My rep and I are continuing our year end strategy sessions and 2008 will be another banner year. We just finished figuring out different ways to procure financing for more product licensing. Here are some more predictions to add to this list:
1. Microsoft puts Nintendo out of business with an XBOX 360 handheld. This will combine the raw and unbridled power of the XBOX 360 with the form factor and popularity of the Zune. Bye-bye Nintendo DS
2. Apple will ask Microsoft for permission to move the iPod platform to Windows and eventually will give up on iTunes and the iPod completely due to the popularity of the Zune.
3. Linux and UNIX will completely die under pressure from the powerful Windows 2008 server. Linux distributors who have signed IP agreements with Microsoft will be allowed to survive but Red Hat will go away.
4. Vista will end up being the single most important technological innovation since Bell said "Hello Watson".
Microsoft in 2008: 10 Predictions
by Mary Jo Foley | December 18, 2007 7:07am PST | Image 1 of 10
Previous | Next
Microsoft Predictions for 2008: Fiji resurfaces
It's pundit prediction time again. Here are ten predictions about what I think we'll see in Microsoft land in 2008.
First up: Expect "Fiji," the new version of Windows Media Center, to resurface. Fiji, which probably now has a boring codename like Windows 6.5, will reemerge from information lock-down in early 2008. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft field a private test build of Fiji as soon as January (timed with the Consumer Electronics Show). Because Fiji allegedly requires Vista Service Pack 1 to work, a public beta is probably unlikely until spring. Final Fiji release: I'm betting late summer 2008 (in time for Holiday 2008 preloads).
Photo Credit: Rickabbo. CC 2.0
Just In
"4. Vista will end up being the single most important technological innovation since Bell said "Hello Watson"."
That's Dr. Watson, to you!
That's Dr. Watson, to you!
He always claimed that Microsoft had to play rough because it could be out of business almost overnight.
If software consumers were rational, MS would be reduced to a Gaming Machine and Software company. If the feds understood technology there'd be new laws that would make Windows2000 public domain by 2010, and they'd have split up MS 10 years ago.
If software consumers were rational, MS would be reduced to a Gaming Machine and Software company. If the feds understood technology there'd be new laws that would make Windows2000 public domain by 2010, and they'd have split up MS 10 years ago.
Any if you new anything about the constitution, you might know whay I think you are a communist.
Windows XP....
or is that re-release?
PC World named Vista as the technical bomb of 2007, so it can only get better from here.
Repackage XP, give it a shiny new label, and I'm sure all those people who had to suffer through Vista will be purchasing it in droves.
or is that re-release?
PC World named Vista as the technical bomb of 2007, so it can only get better from here.
Repackage XP, give it a shiny new label, and I'm sure all those people who had to suffer through Vista will be purchasing it in droves.
and Leopard where 2 of the top 10 biggest disapointments of 2007.
Just repackage Tiger, slap the next OSX revision number in line on it, and the Apple faithfull will leap at the chance to spend 129.00 dollars for it!
The iPhone, well just rename it iPod, and people will want to buy it again for 599.00
Just repackage Tiger, slap the next OSX revision number in line on it, and the Apple faithfull will leap at the chance to spend 129.00 dollars for it!
The iPhone, well just rename it iPod, and people will want to buy it again for 599.00
even list 10 noteworthy new products in 2007, much less name the 10 worst.
Nothing of the past year was overly impressive, nor terrible enough to make me want to return it for a refund.
The year was what it was: just another year.
The year was what it was: just another year.
I personally like the look of the iPhone. I personally wouldn't
buy one for myself for the following reasons:
a) I don't care about mobile phones. In fact I consider my
quality of life infinitely improved without one. Of course I
have one, but I charge it and turn it on about 3 days each year.
I used to have top of the range phones, but I got bored with
them. Same think with PDAs.
b) It's a bit expensive.
c) It's tied to one carrier.
d) DRM.
In fact, I'd much prefer the chinese "copy". (runs linux, half the price, unlocked, half the thickness).
Having said that I still think it's a great product (just not for me).
The OLPC on the other hand, I want. I like the sofware concept, and I think this will be a huge platform in coming years.
Ubuntu Feisty Fawn and Gutsy Gibbon, what can I say, marvellous.
My kids and I have even been playing the network First Person Shooter Urban Terror on our PCs (under ubuntu). It's based on the Quake III engine apparently. On this FPS you don't get the vehicles you get on Halo2, but it doesn't seem to matter much.
Halo2 online we got bored with very fast. Somehow you get less people per map in Urban Terror, and it's just better. (with voting to kick people etc): In the same way that SOCOM is better online than Halo.
I gave away my copy of Vista, I found it far too laggy, and where we use Windows, we've stuck with XP. (SP1 with ZoneAlarm firewall, Spybot S&D, Grisoft AVG). It's amazing how fast XP SP1 is even with the above security products. If the PC is secretly owned, then the overall effect is less of a problem than later service packs!
Oh and if you can call an Internet shop a product, Amazon selling MP3s is one of the best products ever! no sucky DRM!
I bought a LOT of music, and I haven't done that for many years.
(you shouldn't have to buy a CD these days, but DRM music is just awful. I lot a bunch of stuff from MSN Music club, and I'm never going down that route again.
buy one for myself for the following reasons:
a) I don't care about mobile phones. In fact I consider my
quality of life infinitely improved without one. Of course I
have one, but I charge it and turn it on about 3 days each year.
I used to have top of the range phones, but I got bored with
them. Same think with PDAs.
b) It's a bit expensive.
c) It's tied to one carrier.
d) DRM.
In fact, I'd much prefer the chinese "copy". (runs linux, half the price, unlocked, half the thickness).
Having said that I still think it's a great product (just not for me).
The OLPC on the other hand, I want. I like the sofware concept, and I think this will be a huge platform in coming years.
Ubuntu Feisty Fawn and Gutsy Gibbon, what can I say, marvellous.
My kids and I have even been playing the network First Person Shooter Urban Terror on our PCs (under ubuntu). It's based on the Quake III engine apparently. On this FPS you don't get the vehicles you get on Halo2, but it doesn't seem to matter much.
Halo2 online we got bored with very fast. Somehow you get less people per map in Urban Terror, and it's just better. (with voting to kick people etc): In the same way that SOCOM is better online than Halo.
I gave away my copy of Vista, I found it far too laggy, and where we use Windows, we've stuck with XP. (SP1 with ZoneAlarm firewall, Spybot S&D, Grisoft AVG). It's amazing how fast XP SP1 is even with the above security products. If the PC is secretly owned, then the overall effect is less of a problem than later service packs!
Oh and if you can call an Internet shop a product, Amazon selling MP3s is one of the best products ever! no sucky DRM!
I bought a LOT of music, and I haven't done that for many years.
(you shouldn't have to buy a CD these days, but DRM music is just awful. I lot a bunch of stuff from MSN Music club, and I'm never going down that route again.
