Hi there, I just found THIS on the web. It's about Microsoft being an inventor or not. Please, DO NOT use this to open up a new flamewar of pro's and cons's of M$ and how evel they are and the like. I rather provided the like for a general understand where such things come from, where such innovations originate and the like. Broadens the horizon a little.
I find it just interesting.
Have fun,
McTrinsic
They've avoided a lot of the core and peripheral technologies that MS have created. It mostly seems like an MS bashing page to me. To name two areas in which MS are/were innovative (note I'm not saying 100% original because almost everyone borrows or modifies everyone elses ideas) DirectX first of all and NTFS.
Well, the article is from 1999.
Let's see if I can answer the "core" inventions by Microsoft.
1) DirectX
OpenGL is from 1992. I *think* but I am not sure that the WinG, the precedessor of DirectX, was from 1993-1994.
2) NTFS
While NTFS is a welcome element of the WindowsNT series of OSes, I do think that actual invention took place in Unix, where similar filesystems were developed earlier (Contra can you confirm?).
Have fun,
McTrinsic
Wasn't the Windows NT (and his sequences, 2000 and XP) derived from Unix, just like OS X?
NT did not really come from Unix. The only part that did was the Network Stack from BSD (which almost all OSs use).
And the Unix File systems and the NT file system were developed around the same time. But considering Unix came first you *could* say they ripped it off, but if you say that, everyone ripped everything from the really early OSs.
I was trying to get that point across too. Wow so who's really innovative then? No one big really it's the smaller companies who are really pushing the edge.
I'm not going to get into an "apple bashing" competition here but a ton of their hardware and software is for want of a better word rather "derivative" too.
NTFS comes from MS. As does DirectX, and the development of the OpenGL standard used universally today. Alex St. James actually has an excellent series of articles on the internal development of DirectX and OpenGl inside of Microsoft, the disagreements the two teams had, and where we are today in terms gaming standards.
Actually, Microsofts inventive genius is similar to what makes The United States such an incredbily diverse, dominating world power: the abilty to take whats been done by others, improve upon to make it actually useful, then repackage it. Re-combining ideas, dusting off discarded plans or just adding a feature to an existing product can make a huge impact in the way an idea or item is received by the world.
In that America is referred to as a 'melting pot' in more than just different types of people but in our acceptance of so many diverse ways of thought, Microsoft is the 'melting pot' of the computer industry. Did American auto makers invent the car? No, but they figured out a way to mass produce the car as a viable means of public transportation. Did Microsoft invent the mouse? No, but the figured out a way to make it etremely more useful than just a single button click device.
The proof is in the numbers: it's given that Microsoft oownz the software industry. The public has elected, with their pocketbooks, Microsofts way of thinking. That in itself shows that Microsoft is the true innovator.
Personally, I like to follow this analogy of Microsoft = The United States to its natural conclusion, which is that Apple = Cuba. Sure, it's a beautiful country, with little crime. But if you want to do something different than whats been dictated by Steve Jo...I mean Fidel Castro, than you're just out of luck.
Learn to swim Apple users! Learn to swim!
Cuba is an oppressed country. You get shot if you try to leave. Comparing this to a computer company is unfair and im sure offensive to some people.
Other than that, I agree.
Though that doesnt mean we shouldn't appreciate or remember the TRUE innovators (the person that did invent the car,etc)
Though the big difference is that the US allows and encourages other cultures and ways of thinking. Microsoft is forcibly trying to crush any other way other than Windows.
Originally posted by deadzombie@Jul 26 2003, 06:14 PMNTFS comes from MS. As does DirectX, and the development of the OpenGL standard used universally today.
OpenGL did NOT come from Microsoft. It was originally developed by SGI, MS developed Directx to compete with it.
I just want to note that I know NOTHING about this, so I'm not trying to say "I'm right" here or anything like that, but
I think what he meant was that Microsoft took what SGI did with OpenGL and refined it into a universal standard.
Am I right on that?
