Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows Vista Beta 1 and Tiger
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They bought Apple-owned code from an Apple subcontractor. It was encumbered by Apple patents, and MS arranged for an indirect purchase through Intel.BGil said:
That would be from the undocumented registry tweaks MS added to cause third party video plugins to fail to operate.
Just this year EU courts found that Microsoft practices regarding multimedia are still anticompetitive. Proceedings are ongoing for this.
Hmmm... "you haven't done your research", where have I heard that one before?BGil said:
Oh, yeah... that is what I was accusing you of not having done. Of course, this is the perfect example of you not having done research (which I have asked that you do in the past).
So lets do some research for you (as you seem to be unable... or unwilling to do yourself
).Department of Justice documents: U.S. verses Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact
On the subject of Apple...
104. *QuickTime is Apple's software architecture for creating, editing, publishing, and playing back multimedia content (e.g., audio, video, graphics, and 3-D graphics). Apple has created versions of QuickTime to run on both the Mac OS and Windows, enabling developers using the authoring software to create multimedia content that will run on QuickTime implementations for both operating systems. QuickTime competes with Microsoft's own multimedia technologies, including Microsoft's multimedia APIs (called "DirectX") and its media player. Because QuickTime is cross-platform middleware, Microsoft perceives it as a potential threat to the applications barrier to entry.
105. *Beginning in the spring of 1997 and continuing into the summer of 1998, Microsoft tried to persuade Apple to stop producing a Windows 95 version of its multimedia playback software, which presented developers of multimedia content with alternatives to Microsoft's multimedia APIs. If Apple acceded to the proposal, Microsoft executives said, Microsoft would not enter the authoring business and would instead assist Apple in developing and selling tools for developers writing multimedia content. Just as Netscape would have been free, had it accepted Microsoft's proposal, to market a browser shell that would run on top of Microsoft's Internet technologies, Apple would have been permitted, without hindrance, to market a media player that would run on top of DirectX. But, like the browser shell that Microsoft contemplated as acceptable for Netscape to develop, Apple's QuickTime shell would not have exposed platform-level APIs to developers. Microsoft executives acknowledged to Apple their doubts that a firm could make a successful business out of marketing such a shell. Apple might find it profitable, though, to continue developing multimedia software for the Mac OS, and that, the executives from Microsoft assured Apple, would not be objectionable. As was the case with the Internet technologies it was prepared to tolerate from Netscape, Microsoft felt secure in the conviction that developers would not be drawn in large numbers to write for non- Microsoft APIs exposed by platforms whose installed bases were inconsequential in comparison with that of Windows.
106.* In their discussions with Apple, Microsoft's representatives made it clear that, if Apple continued to market multimedia playback software for Windows 95 that presented a platform for content development, then Microsoft would enter the authoring business to ensure that those writing multimedia content for Windows 95 concentrated on Microsoft's APIs instead of Apple's. The Microsoft representatives further stated that, if Microsoft was compelled to develop and market authoring tools in competition with Apple, the technologies provided in those tools might very well be inconsistent with those provided by Apple's tools. Finally, the Microsoft executives warned, Microsoft would invest whatever resources were necessary to ensure that developers used its tools; its investment would not be constrained by the fact that authoring software generated only modest revenue.
107. *If Microsoft implemented technologies in its tools that were different from those implemented in Apple's tools, then multimedia content developed with Microsoft's tools would not run properly on Apple's media player, and content developed with Apple's tools would not run properly on Microsoft's media player. If, as it implied it was willing to do, Microsoft then bundled its media player with Windows and used a variety of tactics to limit the distribution of Apple's media player for Windows, it could succeed in extinguishing developer support for Apple's multimedia technologies. Indeed, as the Court discusses in Section VI of these findings, Microsoft had begun, in 1996, to use just such a strategy against Sun's implementation of the Java technologies.
108.* The discussions over multimedia playback software culminated in a meeting between executives from Microsoft and Apple executives, including Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, at Apple's headquarters on June 15, 1998. Microsoft's objective at the meeting was to secure Apple's commitment to abandon the development of multimedia playback software for Windows. At the meeting, one of the Microsoft executives, Eric Engstrom, said that he hoped the two companies could agree on a single configuration of software to play multimedia content on Windows. He added, significantly, that any unified multimedia playback software for Windows would have to be based on DirectX. If Apple would agree to make DirectX the standard, Microsoft would be willing to do several things that Apple might find beneficial. First, Microsoft would adopt Apple's ".MOV" as the universal file format for multimedia playback on Windows. Second, Microsoft would configure the Windows Media Player to display the QuickTime logo during the playback of ".MOV" files. Third, Microsoft would include support in DirectX for QuickTime APIs used to author multimedia content, and Microsoft would give Apple appropriate credit for the APIs in Microsoft's Software Developer Kit.
