was a big mistake.
Ah, changed my mind. I callled Apple and asked if I was stuck or what. They said I was within the 14 day evaluation period, and let me RMA the machine. I am really happy about this as in the long run, I will get more done with the 8-core machine. I think Apple was grand about it.
The best thing he can do is set the manager up with a second monitor so he can see the difference. I am an avid multi monitor user. Friends and family that use my machines have gone to the same set up on there machines. At work, I did the same as this guy and eventual converted the entire department. All but one person (the new guy) now have 2 monitors.
The issue is screen space for non-overlaping windows. There are two approaches, a huge 1920x1080 LCD/plasma display, or several less expensive display. Once you get used to having enough real estate, the rest is physical preference. I do both. I have a 46" 1920x1080p LCD and an HP HD LCD display 1920x1200 and I use them both at the same time. The large monitor is easier on my eyes, and the extra monitor is just that much more space so I can see reference material, my code, and my debugging scenario without switching screens. If your supervisor looks over your shoulder for even 1 minute, it should be obvious how much more efficient multiple monitors are. When I have enough money, I will buy a second 46" monitor and set it next to the other one, and attach them to my Mac Pro 8 core workstation.
I just switched from Windows to a refurb Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz. Several weeks later the Dual Quad hit. I expected this. I just hope that the machine can be upgraded to dual quad later when I have a demonstrated need for more cores. If so I will be happy indeed. The Mac Pro has a very nice maintenance capability. I am hoping that Apple will sell new pop-in cpu cards and the upgrade will take several minutes. So far I am very impressed with the hardware design of the Mac Pro. The side pops off and everything slides right in/out.
During the time the Vista Capable stickers were being initially promoted, no one I know knew that there would be something better called "Premium Ready" or the term "core experience".
I bought Sony's most expensive notebook that was marked "Vista Capable" and it is too short on video ram to do the premium job. I'm screwed.
I have spent a significant amount of time and trouble trying to find out exactly what processor is used in the SC1420. I ran the Intel CPUID program and tried to feed the results into the Intel processor specification decoder. In the end, I was unable to match the processor with any certainty against any specific CPU. I contacted Intel and provided hem with the CPUID results, and they refused to answer my question and said that it was up to Dell whether or not they wanted to disclose the processor they put in the system. I asked Dell what the sPsec number was on the processors they use and they rerfused to answer my question. The only way to find out for sure is to pull the CPU out of the box and scrape off the thermal goo and read the sSpec number off the chip. Of course doing so voids your Dell warrantee and leaves you with a dissasembled computer. Becase of this stupid situation where I am not allowwed to know what part I have purchased, I will no longer buy anything from Dell.
Thank you, I will believe what I want. The ECMA documents state that the standards documents contain patented technology. Since you seem to be refusing to read or understand these documents, I can only assume that you want to hide behind the, "I didn't know that", excuse. I was concerned about what, "open standards", could be used for. I was excited about the ECMA documents at first. Then I read further on the site until I found what I was looking for. A limit to the usefulness of the documents. I guess if you knew the documents contained patented technology, you might be liable for treble damages. I guess you don't want to "know". I understand. I don't respect your position though.
I don't need to do the work for you. I am satisfied that the technology is encumbered. As I said I have spent a lot of time reviewing the ECMA documents, and as a result I understand the situation. If you can't bother to read the documents, I can't be bothered to hold your hand and spoon feed you the information. The ECMA policy documents are easily read at their web site http://weww.ecma-international.org/
ECMA doesn't require their members to annotate the standards documents with patent numbers. It is assumed that information can be obtained upon request. Before you pester me with a request to do extensive specific research to obtain patent numbers, please tell me you have at least read the documents on the site tht describe the site and their patent policies. If you haven't read the descriptive documents that state standards contain proprietary technology that is assumed to be licensable under RAND, you are trying to waste my time. I spent many hours reading their site, have you?
Serious design related perormance issues with fundamental file operations are not "little twitches". Reading and writing and arithmetic are what computers do for a living. If reading and writing are too much of a struggle for Vista. Chuck it into the trash, I say.
You are absolutely wrong. Mono is based on the ECMA International standards documents. If you read the description of ECMA at the www-ecma-international.org site, you will read that ECMA standards contain patented technology from the member companies (Thats Microsoft). Just because the technology is described in a freely distributable document, doesn't mean it doesn't require licensing. Take some time and read the fine print. The ECMA documents are a patent trap and the Mono/DotGNU people fell right in. I warned them both multiple times and they ignored me. Now they are crying about it. I took the time to read the documents on the site, and I know enough now not to touch that technology with a ten foot pole.
