WINDOWS VISTA

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
This doesn?t really have anything to do with the server "enterprise edition" versions; I'm referring to machine (client and server) manageability, things like deployment, group policy, etc. There are others out there that have good products (like Sun and Novel) but this is yet another thing that the major competitors for the client market don?t have to the extent of Windows (Apple and Linux). I'm not saying you can?t manage those clients; just that this is something Microsoft has done a good job on in the enterprise environment.

Though I tend to agree with this statement (the power Active Directory/Group Policy weilds over the workstations makes my life easier, probably more so than any other app by far), however I would not be surprised if Novell had the same capabilities years ago. That's just vaguely informed speculation however.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

Ooh, I can't believe that one just came out, but in support of microsoft this time. :shocked: What a novel idea that lack of drivers is not the os vendor's fault! Seeruk, did you see that? (I'm not flaming here. I just found that really amusing ).

On the other hand there are areas where they have always been the leader such as enterprise manageability or .net.

Errr, .net started as a reproduction of java technology and only exists because of the sun/ms lawsuit. The only place it's a 'leader' in that regard is as a windows-integrated platform and it would obviously be rather sad if microsoft didn't lead that market.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: spyordie007
XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

Ooh, I can't believe that one just came out, but in support of microsoft this time. :shocked: What a novel idea that lack of drivers is not the os vendor's fault! Seeruk, did you see that? (I'm not flaming here. I just found that really amusing ).

It's like the saying goes; one of Windows strongest points is that anyone can develop software that will run on it. One of Windows weakest points is that anyone can develop software that will run on it.

No he's right. XP 64 and Vista are both built on the 2003 SP1 codebase.

No we're both right; they're all based on the latest production version of the Windows codebase. Server 2003 SP1 has the latest codebase, but saying that XP 64 is built on server 2003 SP1 implies that it contains the server featureset, which it does not...

This is like the disucssion Bill and I had the other day about MCE

Good times :roll:

Errr, .net started as a reproduction of java technology and only exists because of the sun/ms lawsuit.

Yes and no; I'm pretty sure MS started developing .net prior to the whole sun/java thing. Even so .net (counting the framework) does quite a bit more than java/jre.

 

[stash]

No we're both right; they're all based on the latest production version of the Windows codebase. Server 2003 SP1 has the latest codebase, but saying that XP 64 is built on server 2003 SP1 implies that it contains the server featureset, which it does not...

Ah, good point. I was thrown off by what you said about most recent branch of 5.1.

 

[spyordie007]

Ah, good point. I was thrown off by what you said about most recent branch of 5.1.

I was trying to relate it to the whole linux kernel 2.4 vs. 2.6 but it didnt/doesnt work like it did in my head while I was typing

Just proves you cant mindlessly neff in OS without getting called on it

 

[hooflung]

On the other hand there are areas where they have always been the leader such as enterprise manageability or .net.

I was gonna leave that one in bold alone... but in the interest of increasing my post count up, since that seems to make one take you more seriously here at ATF... I will make a comment.

What kind of leading do they do with .Net? Last time I checked there were more JAVA developers and less interest in .NET ever growing in the IT realm.

ASP.NET hasn't taken off like it could/should. IIS 6.0 as a server is great but ASP is lackluster compared to its competitors. They have taken the easy out of it. Their market was driven by 'get er done' IT staff in VS6 and now its a 'get this phase done so that we can procede to step 2 in 4 months' product staff. Leaders? This is the typical JAVA mentality. They don't lead that market. I would like to see some numbers of how many IIS 6 and C# deployments are out there vs JAVA/JBOSS and BEA deployments.

I also have issue with their rollout of products.

Example:

I am writing financial software for a federal government department in a State funded research facility. Needless to say this is a WIERD accounting system. They are a windows shop exept for the webserver. I was brought on as a web developer / database expert. The department that encumbers our IT overhead has .NET servers running from IIS 5.0 and SQL Server 2000. I have full access to these resources for the project I am developing. I started off doing this project in .NET. Afterall, lets be real, .NET isn't that bad of tech especially if your a windows shop. Doing my reasearch I found that the .NET Framework 2.0 had features I wanted but wouldn't be out for months. I saw that changes were being made in the system that would severly affect how our application would run. Not only that, but the SQL Server 2005 would render a good deal of my base useless. Triggers, Stored Procedures might not port over since they would need work arounds to the limitations. Visual Studio 2005 would render my current copy antiquated, even at 3 months old. So what I had to look forward to is that the SO-CALLED Rapid Application Development that windows platform waves like a banner, would indeed set more work on my plate.

Not that I don't think microsoft is making strides in the market. I just feel they have made too many strides too soon and are segmenting their systems to soak the wallets and increase dependance. While I have peers that use .NET for systems and am quite at home in ASP.NET as well as JSP, I think this 'all at once' rollout plan is a bit needless. It makes for good marketing but I like long transistion periods between several products that comprise a suite that build the way we do business. Being a part of MSDN doesn't cut it as I am not staffed to be research and development for products. My product won't have priority for conversion by the guys who have the MSDN and MSCE keychains in the IT overhead. How many stories are like mine? Lots infact if you go to the local Linux User Group, made up of many .NET and JAVA developers (mono and jboss are godsends there). We aren't some po'dunk USA town either. ( Think University of Florida ) (Think Robert Love's old stomping ground ) (Think One of the biggest MS Campus sites in America ) Locals as well as University staff have very similar stories.

PS...

