# Is a new OS even possible these days?



## ADF (Jul 13, 2007)

I was thinking of the possibility of Microsoft ever actually getting proper competition, but the more I read into it the more I see it as being impossible.

Lets for instance say Google is going you make their own OS, applying the complexity through simplicity design they apply to everything to create a highly optimized and clean looking operating system. Operating systems require a butt load of code, so they start working on it as soon as possible.

What is the bad side to this?

Well where do they start? Actually making the OS isn't the issue, it is just a matter of time and resources. The problem is doing it without being sued to oblivion! Every little piece of code is copyrighted these days, I keep seeing stories appear on tech sites every day with someone claiming copyright infringement on code or tech. They start writing the kernel and some guy will jump out from under the nearest rock and claim they are copying his code design.

Ok I have sat classes on user interface design; mental models, cognitive thought limitations and all that. So I know there are certain standards you have to meet in order to ensure ease of use and high productivity. But if you attempt to abide by any one them; someone, somewhere will sue you. Even simple stuff like clicking the mouse a certain way have copyrights, it is absolutely ridicules. Microsoft owns the copyright on the double click, Ebay owns the copyright on a single click to place a bid and so on.

So I ask you, because of the idiot who declared you can copyright anything that isn't human (yeah thanks for that)... how can anyone develop a OS to compete with Windows when every standard requirement is owned by someone? Even the open source communities have someone breathing down their necks waiting for a excuse to sue for so called damages.


----------



## yak (Jul 13, 2007)

GPL v.3

Microsoft will have serious problems themselves because they have used thousands of copyrighted things, and GPL v.3 addresses them with special scrutiny. The backdoor in the v.2 that allowed them to do so is no longer present in v.3

But i have to agree, all this is incredibly stupid. 
Like, i recall at some time one pharmaceutical company tried to patent strawberry flavor >.>


----------



## ADF (Jul 13, 2007)

Hell why not, cadbury's chocolate has copyrighted their particular shade of purple :lol: that isn't really funny


----------



## nobuyuki (Jul 13, 2007)

making an operating system is a big undertaking, however it is not impossible to do, even now.  Check it:

Plan 9:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs  
SkyOS:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyOS  (closed source !)
Kolibri:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KolibriOS
AROS: http://aros.sourceforge.net/ open source amiga OS, looks like the mascot was drawn by EWS (an amiga fanatic)
BeOS:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS  one of the first consumer level 64bit OS's
ZETA:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnussoft_ZETA

Finally, and I think you'll like this one:

ReactOS:  http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html   a windows compatible operating system


----------



## Aikon (Jul 13, 2007)

Microsoft owns the patent to double-click on limited resource computers, not on desktops.  

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5072

Honestly, I'm happy with either Microsoft or Apple.  I couldn't stand Linux.  Most people nowadays don't really think much of an OS unless they're into computers.  I think that's slowly changing with problems Microsoft is facing with it's OS's lately, but most people don't even know what an OS is or what OS they have.

And while I support free creativity and invention, all the free OS's look like shit.  I'm an eye candy whore, I want an OS that's easy on the eyes and simple to navigate.  Although I don't like spending money (who does), I'd rather pay for it unless a good looking free OS were to come out.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 13, 2007)

A company wanting to make it's own OS wouldn't necessarily have to start from scratch. Some operating systems have licenses that basically say, "You can do whatever the hell you want, just don't come whining to us when you break it or it breaks you."


----------



## ADF (Jul 13, 2007)

I don't particularly care how a OS looks as long as it does its job, I always set XP to windows 98 classic mode so the silly eye candy doesn't slow anything down. I would rather have a fast and efficient OS than a pretty one.

Speaking of which there is more wrong with Vista than it being bloated, I hear there is a confirmed 20 background processors that gather user data and phone home <.=.< bloody Microsoft will get away with anything these days.


			
				nobuyuki said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> Finally, and I think you'll like this one:
> 
> ReactOS:  http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html   a windows compatible operating system


Oh it won't be long before Microsoft goes after them :lol: it is a interesting idea, but MS will do something eventually.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 13, 2007)

I don't think they can go after ReactOS any more than they can go after Wine...


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 13, 2007)

I can see Google pulling what Apple did. Mac OS X is pretty much FreeBSD with a new interface and PowerPC legacy support for Mac developers. I can see Google doing the same thing with either a BSD or a Linux base.


----------



## ADF (Jul 13, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> I don't think they can go after ReactOS any more than they can go after Wine...


