If you did that, would the result be a machine that is capable of running
PC-Windows binaries? And how would Microsoft react if, say, Dell or HP started
building mass-market PC's in this way?
We *are* running PC-Windows binaries on our boxes.
The only problems we might run into occasionally involve some component that we did not include in the image that an application requires for some reason (because many applications presume a normal Windows box).
However, there is a small issue of licensing. At least with WinXPe, the licensing is structured such that one may not use the resulting image for a general-purpose desktop... it must be for a specific-purpose build. As our boxes are for a specific purpose, we're okay. I expect Dell or HP would be in violation of the embedded licensing if they started distributing PCs with the embedded version of the OS.
The embedded version of Windows has one cool feature you don't find in normal Windows, though... you can declare the drives non-writable in such a way that it *appears* as if you're writing to the drive, but upon reboot, none of the data 'written' actually makes it to the drive... so it's like a completely clean machine again. This is pretty good for protecting your embedded machine from viruses; reboot.
Ok, so this makes the problem even more egregious: Microsoft not only *can*
build such a desktop, but they actually *have* built it -- but they *won't*
allow it to be used in the general purpose computing market.
So the only remaining question is: since the world in general can't have it, how do those of us who don't believe in copyright get our hands on a copy for our own computers?
So the only remaining question is: since the world in general can't have it, how do those of us who don't believe in copyright get our hands on a copy for our own computers?
I guess you could enter into some kind of licensing agreement with one of Microsoft's resellers. As far as I know, that's the only way to get your hands on a copy of their embedded operating system.
Heh. Another epic fail by Microsoft in the mobile space. Hey look, it costs
as much as a smartphone but it only runs one application! The kids will love
it!
Does anyone else think Windows 7 is teh sux0r? It took me a half hour just to get a damn MAC address of the wireless card. All the stupid wizards were getting in the way of setting up the connections too. Reminds me a lot of KDE. (Did I just go too far?)
Yes, but you don't have to use KDE, you can use tools and scripts to get around the stupidities of the gui.
Anytime Microsoft changes the interface to the OS to such a degree that it becomes unfamiliar to you, it's frustrating... but not enough of a reason for me to pan the operating system.
Vista truly sucks. Perhaps not as bad as WinME, but it's awful darned close.
Windows 7 is a veritable dream compared to Vista. It's also got a lot of pretty little bits to it, and seems to at least be as stable as Windows will get.
Melvin has been using it, and rather likes it compared to the older operating system.
But, yeah, I find it frustrating to find all the things I want to find with it. I still haven't figured out how to share a folder to the local network.
On the weekend I joined a party and the music came from a netbook with windows 7 and media player. That thing is a pain in the ass! The search function is a joke and you can't browse through your song collection without open the "Open dialog".
That's not exactly correct. No NT or 2000 DC's.
But equally.. for a large organisation, it's a big deal.
But equally.. for a large organisation, it's a big deal.
almost no startup uses see-carpet:
why?
because of microsoft focuses on the big businesses, and the typical developer is just a worker bee.
Heh. It's funny to hear a Microtard whining about startups not wanting to
use .Net on the same week another article appeared in the New York Slimes
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/technology/05soft.html ] about how Microsoft
is totally off the radar now when it comes to appealing to younger consumers,
and especially younger developers -- and that's why most startups just completely
steer clear of Microsoft technologies.
What I keep hearing about .Net is that C# is an elegant language, but the .Net runtime is typical Microsoft rubbish (basically a GC'ed version of Win32).
What I keep hearing about .Net is that C# is an elegant language, but the .Net runtime is typical Microsoft rubbish (basically a GC'ed version of Win32).
Look out! Here comes Microsoft!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/29/ballmer_awake_at_night/print.html
Ballmer told investors that Apple has sold more iPads and iPhones than he'd liked ... and he and his developers developers developers are suffering sleepless nights in the race to catch up.
He used the words "job-one urgency" which means that killing the iPad and iPhone are now at the same "job-one urgency" as killing Google, open source, etc.
So what's our favorite dancing monkey going to do to smash Apple?
wait for it...
waaaaaait for it......
WINDOWS 7 ON TABLETS.
That's right, folks: Microsoft still doesn't get it! Mobile devices aren't PC's, people don't expect them to act like PC's, and people don't *want* them to act like PC's. But Microsoft has, in Ballmer's words, "the application base, we have the user familiarity, we have everything on our side" which is why, of course, tablet computers running Windows XP stormed the market and prevented Apple from succeeding with the iPad, right?
It's *so* satisfying to watch what appears to be the beginning of Microsoft's long, slow decline.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/29/ballmer_awake_at_night/print.html
Ballmer told investors that Apple has sold more iPads and iPhones than he'd liked ... and he and his developers developers developers are suffering sleepless nights in the race to catch up.