109. *Jobs reserved comment during the meeting with the Microsoft representatives, but he explicitly rejected Microsoft's proposal a few weeks later. Had Apple accepted Microsoft's proposal, Microsoft would have succeeded in limiting substantially the cross-platform development of multimedia content. In addition, Apple's future success in marketing authoring tools for Windows 95 would have become dependent on Microsoft's ongoing cooperation, for those tools would have relied on the DirectX technologies under Microsoft's control.
110. *Apple's surrender of the multimedia playback business might have helped users in the short term by resolving existing incompatibilities in the arena of multimedia software. In the long run, however, the departure of an experienced, innovative competitor would not have tended to benefit users of multimedia content. At any rate, the primary motivation behind Microsoft's proposal to Apple was not the resolution of incompatibilities that frustrated consumers and stymied content development. Rather, Microsoft's motivation was its desire to limit as much as possible the development of multimedia content that would run cross-platform.
Further, on the subject of Windows being a hostile environment to develop technologies for...105. *Beginning in the spring of 1997 and continuing into the summer of 1998, Microsoft tried to persuade Apple to stop producing a Windows 95 version of its multimedia playback software, which presented developers of multimedia content with alternatives to Microsoft's multimedia APIs. If Apple acceded to the proposal, Microsoft executives said, Microsoft would not enter the authoring business and would instead assist Apple in developing and selling tools for developers writing multimedia content. Just as Netscape would have been free, had it accepted Microsoft's proposal, to market a browser shell that would run on top of Microsoft's Internet technologies, Apple would have been permitted, without hindrance, to market a media player that would run on top of DirectX. But, like the browser shell that Microsoft contemplated as acceptable for Netscape to develop, Apple's QuickTime shell would not have exposed platform-level APIs to developers. Microsoft executives acknowledged to Apple their doubts that a firm could make a successful business out of marketing such a shell. Apple might find it profitable, though, to continue developing multimedia software for the Mac OS, and that, the executives from Microsoft assured Apple, would not be objectionable. As was the case with the Internet technologies it was prepared to tolerate from Netscape, Microsoft felt secure in the conviction that developers would not be drawn in large numbers to write for non- Microsoft APIs exposed by platforms whose installed bases were inconsequential in comparison with that of Windows.
106.* In their discussions with Apple, Microsoft's representatives made it clear that, if Apple continued to market multimedia playback software for Windows 95 that presented a platform for content development, then Microsoft would enter the authoring business to ensure that those writing multimedia content for Windows 95 concentrated on Microsoft's APIs instead of Apple's. The Microsoft representatives further stated that, if Microsoft was compelled to develop and market authoring tools in competition with Apple, the technologies provided in those tools might very well be inconsistent with those provided by Apple's tools. Finally, the Microsoft executives warned, Microsoft would invest whatever resources were necessary to ensure that developers used its tools; its investment would not be constrained by the fact that authoring software generated only modest revenue.
107. *If Microsoft implemented technologies in its tools that were different from those implemented in Apple's tools, then multimedia content developed with Microsoft's tools would not run properly on Apple's media player, and content developed with Apple's tools would not run properly on Microsoft's media player. If, as it implied it was willing to do, Microsoft then bundled its media player with Windows and used a variety of tactics to limit the distribution of Apple's media player for Windows, it could succeed in extinguishing developer support for Apple's multimedia technologies. Indeed, as the Court discusses in Section VI of these findings, Microsoft had begun, in 1996, to use just such a strategy against Sun's implementation of the Java technologies.