There hasn't been a release of windows that wasn't a technical bomb since win95. Why innovate when there are no other choices. Just wait for someone to come up with good ideas and do a bad job copying them.
Wish I could talk through my hat like you. Momma always said, if you ain't got nothing good to say (and you haven't) keep it ****...
www.reactos.org.
This could prove to be a rocket up the a*s...
This could prove to be a rocket up the a*s...
Vista was/is indeed the 2007 "bomb" (isn't that when everything goes KABOOM! right in your face?
10 predictions?
Here are 10 for you: there will be 10 (or a multitude thereof) new holes plugged in 2008.
10 predictions?
Here are 10 for you: there will be 10 (or a multitude thereof) new holes plugged in 2008.
1. Microsoft has learned a hard lesson in hoping others build products using Windows. I expect to see Microsoft move into hardware manufacturing in a much bigger way than the past.
2. They will have to fight law suits over their "authentication certificates" for code signing, possibly a class action suit. (Hiding behind VeriSign won't protect them.)
3. Windows 7 will be accelerated for release due to the poor showing of Vista sales. (Sorry but XP is still the clear winner on the Windows desktop.) The other driving force is that Windows Vista and XP (and Windows apps) can't take advantage of quad (or more) CPUs in any meaningfull way and the hardware is leaving the software behind.
4. Microsoft Office (14) will be a half step in using the .NET programming language and WPF which will leave users scratching their heads on why they are running into problems. Especially where backwards compatibility is an issue. (VBA development will be a nightmare and alienate even more devlopers than the current version has.) (Also see number 2)
5. They will face more anti-trust suits in the EU and I suspect the US DOJ and State AGs will ask for extending oversight and possibly bringing new charges concerning monopoly abuse.
6. Economic pressure will force a major reduction in the cost of Windows OS around the world, including the US.
7. OOXML will be ratified as a "standard" despite all the whining over it.
8. Microsoft will find the new Democratic President and staff to be a lot less friendly than Bush and company. Gawd help'em if Hilary wins.
9. The Microsoft MVP program will undergo huge changes or be eliminated. It simply isn't working out as MS hoped and these folks are getting sick of MS trying to "control" them. (I get that from a couple of MVPs. Not crtain if they are correct but it sounds like trouble in the love fest.)
10. The Expression Suite will undergo huge changes and in a year you won't be able to recognize it compared to todays offering. Expect some heads to roll in that business unit.
2. They will have to fight law suits over their "authentication certificates" for code signing, possibly a class action suit. (Hiding behind VeriSign won't protect them.)
3. Windows 7 will be accelerated for release due to the poor showing of Vista sales. (Sorry but XP is still the clear winner on the Windows desktop.) The other driving force is that Windows Vista and XP (and Windows apps) can't take advantage of quad (or more) CPUs in any meaningfull way and the hardware is leaving the software behind.
4. Microsoft Office (14) will be a half step in using the .NET programming language and WPF which will leave users scratching their heads on why they are running into problems. Especially where backwards compatibility is an issue. (VBA development will be a nightmare and alienate even more devlopers than the current version has.) (Also see number 2)
5. They will face more anti-trust suits in the EU and I suspect the US DOJ and State AGs will ask for extending oversight and possibly bringing new charges concerning monopoly abuse.
6. Economic pressure will force a major reduction in the cost of Windows OS around the world, including the US.
7. OOXML will be ratified as a "standard" despite all the whining over it.
8. Microsoft will find the new Democratic President and staff to be a lot less friendly than Bush and company. Gawd help'em if Hilary wins.
9. The Microsoft MVP program will undergo huge changes or be eliminated. It simply isn't working out as MS hoped and these folks are getting sick of MS trying to "control" them. (I get that from a couple of MVPs. Not crtain if they are correct but it sounds like trouble in the love fest.)
10. The Expression Suite will undergo huge changes and in a year you won't be able to recognize it compared to todays offering. Expect some heads to roll in that business unit.
Regarding #8, while I agree that Hilary has the potential to be harder on MS than Bush, personally I think she has bigger fish to fry. The only question is what MS will do after the consent decree expires. If they keep the status quo, I think Hils will overlook them, but if they go back to their pre-decree ways she may bring out the hammer depending on the state of the world at the time.
Regarding #9, it's a shame that MS could potentially ruin their best asset (by far) in their fight against Linux and open source software. I've never had a whole lot to compliment MS on, but the MVP program (and the MVPs themselves) is one thing I do complement them on. They need these ladies and gentleman in their back pocket every bit as much as they need their cache of Windows platform developers. The MVPs and the developers they assist are what keeps MS on top (it sure as heck isn't the OS package itself that keeps them on top).
Regarding #9, it's a shame that MS could potentially ruin their best asset (by far) in their fight against Linux and open source software. I've never had a whole lot to compliment MS on, but the MVP program (and the MVPs themselves) is one thing I do complement them on. They need these ladies and gentleman in their back pocket every bit as much as they need their cache of Windows platform developers. The MVPs and the developers they assist are what keeps MS on top (it sure as heck isn't the OS package itself that keeps them on top).
"The only question is what MS will do after the consent decree expires. If they keep the status quo, I think Hils will overlook them, but if they go back to their pre-decree ways she may bring out the hammer depending on the state of the world at the time."
The thing is that MS has "out foxed" the courts in that the courts are still looking backwards instead of forward. Vista has a number of issue that will land them in anti-trust suits in the near future. Examples: Vista's digital locker for storing software registration keys that can only be used if you sell software via Windows Marketplace. The way they are controling who may or may not install software with an "authentication certificate".
"I've never had a whole lot to compliment MS on, but the MVP program (and the MVPs themselves) is one thing I do complement them on."
I am getting it all second hand so.. well you know. But the feeling is that MS is trying to manipulate them into being MS evangilist instead of simply being there as a technical resource for users and many don't care for it.
The thing is that MS has "out foxed" the courts in that the courts are still looking backwards instead of forward. Vista has a number of issue that will land them in anti-trust suits in the near future. Examples: Vista's digital locker for storing software registration keys that can only be used if you sell software via Windows Marketplace. The way they are controling who may or may not install software with an "authentication certificate".
"I've never had a whole lot to compliment MS on, but the MVP program (and the MVPs themselves) is one thing I do complement them on."
I am getting it all second hand so.. well you know. But the feeling is that MS is trying to manipulate them into being MS evangilist instead of simply being there as a technical resource for users and many don't care for it.
... are perfectly safe in the program. There is no pressure to spread the word other than the normal expectations of courtesy and not defaming Microsoft or anyone else.
I seen a good number of non-US MVPs get the ax this year and they were very active in the public news groups with a great track record. Are you saying there was some other reason this happened?
But I don't have any information on why they were not awarded. My fellow MVPs in Europe have no clues either but rumors are rampant. Nothing I have heard suggests they were not awarded because they refused to evangelize for Microsoft.
Most of the MS folks I know, including the MVP's, are gigantic defamers of Google, so I would not agree with that aspect of your comment. My own observation, has been the MVP's are serious MS cheerleaders also, though I have heard of some who are not.