To be honest I feel that this topic is getting dangerously close to flamebait I mean digging up an article from 99 and saying it's "interesting" ? The banner itself is blatantly anti-MSFT itself "say no to monopolies boycott micro$oft (sic)" (BTW I hate it when people type M$ or whatever it's pretty stupid imo). The whole issue is pretty much a non issue and flame bait on top of that. (BTW I want to know what the hell Apple is if it isn't a failed attempt at a monopoly to ties us into hardware and software? No actually don't bother answering that question or the maclot faithful will come running in and being unreasonable as all hell) someone just close this topic please imo it's pure flame bait and trolling.
Originally posted by Nephilim@Jul 26 2003, 11:12 PMOpenGL did NOT come from Microsoft. It was originally developed by SGI, MS developed Directx to compete with it.
OpenGL did come from Microsoft, developed for SGI. Microsoft had two development teams going in the early/ mid 90's, one for DirectX, led by Alex St.James, and one for OpenGL. It was the Microsoft OpenGL development team that pulled in companies like Elsa, nVidia and Id software to support OpenGL. That is why to this day John Carmack is a supporter of OpenGL, a CAD rendering standard, for use in games.
DirectX eventually won the internal Microsoft battle by pulling in more developers. According to Alex St.James, both camps inside Microsoft competed for years to have their standard 'win' over the other.
And please, before we argue over this, understand that I didn't just read this - Ive followed it through the years, keeping up (and using) high end CAD cards, picking apart OpenGL wrappers, and reading the .plans as they came out from almost every camp. I was probably using SGI CAD stations and attending international trade shows before most people even knew what the company 3DFX was.
That is why to this day John Carmack is a supporter of OpenGL, a CAD rendering standard, for use in games.
Thank god he loves OpenGL. Otherwise he may not have made a Linux version of DOOM 3.
I couldn't tell you which is better, but if Doom 3 can be made in OpenGL, its not bad. And since you can use it across all platforms, I think people should choose that. I mean, why would a developer want to be stuck with Microsoft? (rhetorical question)
Thanks for all the input.
But I would like to repeat that this thread was not meant to be a flamebait. I was intrigued by the idea that you can build a monopoly without inventing anything. So part of the question is, "does M$ invent". That is especially interesting since Microsoft seem generally to be percieved as a quite innovative comapny. I mean, the general customer Joe Sixpack most probably hears M$ is bringing out one OS after the other an introduces new features. I am convinced (s)he considers M$ to be the inventor of these new features.
I guess this adds to the question of how much influence marketing really has and with how much bullying in the market you can get away.
And that, I find interesting.
Have fun,
McTrinsic
Originally posted by deadzombie@Jul 27 2003, 04:57 PMOpenGL did come from Microsoft, developed for SGI. Microsoft had two development teams going in the early/ mid 90's, one for DirectX, led by Alex St.James, and one for OpenGL. It was the Microsoft OpenGL development team that pulled in companies like Elsa, nVidia and Id software to support OpenGL. That is why to this day John Carmack is a supporter of OpenGL, a CAD rendering standard, for use in games.
I'm not getting into a pissing match here, but I guess by what you are saying you are basically calling SGI liars.
Directly from SGI's website:
"The OpenGL® API (Application Programming Interface) began as an initiative by SGI to create a single, vendor-independent API for the development of 2D and 3D graphics applications."
and
"SGI saw the lack of a standard graphics API as an inhibitor to the growth of the 3D marketplace and decided to lead an industry group in creating such a standard.
The result of this work was the OpenGL API, which was largely based on earlier work on the SGI® IRIS GLTM library. The OpenGL API began as a specification, then SGI produced a sample implementation that hardware vendors could use to develop OpenGL drivers for their hardware. The sample implementation has been released under an open source license."
McTrinsic:Why do you say this thread is not flamebait, then deride Microsoft for bullying and dishonesty to the customer?
Microsoft is bringing new features to the consumer, regardless of where the idea for these features took root, Microsoft is delivering the goods.
