[jd_957]

They cant even get their darn programs to run right. So many holes in them. Surprised that they do not sell them in the deli dept as swiss cheese.

Now this.......Microsoft and telecommunications gear maker Alcatel have created a development and sales partnership for software that delivers services to TVs over the Internet.


http://news.com.com/Microsoft+signs+...3-5585476.html

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by jd_957

They cant even get their darn programs to run right. So many holes in them. Surprised that they do not sell them in the deli dept as swiss cheese.

That's why God created OS-X

[Ciberblade]

A few proverbs

Any program that runs right is obsolete.

The program is absolutely right; therefore the computer must be wrong.

There can never be a computer language in which you cannot write a bad program.

What boots up must come down.

Error:015: Unable to exit Windows. Try the door.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

That's why God created OS-X

Got one for that too

MACINTOSH stands for Most Applications Crash If Not The Operating System Hangs.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

That's why God created OS-X

If by God you mean Torvalds, and by OS-X you mean Linux..then I agree

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Gibble

If by God you mean Torvalds

I seriously doubt that Gods first name is Linus

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

Most Applications Crash If Not The Operating System Hangs.

Obviously written by a jealous PC user

Only OS X has protected memory OS X lets you have scads of applications open at the same time without fearing data loss in other apps if an unruly program crashes

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

Obviously written by a jealous PC user

Only OS X has protected memory OS X lets you have scads of applications open at the same time without fearing data loss in other apps if an unruly program crashes

Funny, windows users have had protected memory since 1995 (NT4 I believe) and the only reason OS X has protected memory is because of it's *nix core...

Which means, technically OS X is the LAST OS to get protected memory.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

Obviously written by a jealous PC user

Only OS X has protected memory OS X lets you have scads of applications open at the same time without fearing data loss in other apps if an unruly program crashes

Originally Posted by Gibble

Funny, windows users have had protected memory since 1995 (NT4 I believe) and the only reason OS X has protected memory is because of it's *nix core...

Which means, technically OS X is the LAST OS to get protected memory.

ya beat me to it

Do not fear wet one...I've got one for you too

WINDOWS stands for Will Install Needless Data On Whole System.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Funny, windows users have had protected memory since 1995 (NT4 I believe)

Oh is that what PC users call it Is that why the tech area here is FILLED to the brim with posts regarding how Windows crashes every 5 minutes on somebodies computer? Here's a hint for ya... you could plug up all of those windows flaws till the cows come home, and they still won't be half as stable as OS-X is because OS-X was DESIGNED FROM THE GROUND UP to be more stable and secure

and the only reason OS X has protected memory is because of it's *nix core

Well at least you're honest enough to admit that it's built on the BEST core OS-X has a industrial-strength UNIX foundation hard at work to ensure that the computing experience remains free of system crashes and/or compromised performance. With OS-X's advanced virtual memory, a person doesn't have to concern themself over the number of applications they have open — just continue working. If an application should ever crash, the system’s ADVANCED memory protection prevents it from taking the rest of the system down with it. Windows users only dream of such stability

Which means, technically OS X is the LAST OS to get protected memory.

Yes that makes sense, because it it was designed from the ground up not to need it Funny how that works huh? Well probably not funny to you, because you use Winblows

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by Wet Chicken

Oh is that what PC users call it Is that why the tech area here is FILLED to the brim with posts regarding how Windows crashes every 5 minutes on somebodies computer? Here's a hint for ya... you could plug up all of those windows flaws till the cows come home, and they still won't be half as stable as OS-X is because OS-X was DESIGNED FROM THE GROUND UP to be more stable and secure


Well at least you're honest enough to admit that it's built on the BEST core OS-X has a industrial-strength UNIX foundation hard at work to ensure that the computing experience remains free of system crashes and/or compromised performance. With OS-X's advanced virtual memory, a person doesn't have to concern themself over the number of applications they have open — just continue working. If an application should ever crash, the system’s ADVANCED memory protection prevents it from taking the rest of the system down with it. Windows users only dream of such stability

Yes that makes sense, because it it was designed from the ground up not to need it Funny how that works huh? Well probably not funny to you, because you use Winblows

...wow...the apple marketing department sure has you fooled.

First off, I'm not a fan of Winblows. I'd switch solely to Linux and BSD if I didn't need Winblows at work, and to run some games on...which are becoming more and more often available on Linux

Mac OS X was not designed from the ground up. It's just another flavour of *nux that has been proprietized beyond recognition.

Windows Protected Memory has been around for a decade. It is actually quite stable now and I actually have never had a complete windows crash since I switched to Win2k and WinXP.

Linux...well, I maintain a few Linux servers, and they have NEVER, EVER crashed. I've had them hacked because some scripts on my webserver were insecure (my fault for installing them with too many defaults on), but this has only happened twice and is in no way the OS's fault.