Don't worry they will find a way, Microsoft is a expert at bending the law to suit their needs. They will at least fear monger their customers about the OS being less secure.

I may have a play with it through my virtualisation software, don't have a spare drive/partition to try it.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 13, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> net-cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just tried it on my virtualbox. It runs, it has potential, but like it says on the website its still in alpha form. I can't see it as a full windows replacement in the near future. Maybe a few years down the line after they add NTFS (or some other format like ext3 or something) and a bunch of other things. But I think its never gonna truly be a replacement for windows unless they make some kind of open source build of Direct X that fully supports Direct X functions without the use of DX -> OpenGL wrappers.

And as for the lawsuits the OS and WINE are simply conforming to standards set by Microsoft. They're not using any code from the windows environment itself as its mostly API simulation. MS hasn't bothered going after either of them because they're not considered threats due to their native instability and imperfections. MS doesn't need lawsuits or slander, currently any end user can see using the genuine article is much more reliable then using an emulator or simulator. Its why the use of virtual machines are pretty popular amongst the Mac and *nix communities as you're running a real copy of Windows inside your OS.


----------



## Aikon (Jul 13, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Speaking of which there is more wrong with Vista than it being bloated, I hear there is a confirmed 20 background processors that gather user data and phone home <.=.< bloody Microsoft will get away with anything these days.



Although I don't doubt it, where did you hear this?  I want to know what to disable


----------



## ADF (Jul 13, 2007)

Aikon said:
			
		

> Although I don't doubt it, where did you hear this?  I want to know what to disable


Although not where I read about it, this is the best google can bring up on the subject.


----------



## nobuyuki (Jul 13, 2007)

a couple things:

1.  Saw the comments on a youtube video that ReactOS isn't super happy running on virtualization software cause not all the driver support is there yet

2.  it would be nice if they could get ext3 running on WINDOWS but everyone seems content with the ext2 driver (which afaik isn't safe)

3.  Software patents are a funny thing.  Ever wonder why Microsoft is only threatening to sue Linux developers and not actually doing it?  The Free Software Foundation has its own patent repertoire which could seriously hurt microsoft's profit margins if they actually got sued for it.  Their OS copies a looot more from Linux than vice versa, but it's all under-the-hood, like 25 year old stuff.  The most basic building blocks of the OS.  Imagine what kind of sales impact they would have if an injunction took windows off the shelves pending appeal.

4.  I'd like DirectX running in a non-windows OS, too.  WineX (and that for-profit cedega thing) share the code around with each other eventually, which gets leaked back to reactOS.  It would be nice for a modular integration so you wouldn't have to rebuild the kernel to support stuff like that, unless a stable directX replacement magically comes out.  Which you probably won't see happen anytime soon unless a big company starts paying for it.


----------



## Janglur (Jul 13, 2007)

Actually, i've seen more *Nix users these days than ever before.Â Â Plus there's some insane projects like MineuteOS, a 1.44 MB fully operational Win98-equivalent with SSH, FTP, and webserver built in, quake, doom1+2, and several emulators, and the ability to run some commercial M$ products natively.

Vista has turned out to be a surprisingly large load of crap, and most people wouldn't get it if it weren't forced down their throats with a new PC.
As a result, i'm seeing *Nix downloads increase at an exponential rate.Â Â They're still the minority, but yeah.

Of my friends, all 26, they are:
1 Vista
16 WinXP
2 Win2k
7 Linux

As their PRIMARY OS.Â Â If you count all their PCs/OSs:
2 Vista
19 WinXP
2 Win2k
12 Linux

Why anyone needs to own 5 PCs I dunno, but it's still cool.

But then, my friends are far more computer saavy than the normal person.


Edit:
I myself used 3 PCs until I had to decomission one.  I use one with WinXP Pro and one with Win2k, my psuedo-server.
I have tried Linux, but found it's driver support woefully inadequate for my needs.

My requirements for an OS, in order of importance:
Customizeability/Adjustability
Reliability
Efficiency
Ease of Use
Cost

So far, WinXP actually meets that above other choices.  It allows me to fine-tune my devices as needed, where Linux distro's can't even support half my hardware and plans.  (And when I say Linux I do mean /all of them/.  If a driver doesn't exist, it doesn't exit.)
I also prefer an OS with reasonable uptime.  To me, reasonable is 15-30 days or more.  My record on XPPro is 68, until Youtube crashed my VC somehow.
Finally, the OS must be efficient.  This disqualifies the almighty fuck out of Vista right there.  Even XP is horrendously bloated to me (which is why I use TinyXP, <170 MB XP!)  You can boast performance all you want, but the truth is that the more shit you load an OS with, the slower it WILL inevitably be.  No amount of fanboyism will change that.  And Vista is LOADED with crap.  This is also why I like Linux and, especially, MinetteOS.  They're good examples of how the same hardware and do twice the performance simply by requiring less resources for the OS.

