|
Windows pricing poll (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
would you blame (let say) Mercedes-Benz because it has borrowed the safety belt (volvo), diesel engine, production-line (ford), electric ignition (Cadillac), front-wheel drive (Citroen) or heck the wheel (mesopotamians):p |
OK here goes:
"Seat belts were first invented by George Cayley in the 1800's. Seat belts were introduced in aircraft in the 1930s. The automotive seat belt was introduced into the United States by William Myron Noe, whose patented quick release seat belt, the AutoCrat Safety Belt, was the first seat belt installed as original equipment in the US by Ford in its 1956 model year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt
This is known as the diesel cycle, after Rudolf Diesel, who invented it in 1892 and received the patent on February 23, 1893. Diesel intended the engine to use a variety of fuels including coal dust. He demonstrated it in the 1900 Exposition Universelle (World's Fair) using peanut oil (see biodiesel). It was later refined and perfected by Charles F. Kettering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
Oliver Evans in the United States brought the stages of the flour milling process together in the 1780s to form what is recognised as the first production line, with the output from one process being fed directly into the next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_line
A spark plug (in British English, a sparking plug) is an electrical device that fits into the cylinder head of some internal combustion engines and ignites compressed aerosol gasoline by means of an electric spark. Spark plugs have an insulated wire which is connected with a induction coil or magneto circuit on the outside, and forms, with another terminal on the base of the plug, a spark gap inside the cylinder. The spark plug was invented by Nikola Tesla, US patent 609,250, (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&RS=PN/609250) (1898).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_plug (The ignition system of the internal combustion engine)
Experiments with front wheel drive date to the early days of the automobile. Alvis Cars of the United Kingdom introduced a front wheel drive model in 1928, but it was not a success. The first successful models were the 1934 Traction avant cars from Citroën in Europe, and to the contemporary 810 from Cord Automobile in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-wheel_drive
According to most authorities, the wheel was invented in ancient Mesopotamia in the 5th millennium BC, originally in the function of potter's wheels. A possibly independent invention in China dates to around 2800 BC. Though they did not develop the wheel proper, the Inca and certain other western hemisphere cultures seem to have approached the concept, as wheel-like worked stones have been found on objects identified as children's toys dating to about 1500 BC. The wheel was apparently unknown in Sub-saharan Africa, Australia, and the Americas until relatively recent contacts with Eurasians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel
Two out of six is not bad. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Two out of six is not bad. |
well, that was not really his point ;)
the flaw in his point tho is that none of the car manufactores have a monopoly. I mean for example if Ford had a 90% marketshare, but they really hadnt inveted anything then something would be wrong, no? |
|
|
| Dervish |
Microsoft is an excelent business, it exploits the position it holds as a business is legally bound to do. The products it makes do rip off others where it can and buy up others it can't which as ty as it is it is litrally legally bound to do to make profit.
The thing is a business will charge what it can get for a product, the price is not a function of the cost to produce. The only way in which the cost to make/maintain a product should be taken into account in a business is when calculating wether or not a product will be a success.
Tho it is gay they have a monopoly and they will scrape as much profit from it as possible (which in the world we live in they have to do).
The only issue is they are pissing people off with the high prices, the products they make are constantly found to be flawed. And so their monopoly is under threat. I belive that in one asian country they are making their own OS from scratch just to design it from the ground up with secruity in mind. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
You know that is not true. IE is "Based on NCSA Mosaic" according to the about property page. The gui copied from others as typical of that from MS:
History of the graphical user interface
There are good recovery cd's out there. If you use emule/edonkey/shareaza you can find them. I used Hiren's BootCd which has a NT password changer. |
I have Hiren 6 but didn't even realize it had a pw changer :toothless
I also have a homemade boot cd that includes like 5x more utils than Hiren's :) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
Complex technologies only evolve by riding the back of other technologies... WAKE UP! |
And damn it! I'm still trying to figure out how the vaccuum tube evolved into the transistor. :conf: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
I belive that in one asian country they are making their own OS from scratch just to design it from the ground up with secruity in mind. |
Red Flag Linux from China perhaps? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
:) |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
LOL
All it takes is changing the PID to something else and presto it's legit again. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
But if your looking for the one big 'it' that Microsoft has brought look into the transformation of their development environment .net - if you can not honestly tell me that .net (even though it is bulky and stupid) is not a radical transformation in the way we've done programming and we'll do it in the future, well then I don't know if your living on the same earth as me. The new framework and web service and seperation of GUI has been so critical almost all other languages and development enviromnents are/have copyied the most successful elements of .net.
