1. RE: Have you paid your Bill today?
> If this happens, it pretty much means an end to third
> party software, like Euphoria, or like the programs
> that some of us write for a living.
> I think I'll take up gardening.....
Irv, ain't gonna happen. Now that EUPHORIA is good for BSD, and now that
there seems to be a path to OS X compatibility, I've put one more 'x' in
the "Reasons to Get a PowerMac" column.
If the market lets Microsoft get that far, or the public is so stupid as
to go along with it, then I say let the world suffer the consequences.
Besides, it's only talkin' 'bout the XBox 2!!!
2. RE: Have you paid your Bill today?
On 4 Apr 2002, at 20:43, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
>
> > If this happens, it pretty much means an end to third
> > party software, like Euphoria, or like the programs
> > that some of us write for a living.
> > I think I'll take up gardening.....
>
> Irv, ain't gonna happen. Now that EUPHORIA is good for BSD, and now that
> there seems to be a path to OS X compatibility, I've put one more 'x' in
> the "Reasons to Get a PowerMac" column.
>
> If the market lets Microsoft get that far, or the public is so stupid as
> to go along with it, then I say let the world suffer the consequences.
The masses are indeed that stupid.
> Besides, it's only talkin' 'bout the XBox 2!!!
For now.
Kat
3. RE: Have you paid your Bill today?
Pete, I just looked over the article, and if the stuff they say is true,
it won't matter whether MS has the best implementation or not. They
apparently will be using hardware developed using Silicon Graphics
patents, which are apparently now owned by MS, and this means they will
have the inside scoop on how the hardware runs. Among other things, MS
could tie their software into the microcode without revealing to
outsiders how they do it, or even that they are doing it.
Patents are not like copyrights. With the latter, a software package
can be implemented by anybody to do the same thing that the copyrighted
packaged does, so long as none of the copyrighted code is used; _any_
code of _any_ design that performs the same function a patented
software/firmware package does violates the patent (or pays a fee to the
patent-holder). Patents (that last no more than a couple of decades)
are a good thing in the physical world, because the patent owners are
given time to recoup their financial investment in real hardware without
being driven to the wall by competitors, but software patents are an
idiocy forced on the U.S. public (and the world's public by virtue of
the U.S. market's size) by the U.S. Patent Office (in 1979, I believe)
by lawyers working for the Patent Office who didn't understand software
and allowed these patents to become valid. China and Russia are already
'one-copy' countries (sell one copy, and fifty million appear with no
financial benefit to the producer within the week); if MS pushes this
far enough, they'll turn U.S. citizens into scofflaws, too.
I don't think linux has too much to worry about now, but how many 16MHz
i386s do you see being used now? Even bad software running on a
platform that's ten times faster (and having 100 times the memory) will
appear better than the best software on an old machine, and most people
who buy MS products don't know too much about the technical end. MS is,
first and foremost, an ingenious _sales_ organization.
The article goes on to say that the machines MS hopes to produce will
run both native MSIL _and_ x86 code. This means that your PKZIP,
Tombraider, or even linux, will run on it ... for now. Later on, the
x86 compatibility might be dropped; they'll have a patent on the
microcode, after all, and who is to tell them that they can't put
critical parts of their OS into their ucode? Not the U.S. Justice
Department! Microcoded routines will almost always run faster than
non-microcoded ones, especially if the routine minimizes the number of
off-chip accesses it must make. This would mean that linux tasks would
almost never run as fast as the corresponding MS tasks. Windows was
really bad up until 3.0 or so (remember?), and the Mac was kicking tail
in the marketplace, but the largest software company in the world at the
time (IBM) was bankrolling things, and BG eventually got it right - the
sales part, that is. He has used the same strategy to sink competitors
or take them over (Lotus, Netscape, et. al.) by making his competing
product a 'part of the OS,' and so long as most companies use the
proprietary-software production model _and_ he remains careful, BG will
continue to win. Let us hope that this project goes no further than the
Talisman project did.
Thx, Phil Long
petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:30:09 -0500, Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.theinquirer.net/02040213.htm
> >
> >If this happens, it pretty much means an end to third party software,
> >like Euphoria, or like the programs that some of us write for a living.
> >I think I'll take up gardening.....
>
> If you believe that the best software in the world is produced by M$
> then yes, take up gardening.
>
> People pay for compatibility. Think about it. Who is going to buy a PC
> that won't run WinAmp, Tombraider, or PKZIP (substitute your
> favourites)? I hope BG wastes alot of money on it.
>
> Linux isn't there yet, but when Linus Torvald Mark II steps forward
> (and he/she will) we'll see.
>
> Pete
>
>
