The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4270449.stm[/URL]
Some good news then, hopefully it'll make a difference.
Some good news then, hopefully it'll make a difference.
Page:
I think one day when every one reaches a certain level of computer literacy, they will realise microsoft cant deliver what people want anymore, security wise, speed wise, etc, and will turn to other things such as, for example, mac (there could be something else to be invented)
So unless longhorn really revolutionises things, i think microsoft are going to die a long and painful death.
They cant just keep adding things to faulty products to try and make them work.
That's like sending a ship to sea, and realising the hull is too weak, so instead of bringing it back into bay to get taken apart and re built, they cover the outside of the hull with planks of wood, eventually that wood will rot and break, and then more wood will be added to the outside of that.
See where im going with that strange story...
So unless longhorn really revolutionises things, i think microsoft are going to die a long and painful death.
They cant just keep adding things to faulty products to try and make them work.
That's like sending a ship to sea, and realising the hull is too weak, so instead of bringing it back into bay to get taken apart and re built, they cover the outside of the hull with planks of wood, eventually that wood will rot and break, and then more wood will be added to the outside of that.
See where im going with that strange story...
apparantly IE7 will have tabbed browsing.
they're always one step ahead....
BAH! i had tabbed browsing on iBrowse 2 for the Amiga in 1999!!
they're always one step ahead....
BAH! i had tabbed browsing on iBrowse 2 for the Amiga in 1999!!
I've never understood why people actually stick with M$ products.
Heck, I went to my mates place the other day to sort his computer out because it was being slow, you know why?
On startup he has like 11 programs loading just to counteract such things as viruses/spyware/trojans/popups/hacks etc etc etc.
People could argue that the OS is used by 95% of the worlds population so thats what people write these things for, but it is just ridicoulous!
Open source all the way baby!
Garin wrote:
> Ok, enough ranting about the W3C, maybe I should stay away from their
> website, I always seem to leave it in a bad mood. :)
Indeed. I have to agree though that they do waffle on abut some stuff that will never take off just for the sheer hell of sitting down for years and talking about it, but hey, that's geeks for you!;)
And as anyone seen how much it costs to Join the W3C?
They're not trying to take over ther world, they're just trying to ensure that the famed interweb doesn't lose it original "scope" by keeping it unifom and common to all and preventing any one corporation from taking over.
Tim B Lee is actually quite a nice bloke, met him a couple of years ago at a seminar, definatley not hell bent on world domination, but if some one was to come along and poison your baby, obviously you'd get quite upset by it;)
WASP, Zeldman, Veen, Nielsen (God for bid) & Meyer all preach about standards for a reason, not becuase it's fashionable, but because of the legal impacts of creating stuff that doesn't work in an age where information should be accessibile to all.
> Ok, enough ranting about the W3C, maybe I should stay away from their
> website, I always seem to leave it in a bad mood. :)
Indeed. I have to agree though that they do waffle on abut some stuff that will never take off just for the sheer hell of sitting down for years and talking about it, but hey, that's geeks for you!;)
And as anyone seen how much it costs to Join the W3C?
They're not trying to take over ther world, they're just trying to ensure that the famed interweb doesn't lose it original "scope" by keeping it unifom and common to all and preventing any one corporation from taking over.
Tim B Lee is actually quite a nice bloke, met him a couple of years ago at a seminar, definatley not hell bent on world domination, but if some one was to come along and poison your baby, obviously you'd get quite upset by it;)
WASP, Zeldman, Veen, Nielsen (God for bid) & Meyer all preach about standards for a reason, not becuase it's fashionable, but because of the legal impacts of creating stuff that doesn't work in an age where information should be accessibile to all.
cjh wrote:
> Tyla, regarding the spy ware program from Microsoft, I can't remember
> where I read it from (so it could be simple speculation rather than
> fact) but I think the program will be in two forms, a free version
> for home use, and as a server version, which would have to be
> paid-for.
Before now many of Microsoft's other security boosting programs, such as the firewall in Windows XP, have been given away free.
But Mike Nash, vice president in Microsoft's security business unit, said it was still working out pricing and licensing issues. Charging for future versions has not been discounted, he said.
"We'll come up with a plan and roll that out," he said.
The plan could turn out to be a lucrative one for Microsoft.