Slashdot Mirror
I have my 8-Core Quad Xeon 3.0GHz Mac Pro with 8GB of ram and four (300GB/sec) 500-GB hard drives striped. I can tell you it is the machine of my dreams. I am in multi-core heaven dreaming about parallel software algorithms and how to apply this horsepower to real world problems. I just decided that I was unwilling to throw any more hardware money at Windows. The Mac Pro is sweet. Booting in a few seconds was only the first joy. I have no doubt that this machine is capable of great things. I look forward to the Leopard release when it occurs, but Tiger is a fine operating system for the time being. I recently purchased the Quad Mac Pro, and returned it on the last day to upgrade to 8-core. I am so glad I did. I would have been kicking myself for quite some time. I reviewed various vendors' offerings of workstation class equipment, and even Sun's 25 Year Anniversary Sale had nothing to top this machine. Dual 1.8 GHz Sparc IIIis with 4GB or Ram didn't stand up. I have four 2GB ram strips with four empty slots available. When the day actually comes that I need more memory, I can go to 16GB. Beyond all that, the Mac Pro is a maintenance delight with the pull out hard drive drawers. After my recent debacle with Dell, dealing with Apple was a no brainer. I did buy Apple Care because the machine cost real money and I want assurance of problem resolution. No doubt about it, this machine is a "Workstation". When 16-cores come around, I don't think I will pine for that because for me, 8-cores is enough headroom for development. If my clients need 16 for production, cool!
I haven't spent much time keeping up with the specifics of Intel's marketing techniques or pricing policies. I do remember they have had some problems over the years about memory pricing, but that was several decades ago I thought. I have spent a lot of time thinking about RISC vs. CISC and have used both extensively. Over the course of time, my decision to stay primarily with Intel as opposed to Motorola has worked out pretty well, and Apple's recent move to Intel CPUs was a welcome change for me as I like Apple and Intel, but not Power PC programming.
Leadership for me includes aspects such as architecture wide component compatibility. Longevity of skillset viability. For the most part, x86 code has remained fairly consistent and backward compatible. We knew in our hearts to be careful what we loaded into segment registers and should not have been surprised when they became more like selectors. I have never been sorry about time I spent learning about Intel parts. Most of what I learned is still valuable.
In the early 1980's, Tom Rolander showed me a terminal (text) based office interface he was working on where you clicked on a file cabinet, clicked on a file folder, and displayed the contents of the file. I am pretty sure the folder was a form of tab. I was in the basement with Gary Kildall and Tom Rolander and their Vax on Lighthouse Ave in Pacific Grove, CA. That was back when I worked in OEM Systems at Digital Research.
When I was in the UK, I ate at a stake house and found the cheese at the salad bar too bland. I made a suggestion to the manager and got read off about how their cheese was specially formulated for the tastes of their clients.
My friend Robert Singleton would say, "People don't really like American Cheese, they just think they do..."
I joined the Navy to become a "Data Systems Technician". This was the obvious best and highest use of me since I was a talented computer person even in my teens. Instead they decided I would make a good catapult operator on the flight deck of the Enterprise. I had three years to regret my mistake. I believe the military is often inefficient because they would rather retrain you than take advantage of skills you already possess. I started out honored to serve my country, but my counry would have been better served by using me in my chosen field of interest (passion). After my Honorable discharge, I returned to my software engineering career, and stayed there ever since. They could have used some of my help in technology, IMHO.
I have always been and continue to be primarily interested in the technical aspects of CPUs. In some respects you could say I am an Intel fanboy because I have unwavering confidence in their long term vision and ability to continue the advancement of microprocessor technology. I have primarily used Intel chips since the 8080 and while the Motorola chips had nice general purpose registers, I held on and waited for Intel to evolve the way I wanted.
Starting with the 80286, Intel provided the hardware required to build secure, reliable microcomputers with solid operating systems. The fact that operating system vendors decided not to use the chip features that would have protected the software was an obvious shame. Leadership in the CPU industry is about more than clock rate, or even throughput. A clear vision of the problem domain, the programming languages that would best model and solve the problems, and the best price/performance hardware offerings to integrators and OEMs is what counts in my mind.