For example, OpenGL never would have happened if it wasn't for Microsofts development of it...so both Mac and PC users alike would have missed out on great games. Not life altering, but significant. CAD modeling would have been slow (er) and clumsy if it wasn't for this development. Who cares about CAD? Every consumer should, as everything from the iMac shell to Harley's to the chair you're sitting in was first developed from an engineers sketchpad in a CAD application. Something that Apple is sorely lacking.
Is Internet Explorer innovative? It is in the way it saturated the peoples home, opening up simple internet access. Is it the best browser? Not by far, and few features are original - but it was free and widely distrubuted, which is a type of innovation in itself.
Microsoft was the driving force behind the wireless world we find ourselves stepping into. Sure other companies have developed the standards, sure others have done the hardware R&D. Yet it was Microsoft that purchased a controlling share of Nextel and put up the money to build the national wireless infrastructure, forcing companies like Sprint, AT&T, PrimeCO and others to keep up and stay competitive. If you like that wireless internet connection on that 17" Powerbook, you have Microsoft to thank for the network of wireless towers that has popped up in the last 5 years.
I guess my point is this: All the great innovations in the world don't mean anything if they don't find their way into the hands of the public. This is where Microsoft delivers, literally - bringing these great ideas under a single package to the masses. This is what has pushed and fueled the computer industry, keeping companies like Xerox, Apple, IBM, nVidia, Id, Cisco and others in business. Thousands of companies, millions of non-microsoft jobs, are owed in thanks to the Microsoft vision.
Regardless if they think up every little idea or not, Microsoft is bringing you the future. And leaving enough room for companies like Apple to ride their coattails.
Originally posted by McTrinsic@Jul 25 2003, 11:15 AM
2) NTFS
While NTFS is a welcome element of the WindowsNT series of OSes, I do think that actual invention took place in Unix, where similar filesystems were developed earlier (Contra can you confirm?).
Have fun,
McTrinsic
Do you know how many people still do not use NTFS due to it not being as snappy as the FAT32 filesystem.
Thanks for clarifying your point, DZ.
I still think this thread is no flamebait. I have yet to hear "M$ sux", "Apple is s**t" and the like. What I have read so far is discussion, and thats what a forum is about, to share informations and mutual points of view.
For example, I learned that M$ did start both DirectX *and* OpenGL. That was news to me (I still am a bit puzzled as to why they had to additionally do DX, but it might have been to have a Win-exclusive platform or somnething like that. Somehow reminds me of the fact that they did OS/2 and then Win95).
I was originally interested in the question if a market-leader has to be innovative. This is something not only I am wondering about, look at Contrasuta's sig, for example. I did not intend to bash M$, though I sure don't like them that much. The behaviour of M$ is well known and even documented.
What I learn from your answer, is that you don't care about who has invented what first and the like. It appears to me that what matters to you is the fact that M$ achieved something by bringing it to the mass market. Though I personally disagree, I can accept that as a point of view which is based on certain opinions.
Others might think different, and I was interested in what different opinions on that topic there might be.
Have fun,
McTrinsic
Thanks for clarifying your point too; I was worried where we were headed.
So we do have different points of view - I see them as market leaders for delivering the goods. You see others as market leaders for having the brilliant ideas.
Well I don't actually know anyone who isn't using NTFS instead of FAT32 unless they're on 9x/ME. Taking into account todays penchant for Large HDD's hmmm how does FAT32 handle 80 gig hdd's? The words poorly come to mind It'd flake out, so snappier? No. The only reason NTFS could be comparably called "slow" is due to the full paging it has and even then it's not all that slow. What truely limits HDD speeds is guess what? HDD Speeds, it's got almost bugger all to do with the filing system.
to quote from http://www.makeitsimple.com/sections.php?o...ntpage&artid=10
"FAT16: The file system used for MS-DOS. 16-bit numbers are used to represent cluster numbers, which allows for partitions of up to 2 Gigabytes. It was efficient for its time, but cluster sizes are far too large for today's large hard disks. It is also restricted in cluster size.