108.* The discussions over multimedia playback software culminated in a meeting between executives from Microsoft and Apple executives, including Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, at Apple's headquarters on June 15, 1998. Microsoft's objective at the meeting was to secure Apple's commitment to abandon the development of multimedia playback software for Windows. At the meeting, one of the Microsoft executives, Eric Engstrom, said that he hoped the two companies could agree on a single configuration of software to play multimedia content on Windows. He added, significantly, that any unified multimedia playback software for Windows would have to be based on DirectX. If Apple would agree to make DirectX the standard, Microsoft would be willing to do several things that Apple might find beneficial. First, Microsoft would adopt Apple's ".MOV" as the universal file format for multimedia playback on Windows. Second, Microsoft would configure the Windows Media Player to display the QuickTime logo during the playback of ".MOV" files. Third, Microsoft would include support in DirectX for QuickTime APIs used to author multimedia content, and Microsoft would give Apple appropriate credit for the APIs in Microsoft's Software Developer Kit.
109. *Jobs reserved comment during the meeting with the Microsoft representatives, but he explicitly rejected Microsoft's proposal a few weeks later. Had Apple accepted Microsoft's proposal, Microsoft would have succeeded in limiting substantially the cross-platform development of multimedia content. In addition, Apple's future success in marketing authoring tools for Windows 95 would have become dependent on Microsoft's ongoing cooperation, for those tools would have relied on the DirectX technologies under Microsoft's control.
110. *Apple's surrender of the multimedia playback business might have helped users in the short term by resolving existing incompatibilities in the arena of multimedia software. In the long run, however, the departure of an experienced, innovative competitor would not have tended to benefit users of multimedia content. At any rate, the primary motivation behind Microsoft's proposal to Apple was not the resolution of incompatibilities that frustrated consumers and stymied content development. Rather, Microsoft's motivation was its desire to limit as much as possible the development of multimedia content that would run cross-platform.
390. *Microsoft easily could have implemented Sun's native method along with its own in its developer tools and its JVM, thereby allowing Java developers to choose between speed and portability; however, it elected instead to implement only the Microsoft methods. The result was that if a Java developer used the Sun method for making native calls, his application would not run on Microsoft's version of the Windows JVM, and if he used Microsoft's native methods, his application would not run on any JVM other than Microsoft's version. Far from being the unintended consequence of an attempt to help Java developers more easily develop high- performing applications, incompatibility was the intended result of Microsoft's efforts. In fact, Microsoft would subsequently threaten to use the same tactic against Apple's QuickTime. Microsoft continued to refuse to implement Sun's native method until November 1998, when a court ordered it to do so. It then took Microsoft only a few weeks to implement Sun's native method in its developer tools and JVM.
BGil, honestly, do some research.While we are on the subject of FUD-busting, I'll comment on this beauty:
Well, Pixar announced a move to Mac OS X and G5s back in March of 2004 for their production systems.polsons said:
Further, Pixar is a software company. What does that mean? It means that Pixar develops all the software that they use in their movies. In fact, the reason for the movies (beyond making a ton of money and keeping Pixar's name in the publics mind) is to show the abilities of Pixar's software in action.
Because of this, Pixar has changed platforms quite regularly to show that their software is not tied to any one platform and that it is platform independent when it comes to the quality of work it does.
Pixar has used NeXT, Sun, SGI, IBM/Linux, and now Apple systems for their work. And has been using Macs for support systems (rather than Windows) for years.
I wish people would stop posting things that they wished were true as if they were true. Arguments work so much better (at least for me
) when we all stick to the facts.And you are wrong. That judgement was about Microsoft versus Apple on a Microsoft platform not Apple versus Adobe on a Microsoft platform. Saying that its not fair for Apple to compete against Adobe on Windows means that Microsoft would hinder the Apple product in a way that they aren't hindering the competing Adobe product. Microsoft has never done that and that court case doesn't say they did either.
Why don't you find something that's actually relevant to Adobe versus Apple on Windows next time you "do some research".
And still that doesn't stop Apple from competing on Windows today. They compete against MusicMatch, Real, Microsoft, Nullsoft (Winamp), Yahoo, and others with iTunes. They could still compete with Logic on Windows but they simply decided not to do so. I think they saw the rise of Acid, Sonar, and the Widnows version of ProTools, and decided they're sales were going to dip even more than they already had if an OS X only (or mostly SO X) music app didn't exist. DP3 wasn't gonna cut it and ProTools was finally equal on both platforms so they ran. They could have tried to compete if they wanted to though.
Like what? Nearly every HP and Dell in the last 7-8 years has come with Real Player, Windows Media, and QT pre-loaded. I don't ever remember any of those not working on Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, or 2003. WMP for Mac didn't work on Tiger when I upgraded though (it crashed everytime it launched).
