Originally Posted By destraex (29 JUL 2012 3:35pm)

 

 

Microsoft ARE releasing their own hardware for windows8 directly. Which has annoyed the traditional hardware manufacturers.

It appears microsoft do not trust manufacturers to release decent machines... remind you of apple?

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2012/jun12/06-18announce.aspx

 

No, sir.

MS is releasing their own hardware because they've seen just how much they can jack the price up on the same cheaply made hardware in such a proprietary system - a' la Apple.

I frookin' loathe Apple and their business practices.   I don't want to see MS going that route and turning everyone into the same exploited cream puffs. 

But I also don't really care for mobile touch devices (or their little program "apps") at the moment, so this Win8 lockdown BS would only be a tool for raping the Mobile Masses.

Originally Posted By ghostryder (29 JUL 2012 8:31pm)

Ghostryder,

 

I may be misinterpreting what you're saying but Xerox created the first GUI...ie, Windows.

Microsoft Windows is NOT a GUI. It's a mulitasking Operating system. Programs can exist in different windows and run at the same time-with the only limited factor being available ram. You have to have a windowed interface-but that's more like saying you need a wheel for a car. If two programs run at the same time that's the only wasy to set up a user interface (GUI)

A GUI is just that-and it doesn't take an OS to create one. You can create GUI's in simple LUA script that can look like either a mac gui or a windows gui--it does not mean programs in them multitask however. All the hoopla over who stoled what was written by tech ignorants that see two simuliar interfaces and 'assume' behind the interface everything is the same. It's good Drama but factually it's BS.

 

In the old dos days there was no such thing as multi-tasking. you has IRQ's (interrupts) and everything in the machine had to take turns for access. Programs, mice, sound, or whatever. Some 17 visable ones that a user could configure and many more hidden within the os code and controller chips.

 

Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 facked multitaking. you could have two programs in two seperate windows but they 'waited' in the IRQ lineup. However if you were programming on OS-9 on the tandy color computer you had the first true multi-tasking available. What GUI operated it was irrellevant. The address was just 64k-but in those days that was huge- and some of the best and most powerful software and games were created with it. And that credit goes again to microware Systems.

Apple actually years later not only ripped that off but used the name as well. And by the time windows 98 came around (a system still piggybacking on Dos and IRQ interrupts BTW which technically proves MS did not steal apple tech) the tandy was history, 386's were being sold heavily while the Mac mostly catered to Engineers, Arcitechs and the like because it was mult-tasking and doing graphic computations faster.

 

Windows really didn't see true multi-tasking until it got off Dos and the 9x kernel- Windows XP. (although this already was on Windows NT for some time so it did not first appear on personal OS's).

 

Apple and Windows have simular GUI's- but that has nothing ro do with the tech in the OS's. In fact Windows 7 copies the Linux Ubuntu GUI's moreso than Apple's and UAC is a very poor copy of linux's security tech.

 

I followed all this closely having seen 3 versions of Windows 95 (a.b.and c), Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Mellineum, and i left during beta of Windows XP. And none prior to Xp was mult-tasking. The IRQ's were there and clearly visable in device manager via the control panel and could be configured as they were in DOS.

 

had microsoft actually stole anything from Apple that would have disappeared by the time 98 released at the latest. And if OS-9 didn't exist there would be no Apple.

 

And BTW Microsoft releases hardware as apple does-be it the 360, the sidewinder Joystick or whatnot. Apple does it's version of MP3 players, droids and tablets- but the computers are built by third parties that are contracted. In this sense there is little differencpc's end up unaffected by this as MS are note in the two companies-so trying to label Microsoft as just an OS company isn't accurrate- anymore than trying to claim Apple is a manfacturer of hardware. Apple contracts out. Nothing whatsoever is built at an Apple plant---there's no such thing.

Well thats splitting hairs - I think it matters very little who actually builds the stuff - they are sold as specifcally apple computers - and thats how people see it. No one says "I am going to buy an MS PC next" but they do say I am going to get a Mac. That essentially is what windows 8 is all about. Joe bloggs in taiwan may build it but I think we will see that things are now going to be specifically marketed as MS hardware products (aside from one game console and a couple of peripherals thast no one except gamers care about). Apple makes huge profits precisely because they have things like the app store and have it locked down. you cant even develop for an apple product unless you pay them money. My argument is that windows 8 represent a shift in microsofts paradigm - they need to compete and they see this as the way to do it. It may be that desktop PCs are relatively unaffected by this and I certainly hope so  - but only because MS see that as an "old" market they have already conquered.  I beleive there is also a shift in what users want - businesses are facing increasing demand from staff for things like iPads simply because for lots of them they find it easier to use and with a couple of peripherals can do most of what they need using them.

In any case what the original post was trying to establish was less to do with what most have been talking about but more to do with what the steam guy saw that scared him so much - from all I have read I am yet to establish whether he was crying wolf or had a genuine point. 

I do not think Windows 8 tablets are solely going to be Microsoft products as apple's. They will have their version and HP will have one, Dell will have one, ASUS will have one and so on. This is clear by the press release. Read these lines as an example:

Conceived, designed and engineered entirely by Microsoft employees, and building on the company’s 30-year history manufacturing hardware, Surface is designed to seamlessly transition between consumption and creation, without compromise.