(NT)
Hmmm, the program is in fine shape you say...
"I've never had a whole lot to compliment MS on, but the MVP program (and the MVPs themselves) is one thing I do complement them on."
MVP.....Microsoft's Valued Posters?
MVP.....Microsoft's Valued Posters?
"Microsoft has learned a hard lesson in hoping others build products using Windows. I expect to see Microsoft move into hardware manufacturing in a much bigger way than the past."
I doubt it. I don't think they want to ever move away from software. I think they may focus a lot on Live.
You may be right in some respects: They are, after all, pushing hard for the Zune and the Xbox.
"They will have to fight law suits over their "authentication certificates" for code signing, possibly a class action suit. (Hiding behind VeriSign won't protect them.)"
I'm pretty unaware of this issue, but I think I agree?
"Windows 7 will be accelerated for release due to the poor showing of Vista sales. (Sorry but XP is still the clear winner on the Windows desktop.) The other driving force is that Windows Vista and XP (and Windows apps) can't take advantage of quad (or more) CPUs in any meaningfull way and the hardware is leaving the software behind."
I agree that they'll push hard for Windows 7.
Vista does support quad cores - I'm running a quad core and it works fine and uses all cores.
Besides, the OS should be minimal and should not push the CPU to its limits anyways. That's what the applications should be doing, not the OS.
Other software, on the other hand, has troubles supporting quad cores. It's a mixed bag, especially with games.
"Microsoft Office (14) will be a half step in using the .NET programming language and WPF which will leave users scratching their heads on why they are running into problems. Especially where backwards compatibility is an issue. (VBA development will be a nightmare and alienate even more devlopers than the current version has.) (Also see number 2)"
Agreed.
Never liked VBA, though. I think it's a horrid language that pretends to be half scripting and half real language and succeeds at neither.
"They will face more anti-trust suits in the EU and I suspect the US DOJ and State AGs will ask for extending oversight and possibly bringing new charges concerning monopoly abuse."
Yeah, I think it will happen, even though I disagree with adding more anti-trust suits.
I think Microsoft isn't quite the monopoly it used to be and we don't need any more government control.
"Economic pressure will force a major reduction in the cost of Windows OS around the world, including the US."
I think it's a 50/50 chance. It's going to depend a lot on whether Apple can continue to grow. Microsoft is going to be very reluctant about changing their prices.
"OOXML will be ratified as a "standard" despite all the whining over it."
Agreed.
"Microsoft will find the new Democratic President and staff to be a lot less friendly than Bush and company. Gawd help'em if Hilary wins."
Why is that?
Frankly, I don't think politicians are really paying much attention to technology these days. The war is now the big issue.
"The Microsoft MVP program will undergo huge changes or be eliminated. It simply isn't working out as MS hoped and these folks are getting sick of MS trying to "control" them. (I get that from a couple of MVPs. Not crtain if they are correct but it sounds like trouble in the love fest.)"
Agreed. MVPs just turned out to be pawns for Microsoft to use to put on a pretty face.
"The Expression Suite will undergo huge changes and in a year you won't be able to recognize it compared to todays offering. Expect some heads to roll in that business unit."
Probably. Frankly, I don't think web designers are really using it that much anyways. Most of us are just using basic text editing tools or CMSes.
I doubt it. I don't think they want to ever move away from software. I think they may focus a lot on Live.
You may be right in some respects: They are, after all, pushing hard for the Zune and the Xbox.
"They will have to fight law suits over their "authentication certificates" for code signing, possibly a class action suit. (Hiding behind VeriSign won't protect them.)"
I'm pretty unaware of this issue, but I think I agree?
"Windows 7 will be accelerated for release due to the poor showing of Vista sales. (Sorry but XP is still the clear winner on the Windows desktop.) The other driving force is that Windows Vista and XP (and Windows apps) can't take advantage of quad (or more) CPUs in any meaningfull way and the hardware is leaving the software behind."
I agree that they'll push hard for Windows 7.
Vista does support quad cores - I'm running a quad core and it works fine and uses all cores.
Besides, the OS should be minimal and should not push the CPU to its limits anyways. That's what the applications should be doing, not the OS.
Other software, on the other hand, has troubles supporting quad cores. It's a mixed bag, especially with games.
"Microsoft Office (14) will be a half step in using the .NET programming language and WPF which will leave users scratching their heads on why they are running into problems. Especially where backwards compatibility is an issue. (VBA development will be a nightmare and alienate even more devlopers than the current version has.) (Also see number 2)"
Agreed.
Never liked VBA, though. I think it's a horrid language that pretends to be half scripting and half real language and succeeds at neither.
"They will face more anti-trust suits in the EU and I suspect the US DOJ and State AGs will ask for extending oversight and possibly bringing new charges concerning monopoly abuse."
Yeah, I think it will happen, even though I disagree with adding more anti-trust suits.
I think Microsoft isn't quite the monopoly it used to be and we don't need any more government control.
"Economic pressure will force a major reduction in the cost of Windows OS around the world, including the US."
I think it's a 50/50 chance. It's going to depend a lot on whether Apple can continue to grow. Microsoft is going to be very reluctant about changing their prices.
"OOXML will be ratified as a "standard" despite all the whining over it."
Agreed.
"Microsoft will find the new Democratic President and staff to be a lot less friendly than Bush and company. Gawd help'em if Hilary wins."
Why is that?
Frankly, I don't think politicians are really paying much attention to technology these days. The war is now the big issue.
"The Microsoft MVP program will undergo huge changes or be eliminated. It simply isn't working out as MS hoped and these folks are getting sick of MS trying to "control" them. (I get that from a couple of MVPs. Not crtain if they are correct but it sounds like trouble in the love fest.)"
Agreed. MVPs just turned out to be pawns for Microsoft to use to put on a pretty face.
"The Expression Suite will undergo huge changes and in a year you won't be able to recognize it compared to todays offering. Expect some heads to roll in that business unit."
Probably. Frankly, I don't think web designers are really using it that much anyways. Most of us are just using basic text editing tools or CMSes.
"Vista does support quad cores - I'm running a quad core and it works fine and uses all cores."
Yes and no, it will run each app in a different core but multi-threading across cores has a very long ways to go.
"Yeah, I think it will happen, even though I disagree with adding more anti-trust suits."
I know of one State AG (mine) getting ready to do just that over the "authenticaion certificates" and Vista's "Digital Locker". (Digital locker in this case means you are LOCKED out unless you agree to having MS sell your products on the Windows Marketplace.)
"Frankly, I don't think politicians are really paying much attention to technology these days. The war is now the big issue."
Honestly, I think the DOJ has held off doing much while under the Bush administration. I think they believe Hilary is a lot more open to their arguements.
Yes and no, it will run each app in a different core but multi-threading across cores has a very long ways to go.
"Yeah, I think it will happen, even though I disagree with adding more anti-trust suits."
