Microsoft developed Windows, which required DOS as a base/bootloader, and did all of their testing on MS-DOS. At this time, DR-DOS was also available, which was extremely similar but not identical to MS-DOS. So when Microsoft released the Windows 3.1 beta, they added in code to ensure it was being installed on the version of DOS they tested it with.
And they removed (deactivated) the check for the shipping product. It only ever appeared on a limited-release beta.
So basically, the big complaint here is that a beta of Windows 3.1 refused to install itself on an unsupported and untested version of DOS. Seems extremely petty to me... of course since it's Microsoft, they got sued and had to settle for God knows how much.
You *DO* Remember that the main problem was with J++ and Microsoft trying to distort a standard (or at least, a standard they *signed* they would respect) to make it incompatible?
Kind of how they made special Javascript or ActiveX extensions which broke the net??
1) This is all 20/20 hindsight-- at the time there was no problem with making Java extensions, because (AFAIK) nobody anticipated the "break the web" aspect of this. Only until *after* the extensions were made (and had been in-place for several years) did Sun get upset by this and do anything about it.
2) Microsoft didn't set out to break Java, they set out to make the Java experience better for Windows users, by being able to interface with Windows-specific technologies.
Additionally, the web standard allows the embedding of any language in web pages-- not just JavaScript. Microsoft wasn't doing anything outside the language *or* intent of the W3C standards by adding ActiveX support.
I mean, number 2 is certainly Microsoft's "fault", but on the other hand, it's not like it's something they did with malice.
No, I'm trying to point out that a window manager is NOT PART of any operating system.
Ok; we'll do it your way. OS means something completely different than 99.9% of the population understands it to mean. We're in Bizarro Runaway1956 World right now. I just grew an evil goatee.
If you really think that Windows won't run without a window manager, then you don't know Windows - or any other OS.
Wait! You just said Windows wasn't a "real" OS because it shipped with a window manager. Now you're saying that Windows runs just fine without a window manager-- just like any other OS!!! (We've already established that most other OSes ship with a window manager.)
So how is Windows not a "real" OS? Even in Bizarro Runaway1956 World your argument doesn't make any goddamned sense as anything except a rationalization allowing you to make fun of Microsoft.
Now let's re-enter the real world:
If you really think that Windows won't run without a window manager, then you don't know Windows
By that logic, "OS" means "kernel". After all, NT will run without a window manager, without any device drivers, without any filesystems, without any applications. So obviously the drivers, filesystem, and all applications are not part of the OS... right? I'm just using your words here.
The OPERATING SYSTEM need not even include much in the way of CLI utilities. I can set up a router or a server, then rip out almost every thing that isn't directly related to the services that I want to run. It's STILL an operating system with no window manager.
And how does Windows fit in? You can strip down Windows to exactly what you need as well.
Stop assuming that you know what I mean, or what I intend, and admit that a window manager is not part of any operating system.
Look, even if we enter your Bizarro World, and assume "OS" means "kernel", we've already demonstrated that your assertion that Windows isn't a "real" OS *makes no sense*. So why did you even post that little gem in the first place? It's just a completely random dig at Microsoft for absolutely no reason. (I'm happy to notice it got modded appropriately.)
You've yet to explain: 1) What other OSes are "real" 2) What the alternative to "real" even is. Is Windows fake? Is Windows imaginary? Is it irrational? "Real" has many definitions, and we don't know which one you're using.
The standard Linux OS ships with at least one window manager.
Ok, so you're confirming my point.
The window manager is not the OS.
No, it's not the OS. But it's part of the OS.
Look, we all know what you're doing here. You're trying to create some stupid artificial distinction between Windows and other OSes so that you can feel justified in calling Windows a "fake" OS. (Or whatever opposes "real" in your little worldview.) Fine, you hate Microsoft, we get it.
You're trying to redefine OS to mean "the kernel and maybe some CLI utilities." That's not what the term means, that's not what it's ever meant.
So if you're going to hate Microsoft, do so in a way that makes sense and doesn't require redefining terms everybody knows. Hey, you could even *gasp* come up with *actual reasons* to hate them, instead of making up some stupid shit like "Windows is inferior because it ships with a window manager, hur hur!!"