From my stand point, I think owners of genuine versions of XP/2k should be given it for free as a service from M$ to ensure the saftey of their product you are using. M$ should take responsibility for originally releasing such a hole filled piece of software and do what ever they can to support "Genuine" Customers.
In reality, it's gonna cost!:)
> Tyla, regarding the spy ware program from Microsoft, I can't remember
> where I read it from (so it could be simple speculation rather than
> fact) but I think the program will be in two forms, a free version
> for home use, and as a server version, which would have to be
> paid-for.
Before now many of Microsoft's other security boosting programs, such as the firewall in Windows XP, have been given away free.
But Mike Nash, vice president in Microsoft's security business unit, said it was still working out pricing and licensing issues. Charging for future versions has not been discounted, he said.
"We'll come up with a plan and roll that out," he said.
The plan could turn out to be a lucrative one for Microsoft.
From my stand point, I think owners of genuine versions of XP/2k should be given it for free as a service from M$ to ensure the saftey of their product you are using. M$ should take responsibility for originally releasing such a hole filled piece of software and do what ever they can to support "Genuine" Customers.
In reality, it's gonna cost!:)
Tyla, regarding the spy ware program from Microsoft, I can't remember where I read it from (so it could be simple speculation rather than fact) but I think the program will be in two forms, a free version for home use, and as a server version, which would have to be paid-for.
Garin wrote:
> To me allowing W3C to dictate web standards is no worse or better
> than allowing microsoft to.
It was this comment that may have tripped me up, as I read it as a negative towards a standard in general, which is why I wrote what I did with the example I provided (maybe it was a poor example), not intended as a reply to an unasked question, but simply as a view from another person as to why I thought a web standard was good.
It wasn't meant to be related to how a standard came to be, only that I thought they were a good idea, because it allowed for something to work with another thing easily (in that example, a music CD with any CD player, regardless of who made the CD or CD player) and for manufactures to build their devices to allow currently available goods (CD) to work as people expected (I think the word use for this is interoperability?).
It wasn't my intension to answer un-asked questions, merely add my view to your post. I'm sorry if you thought I went of in a tangent. Did I do it again in this post too?
> To me allowing W3C to dictate web standards is no worse or better
> than allowing microsoft to.
It was this comment that may have tripped me up, as I read it as a negative towards a standard in general, which is why I wrote what I did with the example I provided (maybe it was a poor example), not intended as a reply to an unasked question, but simply as a view from another person as to why I thought a web standard was good.
It wasn't meant to be related to how a standard came to be, only that I thought they were a good idea, because it allowed for something to work with another thing easily (in that example, a music CD with any CD player, regardless of who made the CD or CD player) and for manufactures to build their devices to allow currently available goods (CD) to work as people expected (I think the word use for this is interoperability?).
It wasn't my intension to answer un-asked questions, merely add my view to your post. I'm sorry if you thought I went of in a tangent. Did I do it again in this post too?
Tyla wrote:
> Though this example is pretty poor for an argument as these were
> "new" technologies for their time. The internet has been
> about for decades and W3C has been about since the commercial start
> of the internet (1991-ish) and way before, especially as it was W3C
> who defined HTML in the first place with their reccomendation, way
> before the browser battle began, but arrogance and the thrist to
> dominate the market lead to vendors ignoring these just like
> Netscape, who eventually died.
>
Arrogance and thirst to dominate the market aren't necessarily bad things though. They are force innovation, netscape is a good example with them adding javascript (livescript) to browsers. I'd say that was a useful contribution whether they are dead now or not.
The danger (to me) is that we have W3C controlling everything with their "recommendations" and its like a monopoly. Standards are double-edged, the positives are well documented, but on the negative side, they are great barriers to change too. I dont believe that W3C have the impetus to push things forwards (well not unless they're allowed to set up a workgroup and talk about it for 10 years first). But at the same time its near impossible for others to push things forward because they aren't the W3C and people are getting into the mindset that the W3C should be the fountain of all knowledge.