I know of one State AG (mine) getting ready to do just that over the "authenticaion certificates" and Vista's "Digital Locker". (Digital locker in this case means you are LOCKED out unless you agree to having MS sell your products on the Windows Marketplace.)
"Frankly, I don't think politicians are really paying much attention to technology these days. The war is now the big issue."
Honestly, I think the DOJ has held off doing much while under the Bush administration. I think they believe Hilary is a lot more open to their arguements.
"Yes and no, it will run each app in a different core but multi-threading across cores has a very long ways to go."
Well, the issue here is that the OS generally isn't in charge of how many threads an application uses - generally it's up to the application, not the OS, to be aware of multiple cores and take full advantage of them.
You can't blame the OS for individual applications not being aware of multiple cores.
Trying to have the OS split applications designed for single cores into multiple cores would be a disaster:
-Most single core applications are written with the expectation that the code is followed in a certain order and in a single thread.
-Multiple cores means that stuff can happen simultaneously, and stuff can happen out of order.
-If the application is forced into multiple threads, several parts of the code are running simultaneously, which the application was never designed to handle.
-The order is now broken, and unexpected things happen.
In other words, forcing normally single threaded apps to run in multiple threads is a big mess. We don't even know if it's even possible to force a normally single threaded app to run on multiple cores without breaking it.
Right now, no OS I know of has the ability to force a single threaded application to run across multiple cores. It's up to the application developer to detect multiple cores and use a multi-threaded approach to take advantage of them.
Well, the issue here is that the OS generally isn't in charge of how many threads an application uses - generally it's up to the application, not the OS, to be aware of multiple cores and take full advantage of them.
You can't blame the OS for individual applications not being aware of multiple cores.
Trying to have the OS split applications designed for single cores into multiple cores would be a disaster:
-Most single core applications are written with the expectation that the code is followed in a certain order and in a single thread.
-Multiple cores means that stuff can happen simultaneously, and stuff can happen out of order.
-If the application is forced into multiple threads, several parts of the code are running simultaneously, which the application was never designed to handle.
-The order is now broken, and unexpected things happen.
In other words, forcing normally single threaded apps to run in multiple threads is a big mess. We don't even know if it's even possible to force a normally single threaded app to run on multiple cores without breaking it.
Right now, no OS I know of has the ability to force a single threaded application to run across multiple cores. It's up to the application developer to detect multiple cores and use a multi-threaded approach to take advantage of them.
What hes saying is software doesn't ask the cpu to run an operation. It tells the os hey, I need this done, the os does it, and then gets back to software. There is a layer between the hardware and the software called the os or Operating system.
Straighter to the point, yes software developers have to write code designed to be processed in parallel, "aka parallel processing", but the os has to be able to handle such a request. Currently both vista and xp takes a process assigns the least taxed core to its requests, and thats the end of it. There is no functionally for the software to tell the os, "hey you can do both of these things at the same time if you want".
I am unaware of any way to compile a single program in an x86 environment in such a way to accomplish this task. The only conceivable way I could imagine doing it in a x86 environment would be to run many background processes concurentlly, and to have them pass information between each other via memory addressing in some amazingly coordinated and well thought out manner. But windows would still have a field day with this because it would have no way of prioritizing the many processes all trying to access the same memory and whatever other hardware was being utilized.
Straighter to the point, yes software developers have to write code designed to be processed in parallel, "aka parallel processing", but the os has to be able to handle such a request. Currently both vista and xp takes a process assigns the least taxed core to its requests, and thats the end of it. There is no functionally for the software to tell the os, "hey you can do both of these things at the same time if you want".
I am unaware of any way to compile a single program in an x86 environment in such a way to accomplish this task. The only conceivable way I could imagine doing it in a x86 environment would be to run many background processes concurentlly, and to have them pass information between each other via memory addressing in some amazingly coordinated and well thought out manner. But windows would still have a field day with this because it would have no way of prioritizing the many processes all trying to access the same memory and whatever other hardware was being utilized.
"What hes saying is software doesn't ask the cpu to run an operation. It tells the os hey, I need this done, the os does it, and then gets back to software. There is a layer between the hardware and the software called the os or Operating system."
Well, there are two extremes, and Windows is somewhere in the middle.
DOS was one extreme, and software usually ran nearly 100% on the CPU with the OS doing almost nothing (other than a few simplistic mouse and video things)
Emulators are the other extreme, with every instruction being run by the emulator and the program has no access to the CPU at all (even though it is fooled into thinking so).
Windows is somewhere in the middle. If you're doing something like a math operation or a for loop, then as long as you don't exceed your time slice you're allowed to do the computations pretty much directly.
On the other hand, the user interface and I/O stuff is passed off to the OS and it handles them.
So Windows is sorta a hybrid of the two, but as processors become more powerful, it's moving towards being a virtualizer.
"Straighter to the point, yes software developers have to write code designed to be processed in parallel, "aka parallel processing", but the os has to be able to handle such a request. Currently both vista and xp takes a process assigns the least taxed core to its requests, and thats the end of it. There is no functionally for the software to tell the os, 'hey you can do both of these things at the same time if you want'."
Actually, there is: They're called threads. A developer can say "I want to do this set of operations in one thread, and that set of operations in another." The OS can then take each thread and place it in a different processor/core.
"I am unaware of any way to compile a single program in an x86 environment in such a way to accomplish this task."
Multiprocessing has nothing to do with compiling - it has to do with designing the program to be multithreaded.
"Currently both vista and xp takes a process assigns the least taxed core to its requests, and thats the end of it."
Hardly. Even before computers had multiple cores, they've been able to do many tasks at once on a single core.
DOS was what you're imagining: A process starts, everything goes into the background, and nothing else happens until the process finishes. This model has been dead for years.
Windows 3 allowed the ability to switch between several processes, and each process could hand control over to the OS, which would then pass control to the next program. The OS divided time into "slices" and tried to keep the distribution of the time spent by each program fairly equal. However, the OS was sill at the mercy of the program if the program didn't give up control of the CPU.
Windows 95 made the process switching mandatory - if a process didn't hand over control before the time slice was over, the OS forcibly yanked control from the process and handed it to the next program. There is no such thing as a true "background" process (except the OS's time slicer) in this model: A background process is simply one with a smaller time slice.
Of course, this time slicing is done thousands of times a second so you have the impression that they are all running simultaneously.
Now with true multiprocessing, processes can actually run simultaneously in a true parallel fashion - but the time slicing stuff is still in place: Control over the processor the code is running on is still taken away when the time slice is over.
Now enter threads: A thread is similar to a process in that it can have its own time slice and can be placed on a different processor than other threads, but it's owned and managed by a single process, and as such the developer can create a program that uses several processors.
You are right about one thing: Several processes trying to share memory is a problem, and that can cause programs to lockup. Usually it's left to the developer to determine how the program should bes communicate with other programs in a way to avoid deadlocks and race conditions.
Usually when that happens the user has to tell the OS to forcibly shut down the program(s) that are causing problems. The OS itself is largely unaffected by program lockups because the time slicer will eventually force the program to give up control and give control back to the OS.