Or maybe they didn't expect uber-pedantic Slashdot posters to obsess over every single word.
Look, obviously "X times per second" is an average-- it pretty much has to be unless you want the guy to call out a new value every single second. That would make for a really crummy interview.
What he probably means is "the average number of attacks varies between 7000 and 9000 times per second depending on traffic levels, time of day, number of active exploits, and probably other factors we haven't yet thought of."
You know, the exact same thing a normal non-pedant person would assume he meant.
In any REAL OS, the window manager isn't part of the OS. All a window manager is supposed to do is - like - you know - MANAGE THE WINDOWS!
How many OSes ship with a window manager? I'm guessing at least 90%. Almost all Linux OSes do. Apple's OS X does. Windows does, obviously. Solaris does.
So which OSes exactly do you consider "real?" (And, as opposed to what? Imaginary?) I'd love to know.
There's also the fact that Episodes I and II were completely, utterly useless. Nothing that occurs in Episode II relies on knowing events of Episode I. Nothing that occurs in Episode 3 replies on knowing anything from I or II. The villain in Episode I died at the end. The villain of Episode II dies in the first 5 minutes of Episode III.
I'd go as far as saying that Episode II is a *better* movie if you hadn't seen Episode I. And Episode III is a *far better* movie if you hadn't seen the previous two.
$0.99 is way too much for a single episode rental. With the same price you can buy the whole season from store and get a physical product with extras too.
Am I crazy?
I used to *buy* TV episodes off iTunes for $1 a pop... I got Lost Season 2 this way, I know for a fact.
Is the actual news here that Apple is ripping people off? Or... is this supposed to be new somehow? Maybe they just assume we have really short memories?
I think schools should be teaching more usability. I wager over half of programmers go on to make something with a UI in it, and crummy UI has been a long-standing problem in our industry. (Not talking necessarily about boxed software, which generally does an ok job, but bespoke software.)
I seem to recall a report from Microsoft not too long ago - drawn from the automated error reporting in Windows - showing that video card drivers are, by far, the single biggest cause of system instability.
The point of Microsoft releasing that information was to show that many of the problems customers had with Vista (IIRC-- it might have been Windows 7 right at release) were due to bad third-party drivers, and nothing to do with the design of the OS itself. Just FYI, it turns out things change over time.
And the plan worked, it shamed both ATI and nVidia into fixing their buggy-ass drivers.
You also have to remember that Vista and Windows 7 can simply reboot the GPU driver when it crashes. So when they say "system instability", they're talking about "the screen goes black for 5 seconds, then comes back exactly as it was before". They're not (in the majority of cases) talking about computers locking-up or bluescreening.
If they ran the same report now, I doubt video driver issues would even be in the top-10. I could be wrong.
Why has nobody ever complained that Microsoft gimped the computing experience for whole generations of customers,
I'm sorry, is this your first day on Slashdot?
People gripe and moan about that a thousand times every day.
I don't get what your point is here-- are you upset that the grandparent didn't drop in a "Windows is gimped" reference, even though that would be grossly off-topic?
I'm not sure, but Sony has managed to convince companies to do it in the console market.
Then again, Sony was first during the previous generation...
They also haven't convinced as many companies as they did with their last console. Microsoft's been consistently chipping away Sony's developers since Team Ninja left when the original Xbox came out...
It was pretty awesome when I did it on my C-64 back in 1990 too. But I didn't have YouTube then, so I couldn't attention whore as effectively as modern programmers.
Well, if the story were told as: "People passing by the table whose RFID identified them as scary federal agents were photographed..." then I'd be a little more impressed.
As-is, he's pretty much just photographing everybody.
When the box got a return and found usable data, it snapped a picture.
Uh... so what?
Maybe the hotel they were staying at used RFID keys. Nothing here implies "if a RFID card has usable data, IT'S A SUPER-TOP-FEDERAL-CIA-SECRET-OMG!!!" He was just snapping photos of people with bus passes and hotel keys... retarded.
But, judging [slashdot.org] by [slashdot.org] your [slashdot.org] comment [slashdot.org] history [slashdot.org] you [slashdot.org] (Arainach) [slashdot.org] are a Microsoft [slashdot.org] shill [slashdot.org] and [slashdot.org] probably [slashdot.org] an employee.