Ok, enough ranting about the W3C, maybe I should stay away from their website, I always seem to leave it in a bad mood. :)
> Though this example is pretty poor for an argument as these were
> "new" technologies for their time. The internet has been
> about for decades and W3C has been about since the commercial start
> of the internet (1991-ish) and way before, especially as it was W3C
> who defined HTML in the first place with their reccomendation, way
> before the browser battle began, but arrogance and the thrist to
> dominate the market lead to vendors ignoring these just like
> Netscape, who eventually died.
>
Arrogance and thirst to dominate the market aren't necessarily bad things though. They are force innovation, netscape is a good example with them adding javascript (livescript) to browsers. I'd say that was a useful contribution whether they are dead now or not.
The danger (to me) is that we have W3C controlling everything with their "recommendations" and its like a monopoly. Standards are double-edged, the positives are well documented, but on the negative side, they are great barriers to change too. I dont believe that W3C have the impetus to push things forwards (well not unless they're allowed to set up a workgroup and talk about it for 10 years first). But at the same time its near impossible for others to push things forward because they aren't the W3C and people are getting into the mindset that the W3C should be the fountain of all knowledge.
Ok, enough ranting about the W3C, maybe I should stay away from their website, I always seem to leave it in a bad mood. :)
Garin wrote:
> EDIT: At the very least, go and look up the history of VHS. VHS is
> the victor of a "standards battle", it had competition.
Didn't VHS BECOME the standard due to cost, adoption and benefits over BetaMAX? Though funny you should mention this as the new battle of formats between BluRay and HD-DVD is just about to begin?
Though this example is pretty poor for an argument as these were "new" technologies for their time. The internet has been about for decades and W3C has been about since the commercial start of the internet (1991-ish) and way before, especially as it was W3C who defined HTML in the first place with their reccomendation, way before the browser battle began, but arrogance and the thrist to dominate the market lead to vendors ignoring these just like Netscape, who eventually died.
The internet was based on a cut down version of SGML which already had defined standards as anyone in print would know, so there was no "battle". HTML is HTML until people like M$ came along and tried restricting its "open source" nature by creating modified versions that would only work on their products.
This has nothing to do with trying to define standrds, but more to do with trying to monopolise on something that wasn't theirs in the first place.
Had to laugh, imagine the scene at M$ central with the guys who built MSN.com into standards compliant code sitting next to the developer of IE trying not to beat hime sensless due to all of the "open source" hacks they had to implement to get the site to conform!:)
Who knows, maybe it was this which finally convinced Bill to conform to standards with IE's rendering engine?;) Or maybe section 508 is finally catching up with them and forcing them to do something with it?
> EDIT: At the very least, go and look up the history of VHS. VHS is
> the victor of a "standards battle", it had competition.
Didn't VHS BECOME the standard due to cost, adoption and benefits over BetaMAX? Though funny you should mention this as the new battle of formats between BluRay and HD-DVD is just about to begin?
Though this example is pretty poor for an argument as these were "new" technologies for their time. The internet has been about for decades and W3C has been about since the commercial start of the internet (1991-ish) and way before, especially as it was W3C who defined HTML in the first place with their reccomendation, way before the browser battle began, but arrogance and the thrist to dominate the market lead to vendors ignoring these just like Netscape, who eventually died.
The internet was based on a cut down version of SGML which already had defined standards as anyone in print would know, so there was no "battle". HTML is HTML until people like M$ came along and tried restricting its "open source" nature by creating modified versions that would only work on their products.
This has nothing to do with trying to define standrds, but more to do with trying to monopolise on something that wasn't theirs in the first place.
Had to laugh, imagine the scene at M$ central with the guys who built MSN.com into standards compliant code sitting next to the developer of IE trying not to beat hime sensless due to all of the "open source" hacks they had to implement to get the site to conform!:)
Who knows, maybe it was this which finally convinced Bill to conform to standards with IE's rendering engine?;) Or maybe section 508 is finally catching up with them and forcing them to do something with it?
cjh wrote:
> Looks like a Service Pack 3 is on the cards as well, not bad
> considering XP was only supposed to have the one, if I remember from
> what Tyla said?
Officially, SP1 was meant to be the only service pack for XP, then came SP2 which was released to patch shed loads of holes, update IE a little and keep it going till Longhorn. Now we're looking at IE7/SP3, though not confirmed whether IE7 will be stand alone or as part of a service pack, it is funny how M$ have gone back on their original plans. Though this isn't a bad thing. It's nice to see M$ finally taking security seriously, but to what reason?