And what software do you run in windows, that when crashes causes you to lose work in other apps? I have never, ever had that problem...of course, unlike Mac users, I know enough to save my work regularly...after all, no OS will protect unsaved work from a power failure...

[Ciberblade]

WC ~ If you're looking for stable superiority -- then you are looking for linux

The only 'crashing' problems I've had with Windows was due to a corrupt installation of the JVM & SDK (which I promptly corrected) after that it's been work as usual.

Most of what is reported as Windows crashing is actually a software app or driver.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Mac OS X was not designed from the ground up. It's just another flavour of *nux that has been proprietized beyond recognition.

Same differnance

Windows Protected Memory has been around for a decade. It is actually quite stable now and I actually have never had a complete windows crash since I switched to Win2k and WinXP.

Lucky you. There are millions of PC users not so lucky Maybe you can bless them with your 'magic PC potion' in the tech area

unlike Mac users, I know enough to save my work regularly

Having a PC that's a good habit to be in

Those that have a Mac don't worry about computer problems, and that includes spyware and viruses. BTW- since you have a PC did you update your anti-spyware software?

no OS will protect unsaved work from a power failure...

That's why God created the U.P.S.

[Wet Chicken]

Originally Posted by ciberblade

WC ~ If you're looking for stable superiority -- then you are looking for linux

No thanks. I much prefer the ease of use and the human engineering that went into the development of OS-X Maybe in around 20 years Linux will be as straight forward and easy to use, but by then I'm sure Apple's OS will still be light years more advanced. Linux is better than Winblows, but that's not the issue. I can have my cake and eat it too with OS-X

[Wet Chicken]

Read 'em and weep

How to Kill Linux

While chatting over dinner with the executives of a middleware company during the recent RSA conference for encryption and security in San Francisco, I heard about a secret project. It concerned the development of a version of Linux that runs smoothly as a task under Windows. The project was completed and then shelved. Whether it will ever reemerge is doubtful, but it does offer some interesting possibilities and hints as to what Microsoft may be up to with MS-Linux.

The immediate usefulness of Linux running under Windows is obvious. You can use all the Windows drivers for all the peripherals that don't run under Linux. Drivers have always been an issue with Linux as PC users have gotten spoiled with Windows driver support. Today's user wants to grab just about anything and not worry about installing it and making it work.

That said, there is no way Linux under Windows would be practical with all the overhead involved. So this notion comes to mind: How about eliminating the middleman? The idea here would be to cut the driver layer out of Windows and attach it to Linux directly. This would become MS-Linux. If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market. Well, except for the fact that Microsoft would be unable to produce such a product without allowing the other vendors access to the driver code as part of the open-source Linux license arrangement (GPL). You can be sure that Microsoft lawyers are studying this as closely as possible to see if there is any way they could market a dominant Linux distribution without killing themselves. So how could they do this?

Open-source law is new and not completely tested. I'm certain that Microsoft got involved with the SCO versus Linux lawsuit partly to reach a better understanding of how to proceed. Well, here's one idea: This concept will benefit only Microsoft and probably result in the death of Linux altogether. Let's call it the lopped-off head approach. Microsoft takes its distribution of Linux and sells it as a lopped-off head.

That means tearing away the entire top of Linux from the driver layer—and that would be MS-Linux. Users who needed to add the driver layers would be offered the standard Linux driver package, which would be attached with a utility program. The utility would sew the drivers back into Linux, resulting in an OS that would be more or less the same as everyone else's.

Or the user could pay for the Windows drivers and attach those to MS-Linux, resulting in an OS that had the PnP benefits of Windows. I see no reason why this could not be kept outside the GPL and actually sold as a licensed product exclusive to Microsoft. Thus the OS revenue stream would be protected.

Since plenty of commercial products "attach" to Linux and seem to be protected from the GPL, I have to assume that the scenario I describe is possible. Thus Microsoft could release its lopped-off head version of Linux and make the back-end Windows driver extensions a commercial product.
The long-term implications of such a scenario, I believe, would be essentially to kill Linux. Microsoft's MS-Linux would quickly become the dominant Linux and the company would begin to profit from all the open-source development work that would go into Linux. Once the developers saw that happen they'd stop working on Linux and it would die. After all, who wants to do free work that benefits Microsoft? At some point in the future Microsoft will make its move on Linux, you can be certain.

I've always been convinced that Microsoft's long-term Linux strategy was why the company sued, then bought off, the Lindows folks, although I doubt that it would now use the Lindows name. The key to competitive success here is gaining dominant market share with a proprietary product. With Linux, Microsoft only needs that one driver element to be proprietary for the plan to succeed. When MS-Linux is announced, it will be as if Microsoft were doing the world a favor by "joining" the Linux community. Praise will be heaped on the company. Congratulations will flow. The end of Linux will be at hand.