My application is running fine on our 'newish' Intranet server that runs Gentoo, mysql, php and apache 2.0. All user policies and permissions for the Gentoo box run through the AD. Soon it will be migrated to 'newer' server RHES 4.0 running php5, apache 2.0, mysql 5 and SELinux without any code changes. Can't say I would have the same experience with the Microsoft route.

 

[Doom Machine]

remember...you dont buy...you license and if you want to license something your restricted to the license agreement, dont complain to something you agreed to.

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: spyordie007
XP 64 is fully supported by Microsoft. The lack of support comes from 3rd party software and drivers.

Ooh, I can't believe that one just came out, but in support of microsoft this time. :shocked: What a novel idea that lack of drivers is not the os vendor's fault! Seeruk, did you see that?

Hehe I did

Strange but true!

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Rather than have third-parties try and implement HDCP implementations, which at best will be buggy and at worst create massive vulnerabilities like Sony's DRM, you have a single implementation from Microsoft that will have better support and be less buggy in the long run.

It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is cultivating a second monopoly here:

- Product Activation: Each copy of the OS has a unique, verifiable key.
- WMA encryption: DRM for sound and video, also being pushed for inclusion in Blueray and HD DVD.
- Xbox & Windows MCE: Desperately trying to enter the living room.

A little more expansion and they can offer Hollywood the all-in-one solution for value-removed, err I mean "content protected" media. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the "light" edition of Windows designed for emerging markets is priced just high enough to pay the cost of expanding the activation infrastructure into those regions.

Personally, I predict DRM will be a spectacular fireball of lost billions and toppled empires.

The first hurdle I mentioned before. They need to make computers do less than they do now. Information really does want to be free -- they have build a damn to contain the virtual kinetic energy of a trillion-trillion bits. Joe wants to cut and paste a paragraph from his e-book. Mary wants music for jogging. Rick wants a screenshot of the engineering panel behind Spock so he can point out some geekdom on his website. This pressure grows every day. Someday the Library of Congress will fit on a pen drive. How do you contain sharing then?

Their second problem is big media is losing the audience. Less people are watching TV, more are surfing the internet. Take blogging for example. That juicy Sony DRM story began life as a Blogger.com post. It was circulated to millions of people around the world without any established news media behind it. The internet is becoming the great equalizer. Anyone can publish worldwide now. For free. And all you need is a bookmark to tune in.

Contrast this huge opportunity for the independent musician with big media's push to make crippled, obnoxious products and I smell the sweet carnage of implosion. Given the choice between good, freely usable indie music and shoved-down-our-throats pop crap that rootkits my PC ... hey, lemmie think.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: kamper
Ooh, I can't believe that one just came out, but in support of microsoft this time. :shocked: What a novel idea that lack of drivers is not the os vendor's fault!

Of course with Linux you automatically have full 64 bit support for all kernel drivers. Now the qualifier "kernel drivers" might sound limited, but we're talking thousands of devices. In fact, Linux supports more devices and architectures out-of-the-box than any other OS.

http://www.kroah.com/log/2004/09/26/#2004_09_26_sun_rebuttal_round2
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/more_archs.html

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: doornail

Originally posted by: kamper
Ooh, I can't believe that one just came out, but in support of microsoft this time. :shocked: What a novel idea that lack of drivers is not the os vendor's fault!

Of course with Linux you automatically have full 64 bit support for all kernel drivers. Now the qualifier "kernel drivers" might sound limited, but we're talking thousands of devices. In fact, Linux supports more devices and architectures out-of-the-box than any other OS.

http://www.kroah.com/log/2004/09/26/#2004_09_26_sun_rebuttal_round2
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/more_archs.html

Yes, and I think we're all well aware of that by now. But we're not discussing the merits of bundled drivers vs install-later drivers. We're talking about the difference between "drivers exist somewhere" and "drivers simply don't exist".

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Errr, .net started as a reproduction of java technology and only exists because of the sun/ms lawsuit.

Yes and no; I'm pretty sure MS started developing .net prior to the whole sun/java thing.

I've always understood it that microsoft wanted a virtual machine platform (and that's a d@mn good thing to want) and that they would have gone full steam ahead with java had sun not stopped them. Of course, it wouldn't have been java as we know the term today; it would have turned into something more .net'ish, but it still wouldn't have been the ground-up .net that we have today.

Even so .net (counting the framework) does quite a bit more than java/jre.

Depends on how you interpret that statement. If you're talking about what comes from microsoft vs what comes from sun, then of course .net does more. But, with the exclusion of windows-integration, I can't think of what .net provides that the java community as a whole doesn't. I personally prefer a community built platform, rather than a single (potential) point of failure.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: kamper
I've always understood it that microsoft wanted a virtual machine platform (and that's a d@mn good thing to want) and that they would have gone full steam ahead with java had sun not stopped them. Of course, it wouldn't have been java as we know the term today; it would have turned into something more .net'ish, but it still wouldn't have been the ground-up .net that we have today.

You make it sound like Sun was the big meany. Microsoft signed a contract for the Java technology then violated that contract in a blatant attempt to poison the cross platform design of the project.

Heck they mailed me (completely unrequested) three full copies of J++ during this period. Which illustrates how desperately they wanted developers to adopt their Windows-only extensions to Java. It was pretty unusual to see free development tools from them back then.

 

[kamper]

I don't really have an opinion on sun's actions. The only thing that I'd really care about is that they keep java pure so microsoft could have continued their modifications as far as I care, so long as it'd be clear that what they were doing was not java. In the end, probably the easiest way to do that was a clean split but it's really none of my concern. On the whole, I like the way sun manages their platform better than microsoft does thiers, although there are certainly potential improvements that could be made on both sides.

 

[loki2k]

wow