Are you talking about that RealNetworks judgement? That was total BS. Any PC user can tell you that Real Player (before version 10) was absolutely horrible. They lost marketshare because most people on Windows think Real Player is the devil. AIM is quite possibly the only program I know of that is hated more. The very second real alternatives showed up (pun intended) people jump off the RealNetworks train and got aboard with Windows Media, Divx, Xvid, and QT.
BGil said:
it is proved that microsoft cripples apple, but i have never ever heard any complaints from adobe. they are not competing with microsoft, so the company has no reason to try to make adobe's life harder. after all, developers are everything for a maker of an operating system; however, the developer of a competing operating system is a threat number one.
surely you can see that. you are just being a troublemaker now.
BGil said:
i can see why you brought this up. first of all, having a windows itunes is not about competition between the plethora of pc multimedia companies, but between WMA and AAC. you must see that if there were not windows itunes, the technically superior AAC format would not have a chance of becoming a world standard. now it has, and even microsoft has noticed that.
the point about logic fails, though. only about 5% of audio PROFESSIONALS (i mean us who actually make money) use windows platform, and even that minority is not the most serious part of the industry. audio work is where windows is considered a TOY and is not respected at all. apple has no reason to spend money catering for a minority that is not a significant part of the industry, don't you think? believe it or not, 5% is a realistic figure, at most 10% if you want to live in a dream world...
(yes, protools exists on windows platform, but is rarely used for PRO audio work. 95% of windows using protoolers use the LE version. windows protools is not very valid point, imho. there can be any number of windows audio workstations but PRO's will use a mac protools anyway.)
My 2 cents
1.) Vista will come in 32bit and 64bit versions.
2.) The 64bit version will not be available through retail. You'll have to get it with a new system, or a VLA.
3.) Windows long touted WinFS, won't be available until 2007.
4.) Windows new 'search feature', is just a mod to NTFS that allows for additional metadata to be attached to files. And that metadata has to be entered manually.
5.) Virtual Folders? Hello symbolic links. Where have you been?
6.) Vista is based on Win2003 sp (whatever).
Vista is basically a shameless ripoff of OS X/KDE/Gnome.
The new API's are nice for developing in the new environment, and making everything easy for programmers.
BUT
The 'guts' of the OS is still the same old, same old.
Sure it'll have built in spyware and virus protections, and some additional firewall features, but the rest is just window dressing (no pun intended) until the other features are integrated(WinFS being the major missing piece), then servicepacked until they actually work.
Half of business workstations still use win2k.
I just scrapped win2k last night for XP pro sp2. (and it turned out I really didn't need to, stupid soundforge, but oh well).
And there are still plenty of win95/ME installations out there.
By the time the public is ready for a new win OS, microsoft will actually have one worth upgrading to.
Don't get me wrong, my box runs quite fast and is pretty secure, since I use anti-virsus, anti-spyware, and an enterprise level firewall.
1.) Vista will come in 32bit and 64bit versions.
2.) The 64bit version will not be available through retail. You'll have to get it with a new system, or a VLA.
3.) Windows long touted WinFS, won't be available until 2007.
4.) Windows new 'search feature', is just a mod to NTFS that allows for additional metadata to be attached to files. And that metadata has to be entered manually.
5.) Virtual Folders? Hello symbolic links. Where have you been?
6.) Vista is based on Win2003 sp (whatever).
Vista is basically a shameless ripoff of OS X/KDE/Gnome.
The new API's are nice for developing in the new environment, and making everything easy for programmers.
BUT
The 'guts' of the OS is still the same old, same old.
Sure it'll have built in spyware and virus protections, and some additional firewall features, but the rest is just window dressing (no pun intended) until the other features are integrated(WinFS being the major missing piece), then servicepacked until they actually work.
Half of business workstations still use win2k.
I just scrapped win2k last night for XP pro sp2. (and it turned out I really didn't need to, stupid soundforge, but oh well).
And there are still plenty of win95/ME installations out there.
By the time the public is ready for a new win OS, microsoft will actually have one worth upgrading to.
Don't get me wrong, my box runs quite fast and is pretty secure, since I use anti-virsus, anti-spyware, and an enterprise level firewall.
Well.
Independent artist usually connot afford to use protools.
CDs of descent quality can be produced without using protools.
Good sound is more a product of the engineer anyways, not the software.
If the guy working the mouse is garbage, protools isn't going to save him.
Independent artist usually connot afford to use protools.
CDs of descent quality can be produced without using protools.