The initial response for security wasn't to protect its users, but to try and retain those corporate users who where switching to Linux left right and centre. Then came the buy-out of GIANT software for their spy ware tool, again, as a response to other firms offering this for free, though it's still yet to be confirmed whether this will continue to be a free tool from M$ or not.
They have now acquired an Anti Virus firm, betas being released soon, though again, they have yet to confirm if this will be free to users or become part of the M$ subscription package!
Now we have IE7... Originally destined to be part of the Longhorn OS and never as a stand alone browser, and now a sudden change in direction, quite possibly to a drop in market share of IE in the last 4 months to Firefox, who knows, but after the sudden attack on M$ for failing to protect it's users, slating by firms for their lack of response, effectively, they're just trying to retain their "reputation"
It's funny, how for years, M$ was the be all and end all in personal computing, but as IT becomes more of an everyday thing for most of the planet, people began to explore non M$ alternatives and open source. M$ are quite openly spoken to their dislike of the open source market but can only respond by patching things that any other firm would have fixed years ago.
I do hope they get it right this time and produce a piece of software designed to suit the users needs and conform to trends controlled outside of the M$ ethos.
With things like Section 508, DRA, WAI and standards becoming more of a legal requirement as opposed to a “nice to have”, they have to respond some how, but failing now will have a negative effect on MSIE and see their browser share fall further and further.
Anyone who's ever used MSXML, Jscript or even MacIE 5.2 will know how wrong they've got it before. If darling Bill finally listens to users and understands why these recommendations are in place, he may finally obtain his dream of getting an M$ product in every home.
The Firefox project has achieved a lot in the last 12 months which has taken M$ almost 14+ years to try and achieve. They delivered a product which users and developers wanted based on a combination of their requirements and conforming to W3C recommendations. Lets hope M$ follows suit…
> Looks like a Service Pack 3 is on the cards as well, not bad
> considering XP was only supposed to have the one, if I remember from
> what Tyla said?
Officially, SP1 was meant to be the only service pack for XP, then came SP2 which was released to patch shed loads of holes, update IE a little and keep it going till Longhorn. Now we're looking at IE7/SP3, though not confirmed whether IE7 will be stand alone or as part of a service pack, it is funny how M$ have gone back on their original plans. Though this isn't a bad thing. It's nice to see M$ finally taking security seriously, but to what reason?
The initial response for security wasn't to protect its users, but to try and retain those corporate users who where switching to Linux left right and centre. Then came the buy-out of GIANT software for their spy ware tool, again, as a response to other firms offering this for free, though it's still yet to be confirmed whether this will continue to be a free tool from M$ or not.
They have now acquired an Anti Virus firm, betas being released soon, though again, they have yet to confirm if this will be free to users or become part of the M$ subscription package!
Now we have IE7... Originally destined to be part of the Longhorn OS and never as a stand alone browser, and now a sudden change in direction, quite possibly to a drop in market share of IE in the last 4 months to Firefox, who knows, but after the sudden attack on M$ for failing to protect it's users, slating by firms for their lack of response, effectively, they're just trying to retain their "reputation"
It's funny, how for years, M$ was the be all and end all in personal computing, but as IT becomes more of an everyday thing for most of the planet, people began to explore non M$ alternatives and open source. M$ are quite openly spoken to their dislike of the open source market but can only respond by patching things that any other firm would have fixed years ago.
I do hope they get it right this time and produce a piece of software designed to suit the users needs and conform to trends controlled outside of the M$ ethos.
With things like Section 508, DRA, WAI and standards becoming more of a legal requirement as opposed to a “nice to have”, they have to respond some how, but failing now will have a negative effect on MSIE and see their browser share fall further and further.
Anyone who's ever used MSXML, Jscript or even MacIE 5.2 will know how wrong they've got it before. If darling Bill finally listens to users and understands why these recommendations are in place, he may finally obtain his dream of getting an M$ product in every home.
The Firefox project has achieved a lot in the last 12 months which has taken M$ almost 14+ years to try and achieve. They delivered a product which users and developers wanted based on a combination of their requirements and conforming to W3C recommendations. Lets hope M$ follows suit…
Page: