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.
now THAT would be a sight.
They kaboshed their flight simulator dept, no? They could have sold that.
They kaboshed their flight simulator dept, no? They could have sold that.
At the moment they still bring in enough cash from Windows and Office that
they can continue to fund everything else. On the other hand, it is known
that they play games with the way they state their revenue so that they can
show the illusion of constant revenue growth from quarter to quarter. Once
they decline enough that they can no longer play that game, it will have a
significant effect on their stock price, which in their world is far more
important than software.
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).
Wondering where you're hearing that, aside from your usual anti-Miguel sources. .NET's runtime is also quite elegant and has a few key efficiency features that are missing from Java's overly-simplistic memory model: value types, and reified generics. The importance of reified generics can't be overstated; it really cuts down on runtime memory overhead by a significant factor by allowing value types and primitives to be stored inline.
Some of the libraries are also quite nice. IEnumerable/IQueryable are serious functional-programming heavyweights.
memory model: value types, and reified generics. The importance of
reified generics can't be overstated; it really cuts down on runtime
erm... I do so enjoy reading up on all this stuff you throw our way, that's my new way of keeping up with my resume acronyms, but having read exactly 2 paragraphs on the subject I am now an authority, so let's debate for a minute exactly why C#'s way is better.
I mean from a design point of view, sure it's better that it's part of the entire system design and not just a language feature, but if I'm reading it right, java throws out all the generic type stuff (which is fine by me) and doesn't put it in the byte code and C# does.
So C# has to spend more time dealing with generic types at runtime.
How is this better? (you know me, it's all about performance)
I'm probably not getting the whole picture, but if all generic goofyness for a type simplifies to the same thing in java, and doesn't in C# doesn't that just make C# code more bloaty while functionally doing the same thing?
If the compiler has verified that everything is type safe, why waste runtime cpu dealing with it at all?