Frankly, Win2k is overkill because I don't even need a GUI for my server.  It's a headless server:  No keyboard, monitor, or mouse.  100% virtual control and access from my desktop.  And it does a wonderful job that way.  I just wish I could disable everything else.

They should sell an OS specifically dedicated to a task.  Like an FTP-server-OS whose only purpose in life is just that:  Being an FTP server.  Remove every single last feature but what an FTP server could use.
Garunteed you save a fortune on hardware.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 15, 2007)

Janglur said:
			
		

> Why anyone needs to own 5 PCs I dunno, but it's still cool.


Oh, that's easy. Development targets.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jul 15, 2007)

Things have gone a little crazy in the copyright and patent market. I personally feel that just like with writing. Any number of people can legally write a book on the same subject. So any number of people should be allowed to write code that does the same thing. This prevents a monopoly and incourages competition, which results in better products. The people who are letting crap like the double-click thingy get by should be fired. To think that someone can copyright a person's actions, is ridiculous. As for an OS, chances are, in a matter of years, something will come out that either makes our OSs obsolete, or is unable to interface in the manner of an OS. So microsoft will either have to develop something completely new from scratch, which will allow other companies to compete. Or ignore the new market and allow other companies to take it over. I've already heard it said that we are pretty much pushing computer processing to it's limits. And people, more and more, are wondering why they can't have one thing that does it all. Already products, like the iPhone, are being developed to tie multiple technologies and medias together. Science has discovered ways to instantaneously transfer information over (theoretically) any distance using only two atoms or freeze light in a manner that could be used to process and store information. We think it's great that our 64 bit processor can process at a speed of 2 Ghz... But the rate that technology is advancing is exponential. I still remember having a 100 mhz computer... 12 years ago. So 10 years from now, there's no telling what we'll be using and how fast it will work. Computers may become obsolete, as more and more advanced Blackberrys and cell phones enter the market. Why bother with a tv and keyboard when your phone will project a custom keyboard that you can type on on any surface and project the screen on any surface? I think microsoft and other companies will attempt to keep up. But where you'll get the most is from new people with new ideas, not people building on existing technologies that are already reaching their limits.


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2007)

Rostam The Grey said:
			
		

> Things have gone a little crazy in the copyright and patent market. I personally feel that just like with writing. Any number of people can legally write a book on the same subject. So any number of people should be allowed to write code that does the same thing. This prevents a monopoly and incourages competition, which results in better products. The people who are letting crap like the double-click thingy get by should be fired. To think that someone can copyright a person's actions, is ridiculous. As for an OS, chances are, in a matter of years, something will come out that either makes our OSs obsolete, or is unable to interface in the manner of an OS. So microsoft will either have to develop something completely new from scratch, which will allow other companies to compete. Or ignore the new market and allow other companies to take it over. I've already heard it said that we are pretty much pushing computer processing to it's limits. And people, more and more, are wondering why they can't have one thing that does it all. Already products, like the iPhone, are being developed to tie multiple technologies and medias together. Science has discovered ways to instantaneously transfer information over (theoretically) any distance using only two atoms or freeze light in a manner that could be used to process and store information. We think it's great that our 64 bit processor can process at a speed of 2 Ghz... But the rate that technology is advancing is exponential. I still remember having a 100 mhz computer... 12 years ago. So 10 years from now, there's no telling what we'll be using and how fast it will work. Computers may become obsolete, as more and more advanced Blackberrys and cell phones enter the market. Why bother with a tv and keyboard when your phone will project a custom keyboard that you can type on on any surface and project the screen on any surface? I think microsoft and other companies will attempt to keep up. But where you'll get the most is from new people with new ideas, not people building on existing technologies that are already reaching their limits.


You may be interested to quantum computer technology. People are actually building machines which use individual(?) atoms and quantum particles as memory and processing units.


----------



## dj-ZAKU (Jul 15, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Microsoft owns the copyright on the double click, Ebay owns the copyright on a single click to place a bid and so on.


Reading this halved what little faith in humanity I had.


----------



## DuncanFox (Jul 15, 2007)

dj-ZAKU said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, same here.