Well, there are two extremes, and Windows is somewhere in the middle.
DOS was one extreme, and software usually ran nearly 100% on the CPU with the OS doing almost nothing (other than a few simplistic mouse and video things)
Emulators are the other extreme, with every instruction being run by the emulator and the program has no access to the CPU at all (even though it is fooled into thinking so).
Windows is somewhere in the middle. If you're doing something like a math operation or a for loop, then as long as you don't exceed your time slice you're allowed to do the computations pretty much directly.
On the other hand, the user interface and I/O stuff is passed off to the OS and it handles them.
So Windows is sorta a hybrid of the two, but as processors become more powerful, it's moving towards being a virtualizer.
"Straighter to the point, yes software developers have to write code designed to be processed in parallel, "aka parallel processing", but the os has to be able to handle such a request. Currently both vista and xp takes a process assigns the least taxed core to its requests, and thats the end of it. There is no functionally for the software to tell the os, 'hey you can do both of these things at the same time if you want'."
Actually, there is: They're called threads. A developer can say "I want to do this set of operations in one thread, and that set of operations in another." The OS can then take each thread and place it in a different processor/core.
"I am unaware of any way to compile a single program in an x86 environment in such a way to accomplish this task."
Multiprocessing has nothing to do with compiling - it has to do with designing the program to be multithreaded.
"Currently both vista and xp takes a process assigns the least taxed core to its requests, and thats the end of it."
Hardly. Even before computers had multiple cores, they've been able to do many tasks at once on a single core.
DOS was what you're imagining: A process starts, everything goes into the background, and nothing else happens until the process finishes. This model has been dead for years.
Windows 3 allowed the ability to switch between several processes, and each process could hand control over to the OS, which would then pass control to the next program. The OS divided time into "slices" and tried to keep the distribution of the time spent by each program fairly equal. However, the OS was sill at the mercy of the program if the program didn't give up control of the CPU.
Windows 95 made the process switching mandatory - if a process didn't hand over control before the time slice was over, the OS forcibly yanked control from the process and handed it to the next program. There is no such thing as a true "background" process (except the OS's time slicer) in this model: A background process is simply one with a smaller time slice.
Of course, this time slicing is done thousands of times a second so you have the impression that they are all running simultaneously.
Now with true multiprocessing, processes can actually run simultaneously in a true parallel fashion - but the time slicing stuff is still in place: Control over the processor the code is running on is still taken away when the time slice is over.
Now enter threads: A thread is similar to a process in that it can have its own time slice and can be placed on a different processor than other threads, but it's owned and managed by a single process, and as such the developer can create a program that uses several processors.
You are right about one thing: Several processes trying to share memory is a problem, and that can cause programs to lockup. Usually it's left to the developer to determine how the program should bes communicate with other programs in a way to avoid deadlocks and race conditions.
Usually when that happens the user has to tell the OS to forcibly shut down the program(s) that are causing problems. The OS itself is largely unaffected by program lockups because the time slicer will eventually force the program to give up control and give control back to the OS.
My explination was an over simplification because I thought I was explaining somthing to someone who fail to see a concept.
"Windows 3 allowed the ability to switch between several processes, and each process could hand control over to the OS, which would then pass control to the next program. The OS divided time into "slices" and tried to keep the distribution of the time spent by each program fairly equal. However, the OS was sill at the mercy of the program if the program didn't give up control of the CPU."
A to Z is A to Z no matter what order you go into. Instead of finishing a list of instructions one after the other, you finish them in mixed fashion depending on several factors. Simulated multitasking. Its not doing many things at once its just skipping around from thing to thing. I get this and all the other points you make on the subject are correct but mute in terms of the current disscusion. The thing you did say that needs to be addressed is
Threads. Yes this is a capability to have a process run instructions on separate processors. The problem lies not in there existence but in how Windows handles them.
A thread is a thread. There's no guarantee that The two or four threads from my software will get run at the same time on different cores. To windows there just threads, all vying for a "slice" of time on a processor. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, using Java, C#, VB.NET, Ruby, you can actually come across situations where multi threading on a multicore processor will impede the performance because the threads will want to get run simultaneously and the entire process will wait for each thread to get its time.
One of vistas few credits is it does a much better job than xp handling the "logistics" of threads, and many system locks due to the os expending system resources sorting out which thread goes next have been removed. But why should multi threaded software be sharing time with system operations that most people don't even no exsist or low cpu intensive tasks. Vista can run on one core fine, single thread programs can share it ie the firefoxes the word ect.
Why is windows handling processes with multiply threads like two competing processes. Microsoft needs to do some major refinement when it comes to how each multi threaded program gets prioritized because most processes don't start run and end as mulit threaded entities. And much of the gain from them being multithreaded is negated by them waiting for all there threads to come to a point of closure and move on.
And finally the task of writing a multithreaded program in which the threads share the program workload equally is very difficult. Problems arise because the code may not run the same way each time. There is no guarantee on how windows is going to prioritize and run your threads. Non repeatable error tend to pop up alot. Unless Microsoft come up with a standardized Multi threaded priority scheme, developers are going to have an increasingly difficult time utilizing threads in this manner. 99 percent of multi threaded software around is organized in a heavy lifting this thread, stupid stuff that thread fashion because of this fact....... That and threads were never designed for parallel processing to begin with.
"Windows 3 allowed the ability to switch between several processes, and each process could hand control over to the OS, which would then pass control to the next program. The OS divided time into "slices" and tried to keep the distribution of the time spent by each program fairly equal. However, the OS was sill at the mercy of the program if the program didn't give up control of the CPU."
A to Z is A to Z no matter what order you go into. Instead of finishing a list of instructions one after the other, you finish them in mixed fashion depending on several factors. Simulated multitasking. Its not doing many things at once its just skipping around from thing to thing. I get this and all the other points you make on the subject are correct but mute in terms of the current disscusion. The thing you did say that needs to be addressed is
Threads. Yes this is a capability to have a process run instructions on separate processors. The problem lies not in there existence but in how Windows handles them.
A thread is a thread. There's no guarantee that The two or four threads from my software will get run at the same time on different cores. To windows there just threads, all vying for a "slice" of time on a processor. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, using Java, C#, VB.NET, Ruby, you can actually come across situations where multi threading on a multicore processor will impede the performance because the threads will want to get run simultaneously and the entire process will wait for each thread to get its time.
One of vistas few credits is it does a much better job than xp handling the "logistics" of threads, and many system locks due to the os expending system resources sorting out which thread goes next have been removed. But why should multi threaded software be sharing time with system operations that most people don't even no exsist or low cpu intensive tasks. Vista can run on one core fine, single thread programs can share it ie the firefoxes the word ect.
Why is windows handling processes with multiply threads like two competing processes. Microsoft needs to do some major refinement when it comes to how each multi threaded program gets prioritized because most processes don't start run and end as mulit threaded entities. And much of the gain from them being multithreaded is negated by them waiting for all there threads to come to a point of closure and move on.
