Microsft, The [non]-inventor ?

Thats one option - office cabinet file system can still be used also. There are already software companies working on expanding the WinFS system to actually recognize things like images inside your images, to the WinFS system will be able to reference files by more than just whatever tag description. You could drop 300 images of sunsets, 1,000 lesbian pron files and 35 computer pics on your HD, wherever. Then a search for "skin" would actually extract the info from the images, even if all the files are named "image100x..."

I hope this makes sense...

#43287

here's an okayish explanation of winfs but a little light on details http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/20030...0617/index.html

#43294

I currently have MS Longhorn build 4015 (M5) loaded and there are some major issues ith the current implementaion of WinFS.

First off, the process WINFS.EXE is huge... eats 96MB of memory.

Second, it stores all the files system info in a very large DB file at the root of the master partition.

I have a test box with a 30GB HD in it with a generic install. No other apps added.

The WinFS db that is stored in the root of C: is about 200MB.

That's a lot of data for just a plain install.

FYI... the WinFS db is just an Access MDB and LDB file. Yes... two files.

Looks like they are using the old Access 95 file format for storing file info.

I have captured the data in the db and imported it to another PC for further examination.

It contains a ton of data about every file on you system... everything from file size and type, location and permissions.

This make searching for a file very fast, as it does not have to scan the entire drive to find file info, just looks it up in the db.

From a security perspective, it's horrible. I was able to grab these files right off the disk without any tweaking or tricks, just shut down the Windows Future Storage service, yes it can be done while the system is live, and grab the files. Which means all someone would have to do is copy the files (DB) to another system and open them with MS Access and they would know everthing that is on your system and who the owner of those files is.

Since then, I have killed the service permanently and stuck with the standard NTFS file system.

This is not truely a new FS as it it's just a service that runs on top of NTFS.

Looks to be more like an enhanced version of the Indexing Service.

#43302

heh it IS an alpha not a full implementation yet what did you expect?

#43304

*shakes his head*

Palm is being bashed repeatedly for not having a filesystem for their PDAs. What they have is basically some database containing info on the files. And now you tell me M$ is going the same way??

Now I just wait for M$ to use Creator-IDs on their files.

Have fun,

McTrinsic

#43418

Originally posted by deadzombie@Jul 28 2003, 11:08 AM

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.

Look if you guys are going to talk about this stuff. At least get your facts straight.

I don't know where you get the idea that Microsoft developed OpenGL. I think you need to go back and read those "white papers" again. You might see that they are talking about Microsoft's "implementation" of OpenGL for Windows. Their "port" of OpenGL to the Windows platform.

DirectX is in nearly direct competition to OpenGL John Carmack of id Software has spoken volumes on the subject and continues to refuse to use DirectX for a few reasons, one of them being that it's from Microsoft, and 2 being that he thinks DirectX is not as good of an API as OpenGL (and I'm inclined to agree).

If you want more information check both Microsoft's website (specifically the MSDN sections) and SGI's website. Even better, go to google and do a search on OpenGL licensing.

SGI developed OpenGL, not Microsoft. Microsoft developed and implementation of it for the windows platform. Just so they wouldn't be left behind.

#43510

DZ, You are right that because of Microsoft, we have many great things. But do you know why we have all the things MS wanted? Because they have the money. Its as simple as that, if some other company had as much money and market share as them, they would for sure be pushing new technologies.

and on "letting people ride their coattails". Unfortunatly,not. They are trying desperatly to squash the competition. They are only not easing back because of a COURT ORDER. They really do not have good intentions, for the consumer or for the rest of the industry. They crave an MS dominated world, and will do anything it takes.

Now, if Apple (or some other company) was in MSs position, they may well do the same thing, but as it stands, MS is not an ethical company, just a rich one.

Any Closed Source company is like this. The whole point is to win against the competition, thats why I like Open Source software, its not really "competition" , its a bunch of partners working together, its a better environment, IMO.

Palm is being bashed repeatedly for not having a filesystem for their PDAs. What they have is basically some database containing info on the files. And now you tell me M$ is going the same way??

It will of course have a file system, NTFS. They're just adding a database on top of it. The idea looks promising, though who knows if MS will screw it up, im hoping not.

#43514

Originally posted by Nephilim@Jul 29 2003, 08:28 PM

Look if you guys are going to talk about this stuff.  At least get your facts straight.

SGI developed OpenGL, not Microsoft.  Microsoft developed and implementation of it for the windows platform.  Just so they wouldn't be left behind.

You contradict yourself sir, and do not read my posts as they are written. How can Microsoft not develop OpenGL, then develop it?

As I previously posted, SGI created OpenGL, Microsoft developed it to a useable state.

I don't know where you get the idea that Microsoft developed OpenGL.  I think you need to go back and read those "white papers" again.  You might see that they are talking about Microsoft's "implementation" of OpenGL for Windows.  Their "port" of OpenGL to the Windows platform.

I got this from Alex St.James, the creator and lead developer of DirectX for Microsoft, and a leader in the gaming industry. It was Alex that brought Doom to Windows with Id, and it was Alex that lost Id to Microsofts OpenGL camp.

DirectX is in nearly direct competition to OpenGL  John Carmack of id Software has spoken volumes on the subject and continues to refuse to use DirectX for a few reasons, one of them being that it's from Microsoft, and 2 being that he thinks DirectX is not as good of an API as OpenGL (and I'm inclined to agree).

While Carmack is brilliant, he gets a little unclear at times at who's camp he's in. One year he's a MS supporter, then next hes so anti-Gates its not funny. I guess those tiny nuances get overlooked when your a genius game designer.