Good sound is more a product of the engineer anyways, not the software.
If the guy working the mouse is garbage, protools isn't going to save him.
And you're wrong again. You are extrapolating your own meaning from what the text says. It didn't say Microsoft crippled Apple in any way shape or form. It says Microsoft create a DirectX Media platform and wanted a standard media format that would ride on top of it and expose it to developers. Either Apple and Microsoft would collaborate on a standard or Mcirosoft would make their own. The latter is exactly what happened and that's how we get Windows Media 7, 8, and 9.
It's exactly what they did with Stardock and Roxio too. Both companies integrated their technologies into the Windows standard framework (themeing and CD/DVD burning respectively).
And obviously this isn't about Apple "the OS maker" but Apple the "media framework maker" because Microsoft has shown that they don't really care about other desktop OS makers. Apple isn't even on their radar. If you want to see what it's like when Microsoft does care then look at how they "attack" linux on the server side.
Again your logic fails. It's not about WMA and AAC. WMA already one that war. It's about Windows Media DRM versus Fairplay. Apple doesn't own AAC and they aren't promoting it either. They didn't give two shakes about RealNetworks wanting to stay with AAC (they were already using it) by licensing Apple technology. Apple denied them the license knowing full well Real would then turn to the Microsoft. They did the same thing to Sony too.
And you can go do some research if you think Apple's AAC is better than WMA. Does Apple's AAC (iTunes, QT, Compressor) support 24-bit 96kHz surround sound encoding? No. End of story.
Sure. So that's why Sonar, WaveLab, and SoundForge sell so many copies? SoundForge and Acid set the standard for their fields and you're telling me that Audio on Windows is a joke. You have no credibility with that statement. There's a reason why loops are refered to as "Acidized" or "Acid compatible loops". Or why ProTools Venue only runs on XP-based systems. Or why ESPN audio engineers do their cutting in Sony Vegas. Did you know that the best sampling studio and library only run on Windows? It's called Tascam Gigastudio.
First of all, Emagic thought there was enough reason to cater to Windows users.
Second of all, Apple makes Logic Express, GB, and Soundtrack/Soundtrack Pro for the "less professional" crowd so even if there were no professionals on Windows (which is easily proven wrong by a trip to CreativeCow, Reason forums, DV.com, ProTools forums, Sony forums etc.) then it's easy to see that the low-end professional or non-professional crowd on Windows dwarfs all users on the Mac.
Third, if Windows users are the ones using ProTools LE and other desktop based DAW's and Mac users are using high-end ProTools HD systems then why remove Logic (a desktop DAW) from Windows where the users are more likely to pick it over ProTools? Like you said, Professionals on the Mac are most likely going to want a ProTools (HD) system so Logic has no place there.
Or Logic, Nuendo, Cubase, Digital Performer. Face it, most music studios are using Macs because that's what they've traditionally used and change in the industry is very slow. It's the same reason why Avid still rules pro video editing, and why most people in the world use Windows instead of OS X or Linux.
You should be able to get it via Microsoft's free trade-in program or OEM. It might be available at retail but I doubt it. Either way, most people get all their copies of Windows with a new system so it doesn't really matter.
It will be available next year when Vista RTM's (next summer).
Wrong. NTFS has supported and used arbitrarily extensible metadata streams for a while now. The "search" and "Document Explorer" in Vista is built off of Indexing Service 2005 (pulled from SQL Server 2005) just as 2000 and XP's search is based off of Indexing Service 2000.
I think you mean the metadata can be entered manually because you can't with Spotlight (except for Spotlight comments). All other metadata is gathered from the file just like Spotlight, Indexing Service, WDS, and GoogleDS do today. There is one big exception in Vista Beta 1 and XP. the system automatically downloads album art and info for any songs you may have and attaches them to the file. OS X doesn't do this.
Hello where have you been?
Control Panel, My Documents, My Computer, and shell folders.
Vista uses a virtual heirarchy, that is completely new and Tiger doesn't have it. I bet leopard will though.
mac OSX running natively on X86
The end o civilization is here
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10
The end o civilization is here
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10
Well.
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp
Read it and weep.
These are links DIRECTLY from microsoft.com
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/news/default.mspx
And reiterates exactly what I said about the features shipping with vista.
And here
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/162100427
is where it talks about NTFS and retail availability.
And KDE?
Yes, it has all the useless, bells and whistles that will show up in the Vista desktop.