|
I came across this article and it seems to blend in nicely in this discussion:
| quote: | Pay to play with Microsoft's Indigo
By Gavin Clarke
Open source developers porting Microsoft's Indigo and Avalon subsystems for Windows to Linux or Unix will have to go through Microsoft before getting their hands on Windows APIs and protocols.
Microsoft has confirmed developers planning to clone Indigo or Avalon will have to first engage in talks on licensing the company's Intellectual Property (IP).
The policy is likely to kill budding interest from the open source community in further extending aspects of the Windows and .NET architectures to Linux and Unix.
The company came clean after developers who'd cloned other elements of Windows under the Mono Project said they are turning their attention to Indigo, the web services communications platform, and the Avalon GUI. At the time, Microsoft suggested developers could hit a licensing snag as it has so-far not been approached to discuss licensing of Indigo or Avalon APIs.
Mono has worked by implementing elements of Microsoft's .NET Framework made available by Microsoft as standards through the European Computer Manufacturers' Association (ECMA) and the International Organization for Standards (ISO). Mono built implementations of Visual C# .NET, Visual Basic .NET, ASP.NET and ADO.NET, along with open source, Unix and Gnome libraries.
Microsoft submitted its then-new Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) and Visual C# .NET languages for standardization in 2000, it said, to help standardize key technologies for greater interoperability between computing environments.
At the time, Microsoft said the submission to ECMA would: "Help companies leverage existing knowledge and current investments in software development infrastructure to build the next-generation internet."
The suspicion was, though, Microsoft was simply using standards to help quickly seed the market, especially the academic community, with these newer technologies - technologies that are regarded as vital to Microsoft's future direction.
However, Microsoft regards Indigo, and Avalon, as features that will be important to Longhorn, Windows XP and Windows Server Release 2, and which it should retain control of.
Developers who connect to Indigo using implementations of the Microsoft and IBM authored WS- specifications, currently navigating the OASIS and W3C standards processes, though, are in the clear, and do not need to approach Microsoft on licensing of technology used in the WS- specifications.
"If someone wanted to build an implementation of the WS- protocols that could talk to Indigo, they can use the public specs to build their own implementation. If however, someone wanted to clone Avalon or Indigo from top to bottom (that is, from APIs down to protocols) they'll probably want to approach Microsoft about licensing," a Microsoft spokeswoman told The Register.
Separately, Microsoft has confirmed all components of its planned application lifecycle management (ALM) suite - Visual Studio 2005 Team System (VSTS) - will launch with the main Visual Studio 2005 integrated development environment (IDE) during the week of 7 November.
VSTS consists of Visual Studio Edition for Software Architects, Visual Studio for Software Developers, Visual Studio for Software Testers and Visual Studio Team Foundation Server. Also due, will be Visual Studio 2005 Tools for the Microsoft Office System, Visual Studio 2005 Standard, Visual Studio 2005 Professional and .NET Framework 2.0.® |
The M$ strategy, in short:
1) Proclaim .net the new Java, built for portability through the use of virtual machines.
2) Get the seal of approval by lobbying standard organizations.
3) Refuse to construct full virtual machines for other platforms than windoze, leaving this for others to do.
4) Watch as developers everywhere switches to .net in favour of Java, figuring that they have nothing to loose.
5) When a working third party implementation of the virtual machine for another platform becomes reality, threaten to sue the living hell out of them.
Result) loads of new applications unintentionally end up windoze only, boosting M$ sales figures. Genious! |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
6) Have the FBI investigate possible violations of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
After all, if you're Bill you just steal other people's ideas and incorporate them as your own. Might as well use some government muscle. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I came across this article and it seems to blend in nicely in this discussion:
|
I saw no problem with this - having worked with WS you are able to interact with both Windows and non-windows WS a-like. The WS standard is not microsoft owned or proposed, but as the article states is a w3c standard amoung others. |
|
|
|
|