If you want more information check both Microsoft's website (specifically the MSDN sections) and SGI's website.  Even better, go to google and do a search on OpenGL licensing.

All in all, this is as muddy as Microsofts development of Java. Sun created Java, Microsoft also developed on top of Suns work and was instrumental in making Java a web standard. Do we see the OpenGL analogy now?

BTW: OpenGL WOULD HAVE DIED if not for Microsoft. SGI was already in a little financial trouble in the late 90's, as many of their CAD deployments were not selling (overpriced and buggy) - SGI did not have the resources to really push OpenGl the way Microsoft did.

Of course, Im probably wrong about this also... :6

#43525

You contradict yourself sir, and do not read my posts as they are written. How can Microsoft not develop OpenGL, then develop it?

As I previously posted, SGI created OpenGL, Microsoft developed it to a useable state.

No, I do not contradict myself. You obviously don't know the difference between developing a standard and developing and implementation of that standard. You said, and I quote "OpenGL did come from Microsoft, developed for SGI." Which as a statement is DEAD wrong.

It's like saying that since Johnny Cash recorded a cover of "In My Life" on his latest album (released late 2002), he must have written it for the Beatles back in the late-50's.

I got this from Alex St.James, the creator and lead developer of DirectX for Microsoft, and a leader in the gaming industry. It was Alex that brought Doom to Windows with Id, and it was Alex that lost Id to Microsofts OpenGL camp.

Then you obviously misinterpreted what he said. Again, there is a big difference from an implementation (i.e. port) for a specific platform and a standard.

While Carmack is brilliant, he gets a little unclear at times at who's camp he's in. One year he's a MS supporter, then next hes so anti-Gates its not funny. I guess those tiny nuances get overlooked when your a genius game designer.

The proof is in the pudding, so they say. So where's id's DirectX game?

All in all, this is as muddy as Microsofts development of Java. Sun created Java, Microsoft also developed on top of Suns work and was instrumental in making Java a web standard. Do we see the OpenGL analogy now?

Ahh...an analogy. Sun created Java. Microsoft ported it to the windows platform. There is no muddiness there. Java was not developed by Microsoft. Microsoft merely took it and made it popular. They didn't create it.

BTW: OpenGL WOULD HAVE DIED if not for Microsoft. SGI was already in a little financial trouble in the late 90's, as many of their CAD deployments were not selling (overpriced and buggy) - SGI did not have the resources to really push OpenGl the way Microsoft did.

This is probably true. Microsoft made OpenGL popular once it was ported to the windows platform and game developers started to use it. Microsoft saw where this gaming/graphics thing was going and decided to develop their own API (DirectX) so that they could make some money off of it.

The rundown so far:

SGI developed (created) OpenGL.

Microsoft implemented (ported) it into the Windows platform and it became popular.

Microsoft did not develop (create) OpenGL.

#43527

It's like saying that since Johnny Cash recorded a cover of "In My Life" on his latest album (released late 2002), he must have written it for the Beatles back in the late-50's.

Late 60's , wow, Johnny Cash doing the Beatles, thats sad, real sad. I didn't even think he was still alive.

#43528

Originally posted by contrasutra@Jul 29 2003, 09:51 PM

Late 60's , wow, Johnny Cash doing the Beatles, thats sad, real sad. I didn't even think he was still alive.

60's...typo.

He is getting up there in the years. His wife died recently too. He did some cool stuff in his day.

#43535

So the invention score is back to Microsoft: 0 and the score for establishing technology Microsoft:100% ??

Have fun,

McTrinsic

#43635

Originally posted by McTrinsic@Jul 30 2003, 04:43 AM

So the invention score is back to Microsoft: 0 and the score for establishing technology Microsoft:100% ??

I wouldn't say ZERO... particularily.. I mean, the did do DirectX, which has become huge, and I'm pretty sure that was original (even if it was created in competition with OpenGL).

And don't forget MineSweeper!

#43670

@Cerebral:

Hey, thats part of whats going on here. Did Microsoft really invent anything? Or did M$ refine technology that was invented by others *ONLY*? If you think they did invent something, lets hear it. We shall see if we can dig something ou that's been first. Otherwise, the score is: 0.

Please, do keep in mind that this does not mean I want to bash M$ for anything. I am interested if they did invent something. Admitted, if not, I'd be disappointed by the fact that you can become market leader (by sales) with out being inventive, but thats hardly anything you can bash M$ for. After all, they made the technologies available. Thats nit the point here.

Have fun,

McTrinsic

(As far as the discussion has gone in this thread, I'd reject DX as an invention from M$.)

#43675

Dissappointment? Thats a little harsh. The were innovative in the way they developed others ideas and brought them to the average human being.

Inventing does not mean innovation - and the thread focuses on innovation.

Think of Microsoft as the Wal*Mart of the software world - they resell others products in a way that nobody else can really compete with.

#43717

did we forget NTFS already?

#43788

as I studied in Economics class:

1) First there's invention

2) Then innovation

3) Then implementation

:smartass:

#43809

@DZ:

I am *personally* disappointed. I did not mean the performance of M$ is disappointing. To keep this thread flamebait-free, I suggest not to discuss this topic .

@BamBam:

I am quite unsure if I should count NTFS to M$'s score. Filesystems with very similar features have existed before.

@Taha:

Thats exactly what scares me. If innovation (and maybe invention) and implementation is done by two different people, and the inventor ... lets say ... fades away, how much innovation will come from the implementor?

Haver fun,

McTrinsic

#43839