The KDE/gnome 'look and feel' is what I'm referring to. Not the functionality.
Both can be customized to look however you want them to look, if you know what you're doing.
'A virtual folder is a folder that contains files just like any other folder. But those files don't actually reside in that folder on your hard drive. Instead, they are shortcuts to files that are grouped together by a contextual commonality.'
Wow, sounds just like a symbolic link, with a background script to populate the folder based upon certain search conditions.
Jeez, those microsoft folks are brilliant.
What's your problem dude?
You wanna go against the dept. of justice, and defend microsoft?
Are you related to Bill Gates or something?
Now THAT would be funny.
And about the searching, you're also wrong.
The 'keyword metadata' provides additional search terms beyond the normal searchable file attributes, ID3 tags, etc.
And the stuff has to be entered MANUALLY in order for the search tool to utilized the additional keywords.
It is NOT, the wiz-bang, database backed search tool windows has been trying to hype. It just isn't.
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp
Read it and weep.
These are links DIRECTLY from microsoft.com
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/news/default.mspx
And reiterates exactly what I said about the features shipping with vista.
And here
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/162100427
is where it talks about NTFS and retail availability.
And KDE?
Yes, it has all the useless, bells and whistles that will show up in the Vista desktop.
The KDE/gnome 'look and feel' is what I'm referring to. Not the functionality.
Both can be customized to look however you want them to look, if you know what you're doing.
'A virtual folder is a folder that contains files just like any other folder. But those files don't actually reside in that folder on your hard drive. Instead, they are shortcuts to files that are grouped together by a contextual commonality.'
Wow, sounds just like a symbolic link, with a background script to populate the folder based upon certain search conditions.
Jeez, those microsoft folks are brilliant.
What's your problem dude?
You wanna go against the dept. of justice, and defend microsoft?
Are you related to Bill Gates or something?
Now THAT would be funny.
And about the searching, you're also wrong.
The 'keyword metadata' provides additional search terms beyond the normal searchable file attributes, ID3 tags, etc.
And the stuff has to be entered MANUALLY in order for the search tool to utilized the additional keywords.
It is NOT, the wiz-bang, database backed search tool windows has been trying to hype. It just isn't.
BGil said:
you know whats even more laughable? a member of a message board dedicated to a certaint belief and this member only posts how inferior that belief is to his own.
i think that certaint member might have a serious inferiority complex masked by an extreme superiorority complex.
one might ask what is this members purpose? the answer i came up with was.....to laugh at
BGil said:
What the HELL are you talking about?
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
As i've posted before.. Your either a troll, or know nothing.. Maybe both?!
no reason to switch back ;-)
I've come to appreciate Mac OS X -- particularly since the release of Panther. In my private life, I left the Windows world years ago in order to enjoy the stability of a Linux PC. Finally, after the introduction of Mac OS X, I moved on to using a Mac. It was the forst time I actually really enjoyed using a computer. I still --sometimes-- have to use (and administer!) WinXP boxes at work. It's always a frustrating experience.
From what we hear so far, it's hard to believe that MS will release something fundamentally better than they've been selling so far. Granted, WinXP is much better than, say, Win98, but come on, Mac OS X 10.4 is simply far superior -- unless your are heavily into gaming.
I've come to appreciate Mac OS X -- particularly since the release of Panther. In my private life, I left the Windows world years ago in order to enjoy the stability of a Linux PC. Finally, after the introduction of Mac OS X, I moved on to using a Mac. It was the forst time I actually really enjoyed using a computer. I still --sometimes-- have to use (and administer!) WinXP boxes at work. It's always a frustrating experience.
From what we hear so far, it's hard to believe that MS will release something fundamentally better than they've been selling so far. Granted, WinXP is much better than, say, Win98, but come on, Mac OS X 10.4 is simply far superior -- unless your are heavily into gaming.
I'm heavily into gaming but I still get my fix - Unreal Tournament 2004, Star Wars Battlefront, World of Warcraft? The Mac has most decent games on it - unfortunately some gems like Half Life 2 get filtered out but I'm willing to wait for the Apple Games division to actually DO something... maybe a remake of the Pippin, but with games?
the-fish said:
When the Intel macs come out, you can have the best of both worlds on one machine and run Windows only games using WINE for OS X x86. (or with the less appealing option of booting into Windows)
the-fish said:I'm willing to wait for the Apple Games division to actually DO something... maybe a remake of the Pippin, but with games?