He used the words "job-one urgency" which means that killing the iPad and iPhone are now at the same "job-one urgency" as killing Google, open source, etc.
So what's our favorite dancing monkey going to do to smash Apple?
wait for it...
waaaaaait for it......
WINDOWS 7 ON TABLETS.
That's right, folks: Microsoft still doesn't get it! Mobile devices aren't PC's, people don't expect them to act like PC's, and people don't *want* them to act like PC's. But Microsoft has, in Ballmer's words, "the application base, we have the user familiarity, we have everything on our side" which is why, of course, tablet computers running Windows XP stormed the market and prevented Apple from succeeding with the iPad, right?
It's *so* satisfying to watch what appears to be the beginning of Microsoft's long, slow decline.
I'm not a big fan of apple (anymore) or job or wozniaks weight problem but
I give jobs or whoever credit for one thing:
the do-anything-you-want design of computers nowadays isn't the right answer for most people.
Being able to set your desktop background, and change all your icons and create directories and install random software has done nothing for this world but advance the world of support problems.
I personally don't care for it, but the iphone way of giving you a small menu of options and only letting you do a few things that they let you is really a better answer for the majority of consumer electronics users.
this is true for iphones and dvd players and tvs. Remember when they started putting zillions of options on TVs and nobody used any of them?
Remember when they put clocks on VCRs and they all blinked 12:00?
People don't really want infinite configurability, and that is really the fundamental problem with the PC design.
linux following in their wake wasn't a terribly brilliant move either. And don't be surprised if a lot of options go away on the MAC desktops as well.
the do-anything-you-want design of computers nowadays isn't the right answer for most people.
Being able to set your desktop background, and change all your icons and create directories and install random software has done nothing for this world but advance the world of support problems.
I personally don't care for it, but the iphone way of giving you a small menu of options and only letting you do a few things that they let you is really a better answer for the majority of consumer electronics users.
this is true for iphones and dvd players and tvs. Remember when they started putting zillions of options on TVs and nobody used any of them?
Remember when they put clocks on VCRs and they all blinked 12:00?
People don't really want infinite configurability, and that is really the fundamental problem with the PC design.
linux following in their wake wasn't a terribly brilliant move either. And don't be surprised if a lot of options go away on the MAC desktops as well.
Once again you are falling into the trap of thinking of "Linux" as a single
product controlled by a single entity.
One linux-based product is already poised to overtake Apple. Android, which is a linux-based software stack, is growing fast. By some measures it has already overtaken the iPhone; by most other measures it will overtake iPhone sometime in 2011 or 2012 ... for the same reason Windows 3.1 dominated over Apple when PC's first arrived on the scene.
Your initial point is correct, though. People don't *want* their mobile devices to look or quack like desktop computers. Keeping the environment fairly rigid is important for a low-power portable device -- Palm figured that out a very long time ago.
By the way ... Apple did the Linux world a big favor. Desktop linux systems have had online software repositories for a long time, but Windows users were accustomed to "put in the CD and run SETUP.EXE". Now, thanks to Apple, people are totally aware of how an "app store" works.
As a result, the argument of "oh, to use Linux you have to learn how to compile software from source code" (which is of course a myth, or FUD if you prefer) is now easily refuted. If the Linux in question is Ubuntu, for example, you can just say "No, it has an app store. Here it is. See?"
One linux-based product is already poised to overtake Apple. Android, which is a linux-based software stack, is growing fast. By some measures it has already overtaken the iPhone; by most other measures it will overtake iPhone sometime in 2011 or 2012 ... for the same reason Windows 3.1 dominated over Apple when PC's first arrived on the scene.
Your initial point is correct, though. People don't *want* their mobile devices to look or quack like desktop computers. Keeping the environment fairly rigid is important for a low-power portable device -- Palm figured that out a very long time ago.
By the way ... Apple did the Linux world a big favor. Desktop linux systems have had online software repositories for a long time, but Windows users were accustomed to "put in the CD and run SETUP.EXE". Now, thanks to Apple, people are totally aware of how an "app store" works.
As a result, the argument of "oh, to use Linux you have to learn how to compile software from source code" (which is of course a myth, or FUD if you prefer) is now easily refuted. If the Linux in question is Ubuntu, for example, you can just say "No, it has an app store. Here it is. See?"
Once again you are falling into the trap of thinking of "Linux" as a
single product controlled by a single entity.
HA HA!!! You ADMIT it is a TRAP! :-)
You're right, though, I mean ubuntu, but any intended-for-desktop distro.
Your initial point is correct, though. People don't *want* their
mobile devices to look or quack like desktop computers. Keeping the
My point is most people don't want their desktop computers to look or quack like desktop computers either.
Microsoft's decline may not be slow. IBM's was slow for the period. Big Blue went quick after they sold their basic stuff to National Cash Register. MS may start selling divisions off.