And finally the task of writing a multithreaded program in which the threads share the program workload equally is very difficult. Problems arise because the code may not run the same way each time. There is no guarantee on how windows is going to prioritize and run your threads. Non repeatable error tend to pop up alot. Unless Microsoft come up with a standardized Multi threaded priority scheme, developers are going to have an increasingly difficult time utilizing threads in this manner. 99 percent of multi threaded software around is organized in a heavy lifting this thread, stupid stuff that thread fashion because of this fact....... That and threads were never designed for parallel processing to begin with.
"A thread is a thread. There's no guarantee that The two or four threads from my software will get run at the same time on different cores."
Yes and no. They can set their affinity, but I think that's more a suggestion and not a guarantee.
"But why should multi threaded software be sharing time with system operations that most people don't even no exsist or low cpu intensive tasks. Vista can run on one core fine, single thread programs can share it ie the firefoxes the word ect."
Why not? AFAIK, there's no reason to treat any process as being any more important than the others.
Besides, having single threaded programs share a single core pretty much negates the reason for having multiple cores anyways - you want these programs to act as independently as possible, so if one manages to take up a lot of CPU on one core the others remain responsive because they are on other cores.
The idea is that even if you're not running any multithreaded applications, you can still take advantage of multiple cores for multiple single threaded applications.
"And finally the task of writing a multithreaded program in which the threads share the program workload equally is very difficult."
Agreed, especially in C++ which was never designed for concurrent programming in the first place. Java and C# are a bit better, and F# looks very promising for developers.
This is one area where the language can make a difference, because some languages already have the constructs for creating threaded applications, while others don't.
"There is no guarantee on how windows is going to prioritize and run your threads."
And frankly there never will be. OSes have been steadily moving away from guaranteeing things.
You're just going to have to code like everybody else - assume that nothing is guaranteed, and design the threads to be as independent as possible and try hard not share any resources.
If your threads are sharing a lot of resources, then perhaps you should rethink your reasons for making them separate threads in the first place.
Yes and no. They can set their affinity, but I think that's more a suggestion and not a guarantee.
"But why should multi threaded software be sharing time with system operations that most people don't even no exsist or low cpu intensive tasks. Vista can run on one core fine, single thread programs can share it ie the firefoxes the word ect."
Why not? AFAIK, there's no reason to treat any process as being any more important than the others.
Besides, having single threaded programs share a single core pretty much negates the reason for having multiple cores anyways - you want these programs to act as independently as possible, so if one manages to take up a lot of CPU on one core the others remain responsive because they are on other cores.
The idea is that even if you're not running any multithreaded applications, you can still take advantage of multiple cores for multiple single threaded applications.
"And finally the task of writing a multithreaded program in which the threads share the program workload equally is very difficult."
Agreed, especially in C++ which was never designed for concurrent programming in the first place. Java and C# are a bit better, and F# looks very promising for developers.
This is one area where the language can make a difference, because some languages already have the constructs for creating threaded applications, while others don't.
"There is no guarantee on how windows is going to prioritize and run your threads."
And frankly there never will be. OSes have been steadily moving away from guaranteeing things.
You're just going to have to code like everybody else - assume that nothing is guaranteed, and design the threads to be as independent as possible and try hard not share any resources.
If your threads are sharing a lot of resources, then perhaps you should rethink your reasons for making them separate threads in the first place.
"Why not? AFAIK, there's no reason to treat any process as being any more important than the others.
Besides, having single threaded programs share a single core pretty much negates the reason for having multiple cores anyways - you want these programs to act as independently as possible, so if one manages to take up a lot of CPU on one core the others remain responsive because they are on other cores."
My system right now has 71 processes running in 699 threads. there spread evenly across two cores stepped down from 2.66ghz to 1.60ghz. Im running nothing but Firefox, some system monitoring software and yahoo messenger. The rest are strictly "background" Now if I were to add to the mix Word documents, spreadsheets, video, all the great things multitasking affords us, my thread count would go into the thousands. My cpu would still be mostly untaxed most of the time.
Now lets for the purposes of this discussion say I have more than 2 cores and open a multi threaded program that handles itself in a more parallel fashion. Its threads could end up on the same core in silly orders. And yes if you want to take advantage of parallelism you halve to share resources and shoot info every which way. The more my program takes advantage of thread in a manner threads weren't ever designed to be used, the more wacky windows can get with the logistics.
Whats the point of having eight cores if your just "Time slicing" Your time slicing 8 times as fast yes, but thats not parallel processing. Its not even really multitasking. And unless developers get some new os suportted tools, theres gonna be a real diminishing return when it comes to 8+ cores.
Besides, having single threaded programs share a single core pretty much negates the reason for having multiple cores anyways - you want these programs to act as independently as possible, so if one manages to take up a lot of CPU on one core the others remain responsive because they are on other cores."
My system right now has 71 processes running in 699 threads. there spread evenly across two cores stepped down from 2.66ghz to 1.60ghz. Im running nothing but Firefox, some system monitoring software and yahoo messenger. The rest are strictly "background" Now if I were to add to the mix Word documents, spreadsheets, video, all the great things multitasking affords us, my thread count would go into the thousands. My cpu would still be mostly untaxed most of the time.
Now lets for the purposes of this discussion say I have more than 2 cores and open a multi threaded program that handles itself in a more parallel fashion. Its threads could end up on the same core in silly orders. And yes if you want to take advantage of parallelism you halve to share resources and shoot info every which way. The more my program takes advantage of thread in a manner threads weren't ever designed to be used, the more wacky windows can get with the logistics.
Whats the point of having eight cores if your just "Time slicing" Your time slicing 8 times as fast yes, but thats not parallel processing. Its not even really multitasking. And unless developers get some new os suportted tools, theres gonna be a real diminishing return when it comes to 8+ cores.
"Now lets for the purposes of this discussion say I have more than 2 cores and open a multi threaded program that handles itself in a more parallel fashion. Its threads could end up on the same core in silly orders."
Possibly, although you can set the affinity and the OS will usually honor it.
"And yes if you want to take advantage of parallelism you halve to share resources and shoot info every which way."
I disagree. Many tasks don't need to share resources - and those that do share a lot of resource may not be as suited for parallelism as you think they are, and may be better left as a single thread or divided at a different level.
Let's say I'm applying an effect to an image. I can have each core handle a different part of the image - if I have two cores, for example, one core can work on the top half, while the other core works on the bottom half. Since they are never reading or writing to the same pixels, they don't need to worry about all of that communication stuff.
Now I understand that it's not that easy for a lot of tasks, but my point is that not all tasks require such heavy communication.
"The more my program takes advantage of thread in a manner threads weren't ever designed to be used, the more wacky windows can get with the logistics."
Well the solution for that is simple: Don't use threads in ways they're not designed for! Keep it a single thread if it's too complex to multi thread - chances are it didn't need to be multi threaded anyways.