And a remake of the Newton! As Apple's market share continues to increase, the more money for R&D, the more innovation (if that's even possible
), and the more we can begin to see these products that came too soon being resurrected. Because Apple has established themselves quite well in the personal device market with the iPod, it would be easier for them to produce products like these and see them succeed.Solution for Windows
On winsupersite I found this screenshot for the Solutions application on Vista.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_24.jpg
It says Solutions to other problems: Solution for Windows
I wonder what the solution for Windows is? Maybe OS X?
On winsupersite I found this screenshot for the Solutions application on Vista.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/winvista_b1_24.jpg
It says Solutions to other problems: Solution for Windows
I wonder what the solution for Windows is? Maybe OS X?
mattster16 said:
Linux. Particularly Xandros (formerly known as Lindows IIRC)
I wonder how long it's going to take before someone combines Xandros with Darwin and OS X86 to create a distro that is compatible with both Windows and Mac.
JordanNZ said:What the HELL are you talking about?
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
As i've posted before.. Your either a troll, or know nothing.. Maybe both?!
And you can't encode that from Quicktime, iTunes, or Compressor just like I said.
-------------
willyjsimmons
Q: Why isn't WinFS going to be included in Windows Vista? Doesn't that make this release less exciting to end users?
A: In August 2004, Microsoft announced that it would not include the WinFS data storage engine in Windows Vista, but would instead ship that technology in beta form when Windows Vista debuted in late 2006.
Right there and in numerous interviews they said WinFS will be available in 2006.
Go read it again. The 64-bit part barely even mentions Longhorn/Vista. It's all about XP 64-bit. Vista 64-bit may or may not be avaliable via retail, they are still undecided. Thurrott (from your own link) implies that it will be available at retail (like 32 bit).
Q: Will Windows Vista be a 32-bit or 64-bit operating system?
A: Windows Vista will ship in both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) versions. Microsoft expects the computer buying public to switch to x64 during Vista's lifetime. There will not be an Itanium version of Windows Vista.
As far as NTFS and WinFS go it's obvious that you must not know much about file systems and that the author doesn't either.
Lets start here:
1. WinFS was never the backbone of the search experience but the file browsing experience. You can look at any of the early Longhorn builds and even thurrotts review to see that "search" wasn't dependent on WinFS but it's own database system. So it is the "wiz-bang" search tool they hyped. Go look at any of the Microsoft blogs or PDC demos and you'll see that WinFS is the datastore that you use to build applications on top of not the desktop search mechanism. In fact, you can read the entire contents of all the patents granted to Microsoft for WinFS and see that for yourself.
Again you are showing you know nothing of the subject. The "keyword metadata" the author is talking about aren't "keywords" at all. They are arbitrarily extensible metadata tags. Meaning you can add your own metadata to any file you want. So a lawyer can add the property/tag of "Case number:" to any of their files (word files or powerpoints for example). Then they can siphon their view or search to "any case numbers between 1000354 and 1000365" or whatever. Or a NBA stat tracker could create a virtual folder for NBA players with a new file type representing a player. The metadata tags could be things like "team:", "active" (yes or no), or "season high". That is what already existed in NTFS (the author notes this) but Microsoft added a new GUI and API to let you use it easier. So yes, it must be entered manually because it's the only want to do it (unless an application developer adds it). Tiger does not allow you (the end user) to do this.
Keywords, on the other hand are avaliable on XP. Just open the properties page and you can append all the keywords you want (as well as do searches on them). In Vista you don't have to enter them manually (you can though) because you can just drag and drop them to your files or vise versa. If I want to add the keyword "Finances" to my document then I can just save it to the Finances virtual folder or drag it into that virtual folder (in addtion to the abililty to add the keyword manually). Again, this is not possible in Tiger.
You can download Vista for yourself and try it out (there's a very fast download link in the iexbeta forums). Vista's search (and 2000/XP's when indexing is turned on) is a database backed search tool. It accepts SQL, can run decently sized search engines (in conjuction with IIS) and more. Vista also totally abstracts the file system via that database. That's how you get the virtual heirarchy and custom metadata tags I talked about.
Seeing that symbolic links and hard links have been available on NTFS for a longtime you are wrong. Go look up shell folders and you'll be shown how to make you own on 2000 and XP.
Either way, KDE's implementation and what you described aren't anywhere near Vista's implementation. Vista uses a completely virtual heirarchy (no symlinks needed).