1) The double-click can't be copyrighted, because only creative works (like art, written documents, and the like) can be copyrighted.Â Â Ownership of a process or procedure is covered by patents.

2) Microsoft received a patent on making the buttons of a "limited resource computing device" (like a PDA) behave differently based on specific variations of the number of times the button is pressed, and the amount of time in between.Â Â Specifically, pressing a button opens the application, pressing and holding opens your most recent document in that application, and double-clicking opens the application ready to start a new document.  It is not a patent covering the general idea of double-clicking, and if it were, it would be thrown out the moment it's challenged due to 30+ years of prior art.

3) Amazon holds the only "one click" patent that I can find information on, and in fact eBay had a dispute with Amazon a while back over it.Â Â Maybe that's what you're thinking of?Â Â That, or eBay's patent dispute with a Virginia company over their "Buy it Now" feature?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 15, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> You may be interested to quantum computer technology. People are actually building machines which use individual(?) atoms and quantum particles as memory and processing units.



I know this is totally off-topic, but theoretically would that mean say a T-1000 "liquid metal" type cyborg would be possible somewhere down the road? I'd kind of resigned myself to that being one element of science fiction that would STAY science fiction, until we were all told nanotech was inevitable. Then it was like well ok, MAYBE it could be possible since for a cyborg like that to be feasible, the "liquid metal" would have to be micro-scopic components that somehow work together. But then the other theoretical hurdle to get over, in my mind was how to create a machine that small with the A.I sufficient to mimic human behavior.

Now, I make no bones about it, I'm a complete tech-tard and I know almost as little about biology, so correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the individual components of neurons, themselves quite tiny much larger than quantum particles?


----------



## Janglur (Jul 15, 2007)

Actually, most Quantum Computing projects have been shut down in favor of other, much more capable methods.

For the 'average user' quantum computers offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of advantage, as they take extremely long periods of time (sometimes entire seconds) to perform single tasks.
For most applications, carbon nanotubes and optical processors are replacing them.  Currently fiber-optic/copper combinations are starting to hit the market.  Motorola has a 4-bit math processor capable of processing so many instructions per second, they're not able to actively measure it (only calculate it).

For mass-computing and 'real' computing, DNA computers are currently dominant.  DNA computers can currently play checkers and calculate a problem where it has to draw a line between several points, with the object being to visit each dot once, use the least amount of line possible, and not intersect the lines.  It takes several hours but it completes it absolutely, like we would, rather than like a binary computer which effectively calculates every possibility (to a certain point) then chooses the best route, basically a process of elimination.  DNA computing is unlikely to replace electronic and optical processing in the near future simply because of it's insanely slow speed.  However, it may be utilized soon for large-scale storage, as a gram of DNA can store many Exabytes of data.

Finally, for in-between, IBM's new Power6 processors and the next generation of Cell processors (See:  Not the one in PS3) are capable of true binary processing.  Instead of 010010101 it can actually compute in true 0123456789, which is a massive boon for scientific studies since computers operating on binary effectively do so as a fraction, and on intense long calculations can become inaccurate.  An example of this were a few 1982 systems that calculated long digits of pi.  They stopped before reaching their capacity, stating the problem was /done/.  Which was wrong.  The 'rounding error' basically showed the limitations of computers as thinking machines, and so different methods were created to allow better accuracy (and speed).


----------



## Janglur (Jul 15, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Correct.  Quantum particles are immeasurably small (we can only theorize and calculate, not positiviely observe their size).
Neurons are made up of many, many long chains of molecules.  There are probably many tens of thousands of molecules in a single neuron, maybe more.  My understanding of biology is also limited.

What should be noted, however, is that quantum computing is a bit of a misleading term.  Currently, they aren't even able to manipulate individual molecules on a reliable, stable basis in large quantity.  Only enough for a few bytes, and all in a laboratory environment. Most quantum computers use a 'broth' of chemicals which are electromagnetically manipulated.  The process is painfully slow.
To compare, a modern low-end CPU, we'll say an AMD Thunderbird, has the ability to perform 1,000,000,000 operations per second.  Currently prototype quantum CPUs can perform 4-5 tops.
The theoretical advantage to quantum computers was that the 'broth' is a bit-per-molecule, and so if you just have a big tank of bits, you'd have many many many billions upon billions of bits to work with, in a relatively tiny space.  An example, an average Blu-Ray disk stores each 'bit groove' in a 405 nanometer (0.000405 centimeters) space, whereas a single molecule of flourine (a popular chemical for quantum computers) is 50 picometers (0.000000050 centimeters)  Thus allowing enormous amounts more storage per square inch.  Basically, a disk the size of a modern DVD that used a quantum method of storage could, instead of the 40 GB or so of blueray, hold something in the range of 8-9 TB or more quite easily, depending on how accurate the manipulator was.