Your Comments in the Past Year: Anti-GPL w/o mentioning Microsoft: 2 Pro-Microsoft arguments: 9 Pro-Microsoft information: 1 One rant about WA-520 [google.com]: 1
Seriously? We've lowered ourselves to this level? "OMG you're familiar with a highway in the same half of the same state as Microsoft! YOU MUST BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!" This is what you want Slashdot to be?
Dude, even if he was a Microsoft employee-- SO FUCKING WHAT!? His opinion is as valid as yours. More valid to me, in fact, since he's not nearly as pathetic and petty as you. Isn't it even theoretically possible that he genuinely likes Microsoft products and is expressing his opinion?
This is a new low for Slashdot commenting.
Of course, you won't pay attention to this post after you do your extensive background research on me and find out I live only 45 miles from Microsoft headquarters!! I MUST BE A SHILL!!!
This poor company did an almost supernatural amount of damage to its reputation through their "testing" methodology:
1) when the programmers are about halfway done, release the software on the web without any testing. 2) when the programmers say they are done, release the software on the web without any testing. 3) repeat six or seven times. 4) call one of those versions the "final version" 5) release.01,.02,.03 versions every time an embarrassing bug is mentioned on c|net.
If I invest in IBM, I'm guaranteed a healthy return. Barring any major disaster, IBM will consistently return a profit on what I invest.
If you invest in IBM, you're investing in deploying Lotus Notes which is an evil not even the most evil startup could possibly manage. So you might be making money, but you're also contributing to the misery of hundreds of millions of office workers. It's not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Caldera : DR-DOS
I've always thought this one was way overblown.
Microsoft developed Windows, which required DOS as a base/bootloader, and did all of their testing on MS-DOS. At this time, DR-DOS was also available, which was extremely similar but not identical to MS-DOS. So when Microsoft released the Windows 3.1 beta, they added in code to ensure it was being installed on the version of DOS they tested it with.
And they removed (deactivated) the check for the shipping product. It only ever appeared on a limited-release beta.
So basically, the big complaint here is that a beta of Windows 3.1 refused to install itself on an unsupported and untested version of DOS. Seems extremely petty to me... of course since it's Microsoft, they got sued and had to settle for God knows how much.
You *DO* Remember that the main problem was with J++ and Microsoft trying to distort a standard (or at least, a standard they *signed* they would respect) to make it incompatible?
Kind of how they made special Javascript or ActiveX extensions which broke the net??
1) This is all 20/20 hindsight-- at the time there was no problem with making Java extensions, because (AFAIK) nobody anticipated the "break the web" aspect of this. Only until *after* the extensions were made (and had been in-place for several years) did Sun get upset by this and do anything about it.
2) Microsoft didn't set out to break Java, they set out to make the Java experience better for Windows users, by being able to interface with Windows-specific technologies.
Additionally, the web standard allows the embedding of any language in web pages-- not just JavaScript. Microsoft wasn't doing anything outside the language *or* intent of the W3C standards by adding ActiveX support.
I mean, number 2 is certainly Microsoft's "fault", but on the other hand, it's not like it's something they did with malice.
No, I'm trying to point out that a window manager is NOT PART of any operating system.
Ok; we'll do it your way. OS means something completely different than 99.9% of the population understands it to mean. We're in Bizarro Runaway1956 World right now. I just grew an evil goatee.
If you really think that Windows won't run without a window manager, then you don't know Windows - or any other OS.
Wait! You just said Windows wasn't a "real" OS because it shipped with a window manager. Now you're saying that Windows runs just fine without a window manager-- just like any other OS!!! (We've already established that most other OSes ship with a window manager.)
So how is Windows not a "real" OS? Even in Bizarro Runaway1956 World your argument doesn't make any goddamned sense as anything except a rationalization allowing you to make fun of Microsoft.
Now let's re-enter the real world:
If you really think that Windows won't run without a window manager, then you don't know Windows
By that logic, "OS" means "kernel". After all, NT will run without a window manager, without any device drivers, without any filesystems, without any applications. So obviously the drivers, filesystem, and all applications are not part of the OS... right? I'm just using your words here.
The OPERATING SYSTEM need not even include much in the way of CLI utilities. I can set up a router or a server, then rip out almost every thing that isn't directly related to the services that I want to run. It's STILL an operating system with no window manager.