"Whats the point of having eight cores if your just "Time slicing" Your time slicing 8 times as fast yes, but thats not parallel processing. Its not even really multitasking."
I don't know the details of how Windows manages time slices and multiple cores - but I imagine the engineers at Microsoft are not so stupid they'd give only one application a piece of time when there are multiple cores. I imagine that scheduler is intelligent enough to detect multiple cores, and allows multiple threads to have a slice of time given they are on separate cores - or something similar.
Possibly, although you can set the affinity and the OS will usually honor it.
"And yes if you want to take advantage of parallelism you halve to share resources and shoot info every which way."
I disagree. Many tasks don't need to share resources - and those that do share a lot of resource may not be as suited for parallelism as you think they are, and may be better left as a single thread or divided at a different level.
Let's say I'm applying an effect to an image. I can have each core handle a different part of the image - if I have two cores, for example, one core can work on the top half, while the other core works on the bottom half. Since they are never reading or writing to the same pixels, they don't need to worry about all of that communication stuff.
Now I understand that it's not that easy for a lot of tasks, but my point is that not all tasks require such heavy communication.
"The more my program takes advantage of thread in a manner threads weren't ever designed to be used, the more wacky windows can get with the logistics."
Well the solution for that is simple: Don't use threads in ways they're not designed for! Keep it a single thread if it's too complex to multi thread - chances are it didn't need to be multi threaded anyways.
"Whats the point of having eight cores if your just "Time slicing" Your time slicing 8 times as fast yes, but thats not parallel processing. Its not even really multitasking."
I don't know the details of how Windows manages time slices and multiple cores - but I imagine the engineers at Microsoft are not so stupid they'd give only one application a piece of time when there are multiple cores. I imagine that scheduler is intelligent enough to detect multiple cores, and allows multiple threads to have a slice of time given they are on separate cores - or something similar.
"Vista does support quad cores - I'm running a quad core and it works fine and uses all cores.
Besides, the OS should be minimal and should not push the CPU to its limits anyways. That's what the applications should be doing, not the OS."
WOW... works "fine" and actually using multiple cores to any advantage are two totally different things... I completely agree that the CPU and memory should not be burdened by the OS, but the OS should fully take advantage of multi-core processors... Something Vista can not claim.
Besides, the OS should be minimal and should not push the CPU to its limits anyways. That's what the applications should be doing, not the OS."
WOW... works "fine" and actually using multiple cores to any advantage are two totally different things... I completely agree that the CPU and memory should not be burdened by the OS, but the OS should fully take advantage of multi-core processors... Something Vista can not claim.
nt = no text
My point is that while vista supports the *use* of multiple cores, it does not currently exploit those multiple cores. In some cases, the performance of a multi-core system running vista can even see significant degradation of performance because of the the way threading is handled on the multi-core processor. See this article:
http://developer.amd.com/articles.jsp?id=123&num=1
http://developer.amd.com/articles.jsp?id=123&num=1
In other words, nothing revolutionary, just take better advantage of multiprocessing features of existing chips.
It's not that Vista is doing anything wrong or is missing any major features, it's just that it could do a bit better with more optimizations, and they can do a bit more to prevent certain types of race conditions.
It's not that Vista is doing anything wrong or is missing any major features, it's just that it could do a bit better with more optimizations, and they can do a bit more to prevent certain types of race conditions.
Dude read the Comment entitled NO, It breaks it down nice and simple like for you
Thats an argument that the geeks and nerds have been making since the down of the Gui's integration into an os. The problem is the geeks and nerds don't buy operating systems, they download linux or steal windows.
Point being, every iteration of windows has been more cpu/memory "aka" system hungry for one simple reason. It's what users want. Even if Microsoft was more efficient providing it, win 10 would require more system resources than windows 9. Now, It be nice if software didn't reference 30 library's just to put a pixel on the screen, but regrettably thats not Microsoft's fault.
Point being, every iteration of windows has been more cpu/memory "aka" system hungry for one simple reason. It's what users want. Even if Microsoft was more efficient providing it, win 10 would require more system resources than windows 9. Now, It be nice if software didn't reference 30 library's just to put a pixel on the screen, but regrettably thats not Microsoft's fault.
Gee, you heard some rumblings from a "couple" of MVPs out of over 4000? Yep, a real groundswell there.
Of course, in the past, you had the VB MVPs uprising (still in the program) and now from the FoxPro MVPs (still in the program).
I don't know why you dislike the MVP program so much, but from an insider, the program is just fine. You get out of it what you put into it. Me, I do a lot of support work in the Microsoft Office and Outlook forums. That is my reward - knowing that I helped some poor confused or angry person to get their programs to work the way they should.
As for the other comment about MVPs being in Microsoft's back pocket, I guess you have never been to a MVP summit where the Microsoft folks get raked over the coals by practically every product group MVPs. No? Didn't think so. For your information, the MVPs are some of the most vocal critics of Microsoft when they drop the ball. If all you see is the cheering on when they do something right, you are only seeing half the picture.
Of course, in the past, you had the VB MVPs uprising (still in the program) and now from the FoxPro MVPs (still in the program).
I don't know why you dislike the MVP program so much, but from an insider, the program is just fine. You get out of it what you put into it. Me, I do a lot of support work in the Microsoft Office and Outlook forums. That is my reward - knowing that I helped some poor confused or angry person to get their programs to work the way they should.
As for the other comment about MVPs being in Microsoft's back pocket, I guess you have never been to a MVP summit where the Microsoft folks get raked over the coals by practically every product group MVPs. No? Didn't think so. For your information, the MVPs are some of the most vocal critics of Microsoft when they drop the ball. If all you see is the cheering on when they do something right, you are only seeing half the picture.
I do NOT dislike the MVPs at all, in fact I think they are one of the best sources for tech info on MS products around. Nothing but kudos to those guys and gals.
And yes, I know a good number of them are vocal critics (And some have been given the boot for it. Karl Peterson comes to mind.) However, just because they are vocal does NOT mean MS listens or cares at all. In fact I heard through the grapevine that MS closed some of its private News Groups (MVPs only) because they didn't like some of what was being said. As it "only" being a couple of MVPs, all I can say is I know two MVPs and of the ones I know 100% of them are not happy with whee MS is taking the program.
And yes, I know a good number of them are vocal critics (And some have been given the boot for it. Karl Peterson comes to mind.) However, just because they are vocal does NOT mean MS listens or cares at all. In fact I heard through the grapevine that MS closed some of its private News Groups (MVPs only) because they didn't like some of what was being said. As it "only" being a couple of MVPs, all I can say is I know two MVPs and of the ones I know 100% of them are not happy with whee MS is taking the program.
And as for the private news group that was closed, good riddance. If Microsoft is actually looking to kick out a couple of MVPs, I have some nominations that I am sure will be seconded.
As for Karl, there were many reasons he was not re-awarded, and not solely because of his outspokenness on the VB 6 issue. If you had read the Code of Conduct for MVPs, then you would understand.