When people think about computers, I believe they visualize desktop machines, most often running Windows. Desktop computers are only a small segment of the potential uses of microprocessors to make the world a better place. Windows unfortunately, is a rather poor operating system whose most valuable feature is it's abilty to run with a lot of different PC hardware. When I think about computers, I visualize microprocessors that monitor real-time conditions, and provide some form of useful output, controlling a device, or sending information to another system somewhere. The advent of cheaper hardware and free software has allowed us to posses powerful computer systems running derivatives of Unix (The Best OS ever). We have come to a place where there is enough hardware and software around to solve problems quickly that would have kept mathemeticians busy for decades or centuries.
The challenge now is not running games a little faster, or Windows apps a little faster. The challenge now is figuring ot how to apply the technology such that it benefits us all. Certain application hold great promise to make an actual difference in the real world such as automotive microprocessors that help tune the engines and reduce emmissions. Benchmarks don't make the world a better place. Benefits of the application of technology do though. There is a place for the absolutely fastest processors in critical servers, high end scientific workstations... I am glad there is competition in all areas if microprocessor technology, but I wish we could keep focus on the "golden ring" of making the world a better place.
I purchased a copy of Oblivion hoping to enjoy some time in another world. I asked for the advice of people at Best Buy and some other stores and was assured Oblivion was great. I was just getting interested after a few minutes when I was torn apart by rats. After a while it came to me I would have to learn to hack and slash if I wanted to survive long enough to experience the Oblivion world. The thing is, I am not a hack and slash kind of guy. The violence puts me off. Games for me would have to be fun. Losing is OK, dying is bad. Having more fun if you can be more nimble and clever is good. Games intended to be fun should allow for players at all levels of experience and talent. I am really hoping that I haven't made a mistake buying a game console and that I will eventually find games that aren't first person shooters. I purchased two driving games. In one, gangs were after me, and in the other, I scored -1 because I didn't kill anybody. I am still waiting for the "fun" part.
I find the expressed need to create different laws of robotics for war robots to be a form of denial. The original point of the robotic laws was that robots should not be harming humans... The desire to change the laws to make robots harming humans OK, denies the original intent. If we decide that autonomous weapon systems may harm humans, maybe we should not complain when software doesn't work as predicted and they turn on us. At least when humans are in the loop, there is a chance that ethical and moral concepts may come into play and moderate the decision to perform violence. I say leave the original laws as they are. Maybe it is ok for robots to fight robots. People wiser than I should debate that.
A mug with a ARM cap that only allows authorized people to drink the contents. Microsoft employees only. Linux users will be dry.
What I find interesting here is that they think their extrapolated information will be more accurate than the user supplied data.
I don't think the iPhone is a conspiracy to abandon the Macintosh. I do think that right now, with the release of Microsoft's flagshit operating system (Vista), doing a good job on the desktop is important. I am more convinced of that than I am that the iPhone is the computer. I am an operating system guy, and I recognize the value of portable Mac OS X. I do think though that the iPhone is missing crucial features/benefits and costs too much. Without 3G, the connectivity speed doesn't meet my needs. I think it costs too much, by several hundred dollars. ATT/cingular just spent a ton of money rolling out 3G that the phone doesn't support. What's with that? The market place may prove me wrong, and it won't be the first time :-)
As a software engineer, I am looking at this news as bad for third party software vendors trying to support the Mac marketplace. However exciting the release of a new phone is, the new phone is a product for Apple, that is a closed architecture. There will not be third party software for the phone in the near future. Independent software vendors writing software for the Macintosh platform have been counting on the June release of Leopart as the timeframe for the next wave of Mac software. Companies that are especially intent on the release date purchased membership in Apple's advanced leopard availability club which was not cheap. They did this to help assure their timely release of their software. I personally was waiting for the Leopard release in June to pick up a Mac Pro 8-core system for Leopard development. Waiting around for a few extra months for the new operating system impacts a lot of people who already have invested in the market opportunity of the Leopard release. Selling computers and the operating system are the main business of Apple. Putting their phone needs before their computer user's needs is selfish, IMHO. I think this decision was a big mistake.
Ah, changed my mind. I callled Apple and asked if I was stuck or what. They said I was within the 14 day evaluation period, and let me RMA the machine. I am really happy about this as in the long run, I will get more done with the 8-core machine. I think Apple was grand about it.
www is a host name within a domain zone, not a subdomain. It COULD be done that way, but the domain zone data would be very different...
When they gave him a new name at the border, they messed up slightly.