One of the strengths of Windows is its extensive ecosystem of software and hardware partners, delivering selection and choice that makes a customer’s Windows experience uniquely their own. This continues with Surface. Microsoft is delivering a unique contribution to an already strong and growing ecosystem of functional and stylish devices delivered by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to bring the experience of Windows to consumers and businesses around the globe.

Suggested retail pricing will be announced closer to availability and is expected to be competitive with a comparable ARM tablet or Intel Ultrabook-class PC. OEMs will have cost and feature parity on Windows 8 and Windows RT.

Any manufacturer can build their version as an OEM. heck I am concidered an OEM when I build my own systems and legally am sold an OEM version of Windows 7. And so are you if you choose. In fact all you need to do is buy one hardware component like a mouse to legally buy an OEM version.

Also given Microsofts track record in marketing they'd fail if they tried. Look at this years E3. Gee, I can watch netfix on the 360 if i have a gold membership. Why would anyone pay Microsoft $5 for a gold membership to pay netflix $8 when they can simply pay netflix $8 and watch it on a PS3?

The Xbox didn't monopolize the console world and it's not going to do that here either.

As for Steam again I believe they are crying wolf. Steam has a zero presense in mobile apps and being 'locked out' just means Steam can't have a mobile app store without paying the 20 percent like everyone else. It's as if they are complaining they can't sell console games on the 360 because they are 'locked out".

I do believe however if this app store exists on a desktop a lot of casual computer users are going to buying apps their desktop can't use. That is screwy.

This is the true start of the mobile wars. HP, ASUS, Compaq, and everyone else now has an official mobile OS to install to compete. If I were betting who'd win I'd say ASUS will likely have the most powerful and cost effective one but the others could surprise us. I doubt Microsoft's will be the best or cheapest.

I can't wait until the time comes when the next game hit on this results in a guy owning a $500 apple tablet can't play that great game everyone else is enjoying on a $199 ASUS tablet. Some things never change.

Originally Posted By ghostryder (29 JUL 2012 8:31pm)

Ghostryder,

 

I may be misinterpreting what you're saying but Xerox created the first GUI...ie, Windows.

Microsoft Windows is NOT a GUI. It's a mulitasking Operating system. Programs can exist in different windows and run at the same time-with the only limited factor being available ram. You have to have a windowed interface-but that's more like saying you need a wheel for a car. If two programs run at the same time that's the only wasy to set up a user interface (GUI)

A GUI is just that-and it doesn't take an OS to create one. You can create GUI's in simple LUA script that can look like either a mac gui or a windows gui--it does not mean programs in them multitask however. All the hoopla over who stoled what was written by tech ignorants that see two simuliar interfaces and 'assume' behind the interface everything is the same. It's good Drama but factually it's BS.

 

In the old dos days there was no such thing as multi-tasking. you has IRQ's (interrupts) and everything in the machine had to take turns for access. Programs, mice, sound, or whatever. Some 17 visable ones that a user could configure and many more hidden within the os code and controller chips.

 

Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 facked multitaking. you could have two programs in two seperate windows but they 'waited' in the IRQ lineup. However if you were programming on OS-9 on the tandy color computer you had the first true multi-tasking available. What GUI operated it was irrellevant. The address was just 64k-but in those days that was huge- and some of the best and most powerful software and games were created with it. And that credit goes again to microware Systems.

Apple actually years later not only ripped that off but used the name as well. And by the time windows 98 came around (a system still piggybacking on Dos and IRQ interrupts BTW which technically proves MS did not steal apple tech) the tandy was history, 386's were being sold heavily while the Mac mostly catered to Engineers, Arcitechs and the like because it was mult-tasking and doing graphic computations faster.

 

Windows really didn't see true multi-tasking until it got off Dos and the 9x kernel- Windows XP. (although this already was on Windows NT for some time so it did not first appear on personal OS's).

 

Apple and Windows have simular GUI's- but that has nothing ro do with the tech in the OS's. In fact Windows 7 copies the Linux Ubuntu GUI's moreso than Apple's and UAC is a very poor copy of linux's security tech.

 

I followed all this closely having seen 3 versions of Windows 95 (a.b.and c), Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Mellineum, and i left during beta of Windows XP. And none prior to Xp was mult-tasking. The IRQ's were there and clearly visable in device manager via the control panel and could be configured as they were in DOS.

 

had microsoft actually stole anything from Apple that would have disappeared by the time 98 released at the latest. And if OS-9 didn't exist there would be no Apple.

 

And BTW Microsoft releases hardware as apple does-be it the 360, the sidewinder Joystick or whatnot. Apple does it's version of MP3 players, droids and tablets- but the computers are built by third parties that are contracted. In this sense there is little difference in the two companies-so trying to label Microsoft as just an OS company isn't accurrate- anymore than trying to claim Apple is a manfacturer of hardware. Apple contracts out. Nothing whatsoever is built at an Apple plant---there's no such thing.

I'm an old programmer and definitely aware of what you write above but the quote you quoted I think when people are referring to Microsoft stealing from Apple it's concerning the GUI which Apple effectively stole from Xerox...not the OS behind it.