As for Karl, there were many reasons he was not re-awarded, and not solely because of his outspokenness on the VB 6 issue. If you had read the Code of Conduct for MVPs, then you would understand.
or is that too a top secret that MS doens't wnat anyone knowing about?
As to closing the news groups (I really don't know a lot) are you saying MS closed it over a couple/few MVPs and punished 4000 people over the acts of a few? Sounds very Microsoftish of them if that is what happened.
As to closing the news groups (I really don't know a lot) are you saying MS closed it over a couple/few MVPs and punished 4000 people over the acts of a few? Sounds very Microsoftish of them if that is what happened.
It's public: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/gp/mvpfaqs
Q8: What does Microsoft expect of its MVPs?
A8: Because MVP status is awarded based on past contributions, Microsoft has no expectations of MVPs beyond the expectations of courtesy, professionalism, code of conduct, and adherence to the community rules that we ask of all Microsoft community members. These rules can be found on the Microsoft Communities Rules of Conduct page. http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx
If MS wanted me to be an 'evangelist' than I wouldn't be an MVP.
We criticize in public when it's due ... in private, we are brutally honest. Sometimes, just brutal.
Realize that MS is made up of many different components. The MVPs love dealing with the geeks. And there are some really geeky folks who work for MS.
Also, realize that MS is a HUGE bureaucracy. It took me a year and a half of lobbying before they finally allowed Users to download Windows Installer 3.1 without having to go through the "WGA Dance ".
The folks in Security are great to deal with.
Kudos to them.
Q8: What does Microsoft expect of its MVPs?
A8: Because MVP status is awarded based on past contributions, Microsoft has no expectations of MVPs beyond the expectations of courtesy, professionalism, code of conduct, and adherence to the community rules that we ask of all Microsoft community members. These rules can be found on the Microsoft Communities Rules of Conduct page. http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx
If MS wanted me to be an 'evangelist' than I wouldn't be an MVP.
We criticize in public when it's due ... in private, we are brutally honest. Sometimes, just brutal.
Realize that MS is made up of many different components. The MVPs love dealing with the geeks. And there are some really geeky folks who work for MS.
Also, realize that MS is a HUGE bureaucracy. It took me a year and a half of lobbying before they finally allowed Users to download Windows Installer 3.1 without having to go through the "WGA Dance ".
The folks in Security are great to deal with.
Kudos to them.
Me, I do a lot of support work in the Microsoft Office and Outlook forums. That is my reward - knowing that I helped some poor confused or angry person to get their programs to work the way they should.
I really think that's pretty cool. A lot of people say one of the problems with Linux is to get support you have to post/trawl NGs and other online fora. It doesn't sound like it's too far from the Microsoft experience after all.
I really think that's pretty cool. A lot of people say one of the problems with Linux is to get support you have to post/trawl NGs and other online fora. It doesn't sound like it's too far from the Microsoft experience after all.
1. Agreed. Just how long they can use their clout to move into other areas until someone decides that's too much against the concept of free enterprise is another argument.
2. I'll get the popcorn.
3. Quite. Given everything pulled out of Vista (I still pine over the loss of WinFS) and how XP was said to be "What Windows 2000 should have been", we can only hope Win7 is sold at a decent cost. If Vista is only $3 in China...
4. I'll take your word for it. For all the problems I've had with Vista, Office 2007 is a joy (and I've had none with it so far. Indeed, it is not just a worthy product but an excellent one.)
5. Understandable.
6. Understandable; see #3 for web search what good deals some countries are getting while we're still forkin' it over... want globalization? Then both sides have to be equal.
7. I know nothing of OOXML, apart from what the acronym stands for.
8. Hillary, shillary. She claims to help both the middle class while opening up unlimited H1Bs. (is that because the current ones couldn't get Vista anything near what Microsoft promised it to be, because the American workers said to not wanted to have bothered probably knew better to start with? (With all the articles out there, connecting them doesn't always work...) Never mind the WGA debacle, they surely won't kill their cash cow, what with their little problem with piracy and all... and for that no dots are needed. May as well give a fox control of the hen house and make it promise to eat tofu instead...)
9. I don't know what MS is doing to "control". I ought to find out and then give a response. Control isn't always a bad thing and there are times I'd welcome it too...
10. Interesting, if true. I'll get out some more popcorn... and soda.
2. I'll get the popcorn.
3. Quite. Given everything pulled out of Vista (I still pine over the loss of WinFS) and how XP was said to be "What Windows 2000 should have been", we can only hope Win7 is sold at a decent cost. If Vista is only $3 in China...
4. I'll take your word for it. For all the problems I've had with Vista, Office 2007 is a joy (and I've had none with it so far. Indeed, it is not just a worthy product but an excellent one.)
5. Understandable.
6. Understandable; see #3 for web search what good deals some countries are getting while we're still forkin' it over... want globalization? Then both sides have to be equal.
7. I know nothing of OOXML, apart from what the acronym stands for.
8. Hillary, shillary. She claims to help both the middle class while opening up unlimited H1Bs. (is that because the current ones couldn't get Vista anything near what Microsoft promised it to be, because the American workers said to not wanted to have bothered probably knew better to start with? (With all the articles out there, connecting them doesn't always work...) Never mind the WGA debacle, they surely won't kill their cash cow, what with their little problem with piracy and all... and for that no dots are needed. May as well give a fox control of the hen house and make it promise to eat tofu instead...)
9. I don't know what MS is doing to "control". I ought to find out and then give a response. Control isn't always a bad thing and there are times I'd welcome it too...
10. Interesting, if true. I'll get out some more popcorn... and soda.
"OOXML will be ratified as a "standard" despite all the whining over it."
It'd better not be. Do you know what an unmitigated disaster it would be for the entire human race if ISO were to allow this through, despite all the evidence showing not only is the standard sub-par, but that Microsoft was so worried it might not make it that they stooped to bribery and worse things to try and force it through? That'd sure send a fantastic message; if you want your own personal standard, simply send a check for $X to the International Standards Organization! We'll ignore all our existing standards and studies, and rubber-stamp your proposal so you can claim to "support the standards" and get all the government purchases without actually having to do any work!
Every corporation on this planet will be lining up to get their stuff rubber-stamped as a standard, and the standards ring will look like the US wireless phone system does right now; everyone uses "a standard", but no one's "standard" matches anybody else's...
It'd better not be. Do you know what an unmitigated disaster it would be for the entire human race if ISO were to allow this through, despite all the evidence showing not only is the standard sub-par, but that Microsoft was so worried it might not make it that they stooped to bribery and worse things to try and force it through? That'd sure send a fantastic message; if you want your own personal standard, simply send a check for $X to the International Standards Organization! We'll ignore all our existing standards and studies, and rubber-stamp your proposal so you can claim to "support the standards" and get all the government purchases without actually having to do any work!
Every corporation on this planet will be lining up to get their stuff rubber-stamped as a standard, and the standards ring will look like the US wireless phone system does right now; everyone uses "a standard", but no one's "standard" matches anybody else's...
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