And how does Windows fit in? You can strip down Windows to exactly what you need as well.
Stop assuming that you know what I mean, or what I intend, and admit that a window manager is not part of any operating system.
Look, even if we enter your Bizarro World, and assume "OS" means "kernel", we've already demonstrated that your assertion that Windows isn't a "real" OS *makes no sense*. So why did you even post that little gem in the first place? It's just a completely random dig at Microsoft for absolutely no reason. (I'm happy to notice it got modded appropriately.)
You've yet to explain:
1) What other OSes are "real"
2) What the alternative to "real" even is. Is Windows fake? Is Windows imaginary? Is it irrational? "Real" has many definitions, and we don't know which one you're using.
Where were all these non-standard proprietary connectors ...?
Same place they are now: on Apple hardware.
Seriously, WTF is this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_DisplayPort ? Have you *ever* seen a video device that plugs directly into this without an adapter?
Hey Apple: if you have to buy a $30 adapter to use the fucking port with every device ever, maybe just use the standard one in the first place, eh?
The standard Linux OS ships with at least one window manager.
Ok, so you're confirming my point.
The window manager is not the OS.
No, it's not the OS. But it's part of the OS.
Look, we all know what you're doing here. You're trying to create some stupid artificial distinction between Windows and other OSes so that you can feel justified in calling Windows a "fake" OS. (Or whatever opposes "real" in your little worldview.) Fine, you hate Microsoft, we get it.
You're trying to redefine OS to mean "the kernel and maybe some CLI utilities." That's not what the term means, that's not what it's ever meant.
So if you're going to hate Microsoft, do so in a way that makes sense and doesn't require redefining terms everybody knows. Hey, you could even *gasp* come up with *actual reasons* to hate them, instead of making up some stupid shit like "Windows is inferior because it ships with a window manager, hur hur!!"
Or maybe they didn't expect uber-pedantic Slashdot posters to obsess over every single word.
Look, obviously "X times per second" is an average-- it pretty much has to be unless you want the guy to call out a new value every single second. That would make for a really crummy interview.
What he probably means is "the average number of attacks varies between 7000 and 9000 times per second depending on traffic levels, time of day, number of active exploits, and probably other factors we haven't yet thought of."
You know, the exact same thing a normal non-pedant person would assume he meant.
In any REAL OS, the window manager isn't part of the OS. All a window manager is supposed to do is - like - you know - MANAGE THE WINDOWS!
How many OSes ship with a window manager? I'm guessing at least 90%. Almost all Linux OSes do. Apple's OS X does. Windows does, obviously. Solaris does.
So which OSes exactly do you consider "real?" (And, as opposed to what? Imaginary?) I'd love to know.
There's also the fact that Episodes I and II were completely, utterly useless. Nothing that occurs in Episode II relies on knowing events of Episode I. Nothing that occurs in Episode 3 replies on knowing anything from I or II. The villain in Episode I died at the end. The villain of Episode II dies in the first 5 minutes of Episode III.
I'd go as far as saying that Episode II is a *better* movie if you hadn't seen Episode I. And Episode III is a *far better* movie if you hadn't seen the previous two.
$0.99 is way too much for a single episode rental. With the same price you can buy the whole season from store and get a physical product with extras too.
Am I crazy?
I used to *buy* TV episodes off iTunes for $1 a pop... I got Lost Season 2 this way, I know for a fact.
Is the actual news here that Apple is ripping people off? Or... is this supposed to be new somehow? Maybe they just assume we have really short memories?
Wow. We really don't care.
Do not be too hasty in entering that room. I had Taco Bell for lunch!
I think schools should be teaching more usability. I wager over half of programmers go on to make something with a UI in it, and crummy UI has been a long-standing problem in our industry. (Not talking necessarily about boxed software, which generally does an ok job, but bespoke software.)
I'm an idiotic fanboy for saying that Sony has fewer exclusives this generation than last. That's... fact.
Ok, fine. If citing a fact makes me a fanboy, I guess I'm a fanboy.
And if we ever do get this alleged impending flood of ARM netbooks and tablets, you're going to see it become very important indeed.
