An early look at Windows Vista

[rpm]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/08/04/windows.vista.ap/index.html

"Known for years by the code name "Longhorn," the successor to Microsoft's Windows XP has been dubbed "Longwait" for its numerous delays. As features have been announced, it's also been accused of copying Apple Computer Inc.'s Mac OS X."

 

[rsd]

I have the Beta (legally, MSDN subscription - nothing dodgy) and have yet to install it successfully *sulks*

Unfortunately I can only really try to install it on Virtual PCs, so thats probably part of the problem

 

[alchamy]

It really does mimic Mac OS, and IE 7 is a poor imitation of Firefox. Nothing new coming out of MS.

 

[Noble_Nanobot]

I have the Beta (legally, MSDN subscription - nothing dodgy) and have yet to install it successfully *sulks*

Unfortunately I can only really try to install it on Virtual PCs, so thats probably part of the problem

Try someting non Microsoft and see if it works ... I recommend VMware ....

 

[werner]

vista is probably the best thing that microsoft could ever have done for the pc community...because they will chase us all into the arms of the open source community.

all you have to do is look around for COPP and HDCP terms being dropped into random documents to predict tha tin the future YOUR hardware will not be listening to you anymore. Hopefully, people will get so fed up with having their rights removed that they will see the light, and linux will hopefully be totally useable.

I bring you this
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25169 explaining how the stuff you buy today just simply is going to refuse to work, go on strike and stick a finger up at you when long^^^^vista arrives, and please also read this interesting document from microsoft to see exactly what you will be buying into
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx

your home pc will be locked down tighter than a dstv decoder. enjoy it.

 

[Flippit]

Incredible that they can get away with DRM... the very concept is so oppressive... if you buy a computer you must be able to do exactly what you want with it, its up to you to impose your own morals not bloody Microsoft.

 

[Silent_Bob]

i agree

 

[munwaal]

It'll be cracked.. there's no doubt about it.

 

[slimothy]

everything is cracked,

anyways microsoft arent really innovators but because of their huge size they can chuck money behind any problem.. I think thats the best thing about them.

and they made SOAP, which is pretty cool

 

[alaincraven]

Linux at least allows one to use the PC as one intends. M$ is great for games - but rather by a PS2.

 

[alaincraven]

everything is cracked,

anyways microsoft arent really innovators but because of their huge size they can chuck money behind any problem.. I think thats the best thing about them.

and they made SOAP, which is pretty cool

SOAP is good yes, but then they break the very essence of it by allowing you to return platform specific data types (like dataset), so those web services do not run on anything but M$ pcs...

 

[mbs]

... and they made SOAP, which is pretty cool

They did?! Thought this was not quite right, so did some digging and found this in an old book:

The Origins of SOAP
SOAP has evolved from an early attempt to define a way to send method calls and parameters from one computer to another called XML-RPC, which stands for Remote Procedure Call. This early specification was defined by Dave Winer of a company called Userland. IONA, Microsoft and IBM became interested in improving the XML-RPC approach. This new approach became the SOAP 1.1 specification. It was submitted to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 2000. A new specification, SOAP 1.2, is moving towards recommendation status at W3C. IN W3C terminology, a recommendation is the highest status for a specification. They dislike using the word "standard" because they are a consortium and not a standards body. Commercial Web services platforms and tools are incorporating parts of the SOAP 1.2 specification as of this writing.

 

[slimothy]

yeh they made soap, sorry because you had to google for some reference rather than knowing offhand means you're wrong, i could google now to find people who think the sun doesnt exist... wouldnt prove much would it

 

[mbs]

yeh they made soap, sorry because you had to google for some reference rather than knowing offhand means you're wrong, i could google now to find people who think the sun doesnt exist... wouldnt prove much would it

Didn't have to google at all - if you read carefully, you'll note I said it came from an old book. To be exact and in case you're really interested, one of the Sams Publishing 'Teach Yourself' references, viz. Teach Yourself Web Services in 24 Hours, 2003, ISBN 0-672-32515-2, page 128.
I'm not particularly interested in proving anyone wrong, either - I'm more interested in debunking misconceptions that M$ is the source of all good things computing, whereas the truth is somewhat closer to the opposite...

 

[Turtle]

yeh they made soap, sorry because you had to google for some reference rather than knowing offhand means you're wrong

LOL you're inherently wrong if you don't 'know some particular information offhand' and googled for a quote!? That's nuts. So I see you're trolling again, heh .. come on slimothy, just admit you were wrong about SOAP and move on - you just make yourself look worse with desperate "rebuttals" like that.

 

[slimothy]

well i guess you're stupid then

LOL you're inherently wrong if you don't 'know some particular information offhand' and googled for a quote!? That's nuts. So I see you're trolling again, heh .. come on slimothy, just admit you were wrong about SOAP and move on - you just make yourself look worse with desperate "rebuttals" like that.