FAT32 / VFAT: The preferred file system for Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows 98. It is an extension to FAT16, providing 32-bit numbers for clusters. Like FAT16, there are cluster size restrictions.
NTFS: The file system for Microsoft Windows NT. NTFS is considerably better than FAT32 and has no cluster size restrictions, although at a certain point the slack space consumes so much of the hard disk that alternate systems are needed. NTFS also provides permission controls and RAID support."
also please read http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/p...t/wd2000bb.html
and note "The results in two file systems don't differ a lot. Thus, WD2000BB is an indisputable leader at writing. Overall, the HDDs got ranked exactly by their "age". "
So explain how or why NTFS is inferior to FAT16/32 please?
I think you already know the answer to that. From your post I conclude that I'm not the first person to tell you this.
Only a few days ago I had the chance to sit on this very same Dell Inspiron laptop of a friends, only when installing XP he had been unfortunate enough to click the "convert to NTFS" button, on a side by side comparison, fresh install, there are noticably fewer and shorter hd writes when performing the same functions (calling up administrative tasks, etc).
I have been interested in this issue for a long time, as I have always felt FAT32 to be faster myself. In this regard, I have had the chance to use many NTFS and FAT32 machines and have come to conclude that for all but the newest and largest sized HD machines that FAT32 seems fastest. Especially on the older
P2 450 - P3 800 4200 RPM range the difference is most significant.
Obviously FAT32 does not benefit from the added file security that NTFS offers, but I have yet to see a file go "bad" on a computer.
Also I have found that the speed advantage of FAT32 tends to become less and less the more recent the machine that is tested. As you say machines with HD's the size of which you mentioned have no business running on FAT32.
Please do not assume that I'm trying to start an argument, all of this is my own opinion, but from your post I am inclined to presume that you have not tried to convert your HD to FAT32 (assuming it's applicable to your machine), as you would have definitely noticed the increase in speed.
While you really can't debate user preference, I have to say that the NTFS/ Fat32 debate is silly. NTFS is more stable and secure, and just as fast as Fat32. Not to mention alot more flexible. Perhaps some of the lag time comes from NTFS not being properly setup on a HD...like any system that is more advanced than its predecessor, NTFS requires more knowledge to setup properly, has more options to adjust to a users preference and generally requires that the user not just install and go, but actually take a few minutes to learn how to properly use the file system they have installed.
The true test isn't Fat32/ NTFS - it's going to be NTFS/ WinFS. This will require a dynamic change in the way users actually think about their files. Expanding to a metareference access to your database instead of just relying on heirarchy will probably stump most computer users who have the file cabinet mentality ingrained into them from decades of linear thinking...
Tell me about it
All my drives and subdirs and even including the backup CD's I make have a hierarchy. One of my own devising I admit BUT it is one that follows a definite logic. I have a downloads directory on my Data drive and it has sub directories for media applications and codecs, general applications, networking tools etc etc etc and the same goes for my mp3 directories if you take a little while to scan the directory structure I've laid out all across all my drives then it makes a great deal of sense but with WinFS I'm going to have to learn a whole new system of doing it.
i think IE is one of the least innovative apps microsoft has.
What is innovative is the way MS managed to exploit its monopoly to get complete control of web browsers and then basically get out free from the resulting court cases.
Originally posted by BamBam@Jul 28 2003, 12:26 PMTell me about it
All my drives and subdirs and even including the backup CD's I make have a hierarchy. One of my own devising I admit BUT it is one that follows a definite logic. I have a downloads directory on my Data drive and it has sub directories for media applications and codecs, general applications, networking tools etc etc etc and the same goes for my mp3 directories if you take a little while to scan the directory structure I've laid out all across all my drives then it makes a great deal of sense but with WinFS I'm going to have to learn a whole new system of doing it.
This is exactly how I manage my files, in fact I spent all of last night getting everything the way I like it....
What do you know of the WinFS system,.. how will it be different?
Edit:// jesus, all files are just dumped in there but have tags instead of a directory layout?
Aqua-Soft Forums