That's a fantasy. It was a fantasy 3 years ago, it's a fantasy now. It's simply not. going. to. happen.
This is Microsoft's worst nightmare.
Microsoft already has OSes that run fine on ARM. They already have versions of Office that run on ARM. So... no it's not.
I seem to recall a report from Microsoft not too long ago - drawn from the automated error reporting in Windows - showing that video card drivers are, by far, the single biggest cause of system instability.
The point of Microsoft releasing that information was to show that many of the problems customers had with Vista (IIRC-- it might have been Windows 7 right at release) were due to bad third-party drivers, and nothing to do with the design of the OS itself. Just FYI, it turns out things change over time.
And the plan worked, it shamed both ATI and nVidia into fixing their buggy-ass drivers.
You also have to remember that Vista and Windows 7 can simply reboot the GPU driver when it crashes. So when they say "system instability", they're talking about "the screen goes black for 5 seconds, then comes back exactly as it was before". They're not (in the majority of cases) talking about computers locking-up or bluescreening.
If they ran the same report now, I doubt video driver issues would even be in the top-10. I could be wrong.
Why has nobody ever complained that Microsoft gimped the computing experience for whole generations of customers,
I'm sorry, is this your first day on Slashdot?
People gripe and moan about that a thousand times every day.
I don't get what your point is here-- are you upset that the grandparent didn't drop in a "Windows is gimped" reference, even though that would be grossly off-topic?
I'm not sure, but Sony has managed to convince companies to do it in the console market.
Then again, Sony was first during the previous generation...
They also haven't convinced as many companies as they did with their last console. Microsoft's been consistently chipping away Sony's developers since Team Ninja left when the original Xbox came out...
It was pretty awesome when I did it on my C-64 back in 1990 too. But I didn't have YouTube then, so I couldn't attention whore as effectively as modern programmers.
Well, if the story were told as: "People passing by the table whose RFID identified them as scary federal agents were photographed..." then I'd be a little more impressed.
As-is, he's pretty much just photographing everybody.
When the box got a return and found usable data, it snapped a picture.
Uh... so what?
Maybe the hotel they were staying at used RFID keys. Nothing here implies "if a RFID card has usable data, IT'S A SUPER-TOP-FEDERAL-CIA-SECRET-OMG!!!" He was just snapping photos of people with bus passes and hotel keys... retarded.
only an idiot runs X server on a server.
Running the server version on a, actual server! IDIOTS!!!
But, judging [slashdot.org] by [slashdot.org] your [slashdot.org] comment [slashdot.org] history [slashdot.org] you [slashdot.org] (Arainach) [slashdot.org] are a Microsoft [slashdot.org] shill [slashdot.org] and [slashdot.org] probably [slashdot.org] an employee.
Your Comments in the Past Year:
Anti-GPL w/o mentioning Microsoft: 2
Pro-Microsoft arguments: 9
Pro-Microsoft information: 1
One rant about WA-520 [google.com]: 1
Seriously? We've lowered ourselves to this level? "OMG you're familiar with a highway in the same half of the same state as Microsoft! YOU MUST BE AN EMPLOYEE!!!" This is what you want Slashdot to be?
Dude, even if he was a Microsoft employee-- SO FUCKING WHAT!? His opinion is as valid as yours. More valid to me, in fact, since he's not nearly as pathetic and petty as you. Isn't it even theoretically possible that he genuinely likes Microsoft products and is expressing his opinion?
This is a new low for Slashdot commenting.
Of course, you won't pay attention to this post after you do your extensive background research on me and find out I live only 45 miles from Microsoft headquarters!! I MUST BE A SHILL!!!
From a developer standpoint, it sounds like a nightmare. Anyone remember IE6 on Mac?
There is no such thing. So... no we don't.
IE for Mac's last version was 5.2. It was also a very good browser, far superior to IE5 for Windows, strangely enough.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for quoting him, but I've always loved Joel Spolsky's description of Netscape's "testing methodology":
If I invest in IBM, I'm guaranteed a healthy return. Barring any major disaster, IBM will consistently return a profit on what I invest.
If you invest in IBM, you're investing in deploying Lotus Notes which is an evil not even the most evil startup could possibly manage. So you might be making money, but you're also contributing to the misery of hundreds of millions of office workers. It's not worth it.