"LOL" "inherently wrong" "you're trolling again" "just admit you were wrong about SOAP"

woh woh, are you sure I'm the one who's trolling? Where to begin with idiotic statements like that.. hmm.. lets see you only think I'm wrong because you have a problem with me, and then post a response like that because well... you're one of those types of people even though 2 people thus far know microsoft made it and 1 doesn't. The fact you rather ask I "admit I'm wrong" rather than posting soem facts means that this is an ego thing and you just want to see me wrong for some reason.

OK, here are some facts, Microsoft created SOAP... in April of 2000 IBM came on board (after first deciding not to and changing its mind, this is well documented), in June of 2000 Sun came on board because you see the group they (IMB and Sun) were in called the Oasis group had made something similar called ebXML but they realised to use microsofts protocol for messanging because it was further than their own and they collaborated for version 1.1, not 0.1... 1.1 meaning microsoft invented it. But wait, it's you turtle you wouldn't be happy from just me stating it... you want links well let me oblige:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-241568.html?legacy=cnet

SOAP, which was created by Microsoft but does not require any Microsoft software, is a network protocol that lets software objects developed using different languages communicate with each other.

Now bear in mind right now either you're wrong... or cnet (you know one of the largest web publishers in the world) are wrong. But wait, theres more....

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/10_596701

The W3C was supporting SOAP, a technology originally created by Microsoft

ok i guess they were wrong too</sarcasm> but what about

http://xml.coverpages.org/soap.html they must be wrong.. they're only like a huge site run by the oasis grup... you know microsofts competitors (sun.. ibm..sap) but who knows maybe ibm, sun and the entire oasis group consisting of alot of the big players and soap constributors are wrong too

http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2000/11/01/protocols/quickref.html sorry XML.COM, turtle thinks you're wrong... so i guess its true

http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-07-2001/jw-0727-letters.html sorry Tarik Modi from javascript.com turtle says you're wrong

http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=2016 sorry redmond mag (huge Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine) turtle says you're wrong and i'm just trolling

http://www.w3.org/Submission/2001/01/ sorry WC3 (www consortium who maintain you know like all the web protocols and the largest web organisation known to man not to mention the ones responsible for the protocol that allows you to read this page), apparantly you're wrong and turtle is right.

http://www.google.co.za/search?num=...soap+"created+by+Microsoft"&btnG=Search&meta= <-- i suppose all of them are wrong too.

That's nuts. So I see you're trolling again, heh .. come on Turtle, just admit you were wrong about SOAP and move on - you just make yourself look worse with desperate "rebuttals" like that.

 

[mbs]

OK, ok... there's not much point in further argument about SOAP - very much like a divorce, it seems there's 3 sides to the story: the right one, the wrong one and the truth. No point in personal attacks either - rather get your jolly's in some other way that will provide real evidence of gratification.
Also moving somewhat OT, imho - point being that Longwait is the issue, and expectations will very likely not be met. Doesn't really affect me, but I do indeed empathise with the Windows brigade...

 

[slimothy]

i did provide evidence, I am right, and so is google, cnet, w3c, redmond mag and xml.com
so you should get your jollies by not making things up on the spot, thanks

 

[mbs]

Slimothy, I will merely reiterate that said earlier - I am not inclined to get embroiled in a pointless debate with you about irrelevancies. If you believe you are right based on the evidence you've provided, so be it. Those who read this forum may form their own opinions based on the content and quality of postings - I certainly do, as do many others.

As you yourself have pointed out, there are many contrary and conflicting bits of 'evidence' able to be gleaned from the Internet, even to the point of proving that 'the sun doesn't exist'. My personal opinion is that publisher editorial policy, particularly that of a respected publisher such as Sams, dictates that the accuracy and validity of hard-copy published material be without question, as this provides incontrovertible proof in the event of litigation. However, whatever rocks your boat. 'Nuf said - no more postings from me about this.

 

[slimothy]

ok but i was talking about little blogs and stuff, not WC3.ORG AND XML.COM

there are also press releases from microsoft so yeah they invented soap and developed it on their own untill version 0.9 when they sent out a 'request for comments (RFC)' its all well documented... so yeah you can believe your book but anyone who knows anything about anything would realise wc3.org manage web protocols so they know more.

You're not saying I'm wrong, I wouldn't care if it was just me but its another user in this thread as well as IBM, Sun, Jin Corp, Oasis, Microsoft, Cnet, XML.com, CNET.com and hopefully if i mention the last one it will sink in .... THE WWW CONSORTIUM (as apposed to your 'book' which nobody but you can see... and I guess I should mention that not everything published is accurate if your book even exists

so if you believe microsoft didnt invent it... then you believe just about anything