 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> From what I heard from one of the devs some time back, was that WinFS was
> dropped because the feature set they were given was too ambitious. Instead
> of starting small and building on that, the project was scoped to do
> everything at once. It was taking too long and producing too little and got
> scrapped.
>
> It was more a failure of management than of technology.
>
> Wasn't a complete loss. Several of the senior devs got folded into the SQL
> Server dev team and contributed to enhancements of the SQL storage engine,
> including the FileStream feature.
...says our resident MVP. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> From what I heard from one of the devs some time back, was that WinFS was
>> dropped because the feature set they were given was too ambitious.
>> Instead
>> of starting small and building on that, the project was scoped to do
>> everything at once. It was taking too long and producing too little
>> and got
>> scrapped.
>>
>> It was more a failure of management than of technology.
>>
>> Wasn't a complete loss. Several of the senior devs got folded into the
>> SQL
>> Server dev team and contributed to enhancements of the SQL storage
>> engine,
>> including the FileStream feature.
>
> ...says our resident MVP. ;-)
>
By the way, congrats on that :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/30/come-back-xp-forgiven
>
>
> Is it just me, or are all these complaints about Vista the exact same
> things we heard about XP when moving from Win2k?
>
> Ie, it's too slow, it uses too much memory, the graphics are pretty but
> slow your machine down way too much, it has features under the hood that
> noone notices, my peripherals don't work with it, etc.
>
> Yet now, people love XP, and have written off Vista.
>
> Personally, I think that 5 years from now, we'll see people complaining
> just as much about how Windows Next isn't nearly as good as Vista, and
> how MS is the devil because they want us to switch again away from our
> sleek, efficient and beautiful OS to a bloated, slow and incompatible
> new version.
>
I agree - that in several years Vista will be the mainstream.
Currently it is slow, takes up too much memory, is bloated with unused
features, and a lot doesn't work with it.
But come new software, hardware, and a couple of service packs.....
It will be fast and snappy and you'll be glad of the features.
Like with XP, there are some drawbacks.
Who likes to 'activate' their copy of XP and the 'Genuine Advantage'
program that MS put into place for those who got around activation - or
those with legit copies that just got marked 'bad'.
Now Vista adds DRM and things like that.
None of these drawbacks are really in the best interest of the consumer
- they are in the interests of big business.
My office now uses XP and likes it.... I remember that is was 2004 when
I upgraded our systems to use XP.
When I order PCs now they come with Vista Business - which allows a
legal downgrade to XP. All in preparation to move to Vista one day when
things settle down.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> Who likes to 'activate' their copy of XP and the 'Genuine Advantage'
> program that MS put into place for those who got around activation - or
> those with legit copies that just got marked 'bad'.
> Now Vista adds DRM and things like that.
Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more things
the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Isn't it a bit ironic that each new version of Windows adds more things
> the user can *not* do, instead of the opposite?
Yep. It's great to be able to pay money to be prevented from doing
things! :-D
I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
(Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose
your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs
without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
> (Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose
> your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs
> without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)
In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
>
> In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
> It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
>
> OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
How about if you design hardware so that it will only run "authorised"
software - that is, software signed by a specific key? You could design
a system so that in principle it can run any authorised software, yet in
practice there is only one such authorised program...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:44:14 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I wonder when they'll start preventing you from removing Windoze?
>
>> (Already I see M$ saying things to hardware vendors like "don't expose
>> your customers to the dangers of software piracy by selling them PCs
>> without Windoze preinstalled". Nice mentallity, eh?)
>
> In theory it could be possible to tie hardware with a specific OS.
> It may be possible to build a PC which only runs Vista, period.
>
> OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally? Even
if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another
OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system was
altered I don't see any legal reason against it.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> > OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
> Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally? Even
> if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another
> OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system was
> altered I don't see any legal reason against it.
Monopoly laws in most countries have been created precisely to prevent
that.
Sure, Apple owns its own product, the iPod, and Apple sells songs for
their own product, the iPod. Naturally Apple has all the right to make
their own product to play only the songs sold by Apple? Makes sense.
Well, no. Apple has had problems with EU monopoly laws because of that.
They must allow songs by others to be played with the iPod.
And besides, haven't you heard of the IE lawsuits MS had to endure?
Monopoly laws in action.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:32:32 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> > OTOH Monopoly laws of most countries would luckily prevent that.
>
>> Why? If that's how it's sold then what would be the problem legally?
>> Even
>> if you're talking some sort of perfect system that would prevent another
>> OS to be run regardless of how either the replacement OS or the system
>> was
>> altered I don't see any legal reason against it.
>
> Monopoly laws in most countries have been created precisely to prevent
> that.
>
> Sure, Apple owns its own product, the iPod, and Apple sells songs for
> their own product, the iPod. Naturally Apple has all the right to make
> their own product to play only the songs sold by Apple? Makes sense.
>
> Well, no. Apple has had problems with EU monopoly laws because of that.
> They must allow songs by others to be played with the iPod.
iPod's weren't sold with "only plays songs bought from the Apple store"
written across them. People expected to be able to play their own music
and got into a snit when they couldn't.
> And besides, haven't you heard of the IE lawsuits MS had to endure?
> Monopoly laws in action.
Yes but in that case MS weren't preventing other browsers they were taking
advantage of a dominance in one field to advance in another and shutting
out the competition.
From both these examples I don't see a connection with a one OS only PC.
Why aren't Nokia being sued like Apple because I can't install the Sony
Ericsson menu system on my mobile phone?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