This is a dynamic view (virtual folder) of documents by either Chris Anderson or Jeffery Snover that was authored either earlier this year or in June of '04. And I didn't need to perform a file search, utilize a saved search, utilize a symlink or hard link, or write any scripts... I browsed there.
Attachments
A zealot, is my guess. Either that, or a M$ employeeJordanNZ said:Your either a troll, or know nothing.. Maybe both?!
Yeah, most of the greats are out for both, or for PC and the consoles. And, for some games, I use a Linux box running WINE and VNC as a game serverthe-fish said:I'm heavily into gaming but I still get my fix - Unreal Tournament 2004, Star Wars Battlefront, World of Warcraft? The Mac has most decent games on it - unfortunately some gems like Half Life 2 get filtered out but I'm willing to wait for the Apple Games division to actually DO something... maybe a remake of the Pippin, but with games?
Linspire is Lindows new name, after being sued by M$ for being "too much like Windows". What's next? "There's an I in Linux the same way there is in Windows!"BGil said:
Ok
'Q: When will Longhorn Server ship to customers?
A: 2007. At this time, Microsoft will also ship WinFS for Windows Vista.'
'Microsoft also reports it will not be selling 64-bit Windows at retail; you'll have to buy new hardware or possess a volume license agreement to get it.'
' Instead of WinFS with SQL database search, Microsoft is simply adding a few file system attributes to NTFS (which was always capable of this) that allow files to bear keyword metadata. Microsoft will probably also implement some sort of upgrade of Windows XP's text-indexing service to facilitate desktop searches of all or most of the data files on your system'
' without WinFS and the SQL database search technology, it's unlikely, according to Greg Sullivan, that Microsoft will be able to incorporate background indexing that automatically appends keyword metadata to the files on your system based on the contents of those files. That means the only way keywords can be added to your files is manually.'
Whatever man.
Vista isn't going to revolutionize anything.
Period.
End users are just now getting used to XP.
Getting users to drop win98 was like asking a heroin addict to quit cold turkey.
Even though the XP gui isn't a giant departure from 98.
By the time all these features are FULLY implemented, and the general public has played the guinea pig, and applied umpteen million(exaggeration, but you know what I mean) updates, Apple will have ironed out all the kinks in Tiger and will have probably released Leopard.
And half of widows users, will still be using XP or win2k.
Never mind the fact that the server version will take eight years to boot up.
'Q: When will Longhorn Server ship to customers?
A: 2007. At this time, Microsoft will also ship WinFS for Windows Vista.'
'Microsoft also reports it will not be selling 64-bit Windows at retail; you'll have to buy new hardware or possess a volume license agreement to get it.'
' Instead of WinFS with SQL database search, Microsoft is simply adding a few file system attributes to NTFS (which was always capable of this) that allow files to bear keyword metadata. Microsoft will probably also implement some sort of upgrade of Windows XP's text-indexing service to facilitate desktop searches of all or most of the data files on your system'
' without WinFS and the SQL database search technology, it's unlikely, according to Greg Sullivan, that Microsoft will be able to incorporate background indexing that automatically appends keyword metadata to the files on your system based on the contents of those files. That means the only way keywords can be added to your files is manually.'
Whatever man.
Vista isn't going to revolutionize anything.
Period.
End users are just now getting used to XP.
Getting users to drop win98 was like asking a heroin addict to quit cold turkey.
Even though the XP gui isn't a giant departure from 98.
By the time all these features are FULLY implemented, and the general public has played the guinea pig, and applied umpteen million(exaggeration, but you know what I mean) updates, Apple will have ironed out all the kinks in Tiger and will have probably released Leopard.
And half of widows users, will still be using XP or win2k.
Never mind the fact that the server version will take eight years to boot up.
BGil said:
I might ask then, BGil. How the hell did I rip every cd I own into AAC? Some fluke?
I guess Apple just blessed me with extra functionality in my copy of iTunes, and Quicktime. That was nice of them!
chucknorris said:
Please show me where you encoded all your CD's to 24-bit 96khz surround sound encoded AAC from Quicktime or iTunes. That was the topic of discussion, remember? Otherwise you're just using regular 16-bit, 44.1-48kHz encoding.
Exactly. You're too ignorant to understand the article you linked to or to go to MSDN or Microsoft blogs and find the information that would back up your statements.
More Thurrot goodness for you:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_preview_2005.asp