The best thing he can do is set the manager up with a second monitor so he can see the difference. I am an avid multi monitor user. Friends and family that use my machines have gone to the same set up on there machines. At work, I did the same as this guy and eventual converted the entire department. All but one person (the new guy) now have 2 monitors. The issue is screen space for non-overlaping windows. There are two approaches, a huge 1920x1080 LCD/plasma display, or several less expensive display. Once you get used to having enough real estate, the rest is physical preference. I do both. I have a 46" 1920x1080p LCD and an HP HD LCD display 1920x1200 and I use them both at the same time. The large monitor is easier on my eyes, and the extra monitor is just that much more space so I can see reference material, my code, and my debugging scenario without switching screens. If your supervisor looks over your shoulder for even 1 minute, it should be obvious how much more efficient multiple monitors are. When I have enough money, I will buy a second 46" monitor and set it next to the other one, and attach them to my Mac Pro 8 core workstation.
I just switched from Windows to a refurb Mac Pro Quad 3.0GHz. Several weeks later the Dual Quad hit. I expected this. I just hope that the machine can be upgraded to dual quad later when I have a demonstrated need for more cores. If so I will be happy indeed. The Mac Pro has a very nice maintenance capability. I am hoping that Apple will sell new pop-in cpu cards and the upgrade will take several minutes. So far I am very impressed with the hardware design of the Mac Pro. The side pops off and everything slides right in/out.
During the time the Vista Capable stickers were being initially promoted, no one I know knew that there would be something better called "Premium Ready" or the term "core experience". I bought Sony's most expensive notebook that was marked "Vista Capable" and it is too short on video ram to do the premium job. I'm screwed.
Make a system restore DVD before you blow off Windows. Just in case.
I have spent a significant amount of time and trouble trying to find out exactly what processor is used in the SC1420. I ran the Intel CPUID program and tried to feed the results into the Intel processor specification decoder. In the end, I was unable to match the processor with any certainty against any specific CPU. I contacted Intel and provided hem with the CPUID results, and they refused to answer my question and said that it was up to Dell whether or not they wanted to disclose the processor they put in the system. I asked Dell what the sPsec number was on the processors they use and they rerfused to answer my question. The only way to find out for sure is to pull the CPU out of the box and scrape off the thermal goo and read the sSpec number off the chip. Of course doing so voids your Dell warrantee and leaves you with a dissasembled computer. Becase of this stupid situation where I am not allowwed to know what part I have purchased, I will no longer buy anything from Dell.
Thank you, I will believe what I want. The ECMA documents state that the standards documents contain patented technology. Since you seem to be refusing to read or understand these documents, I can only assume that you want to hide behind the, "I didn't know that", excuse. I was concerned about what, "open standards", could be used for. I was excited about the ECMA documents at first. Then I read further on the site until I found what I was looking for. A limit to the usefulness of the documents. I guess if you knew the documents contained patented technology, you might be liable for treble damages. I guess you don't want to "know". I understand. I don't respect your position though.
I don't need to do the work for you. I am satisfied that the technology is encumbered. As I said I have spent a lot of time reviewing the ECMA documents, and as a result I understand the situation. If you can't bother to read the documents, I can't be bothered to hold your hand and spoon feed you the information. The ECMA policy documents are easily read at their web site http://weww.ecma-international.org/
ECMA doesn't require their members to annotate the standards documents with patent numbers. It is assumed that information can be obtained upon request. Before you pester me with a request to do extensive specific research to obtain patent numbers, please tell me you have at least read the documents on the site tht describe the site and their patent policies. If you haven't read the descriptive documents that state standards contain proprietary technology that is assumed to be licensable under RAND, you are trying to waste my time. I spent many hours reading their site, have you?
Serious design related perormance issues with fundamental file operations are not "little twitches". Reading and writing and arithmetic are what computers do for a living. If reading and writing are too much of a struggle for Vista. Chuck it into the trash, I say.
You are absolutely wrong. Mono is based on the ECMA International standards documents. If you read the description of ECMA at the www-ecma-international.org site, you will read that ECMA standards contain patented technology from the member companies (Thats Microsoft). Just because the technology is described in a freely distributable document, doesn't mean it doesn't require licensing. Take some time and read the fine print. The ECMA documents are a patent trap and the Mono/DotGNU people fell right in. I warned them both multiple times and they ignored me. Now they are crying about it. I took the time to read the documents on the site, and I know enough now not to touch that technology with a ten foot pole.