So it's hardly something worth 'dropping', but due to DNA computing accomplishing it's goal much sooner, much easier, and much quicker.. we're unlikely to see any real progress for a while.


----------



## Oni (Jul 16, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To make things simple for you, (anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong,)


Neurons are cells in the brain which relay information, right?

Neurons(cells) are made of atoms,

Atoms are made of of smaller particales such as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

The nucleus of an atom (where the protons and neutrons are, the center) spins.

The nucleus spin of an atom represents either a 1 or a 0 which can be considered a bit.

So when you have a bunch of atoms spinning a certain waym, you can form a miniature computer.

AKA quantum computing.



Also,

Quantum is a noun which represents "The smallest unit of something" like a photon, which is light supposedly.


Also, Janglur, Very interesting Information. Supposedly Bell Labs have had some progress regarding quantum computing. Supposedly they make exotic low temperature, high magnetic "knots" in which they move particles in a certain path. PC magazine has great articles. I must study much more before I fully comprehend what they disclose. ;d


----------



## Janglur (Jul 16, 2007)

Oni said:
			
		

> Wolf-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Actually hun all that is only a good guess.  In reality, you can't just flip the spin of any atom.  Furthermore, neurons are actual lumps of tissue made up of many many many long-chain molecules (dozens or more molecules long) then each molecule is made up of atoms, etc.
You're thinking a neuron is a microatomic device and it's not, it's macroatomic, it's made up of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of atoms.  (Especially if you count the electrolytes used to allow the neuron to even carry an electrical signal)

Qantum computing's biggest problem right now is accuracy.  Only a VERY small handful of fluids, solids, etc. can be used to 'write' to individual atoms.  Typically they use either a small 'cell' of the fluid/atom or a molecular chain.  Flourine is one of the most popular fluids right now.  However at the scale where they can build a functional CPU, it's really no better than any other technology, it's just thousands of times more expensive and millions of times slower.

If you're interested in this field working, I suggest you look at DNA computers and protein plated disks, which exist now and may be manufactured soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-coated_disc
I haven't seen any sold yet, but the man working on it says that they should be available right about... now.

I'd love a 50 TB disk, it would give me someplace to store all the crap on my PC that I don't access frequently, but don't want to get rid of.  Plus I could finally complete my life's dream of attempting to download (near) every game ever made for cartridge and early CD consoles.  For historical and archival purposes only, of course.


----------



## Oni (Jul 16, 2007)

Janglur said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








			
				Janglur said:
			
		

> Actually hun all that is only a good guess.


Â *wakes up and becomes instantly insulted and wanting revenge!!!!*
HUN?? 
HUN!??!!"
does my chacracter wear a bowtie in his hair? HUN???? Â 
*laughs*



			
				Janglur said:
			
		

> In reality, you can't just flip the spin of any atom.Â Â Furthermore, neurons are actual lumps of tissue made up of many many many long-chain molecules (dozens or more molecules long) then each molecule is made up of atoms, etc.
> You're thinking a neuron is a microatomic device and it's not, it's macroatomic, it's made up of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of atoms.Â Â (Especially if you count the electrolytes used to allow the neuron to even carry an electrical signal)


 I was aware that neurons are composed of numerous types of atoms, molecules ect ect, ;d I just made it simple. What confused me is that PC magazine stated that the spin of a nucleus can be both "up" and "down" so it can hold the value of 1 and AND 0 simultaineously. That confuses me. The same thing spinning two different directions simultaineously? hmm...



			
				Janglur said:
			
		

> Qantum computing's biggest problem right now is accuracy.Â Â Only a VERY small handful of fluids, solids, etc. can be used to 'write' to individual atoms.Â Â Typically they use either a small 'cell' of the fluid/atom or a molecular chain.Â Â Flourine is one of the most popular fluids right now.Â Â However at the scale where they can build a functional CPU, it's really no better than any other technology, it's just thousands of times more expensive and millions of times slower.
> 
> If you're interested in this field working, I suggest you look at DNA computers and protein plated disks, which exist now and may be manufactured soon.


 I've never heard of DNA computers, my knowledge of biology is also lacking at this moment and I do not understand how working on a larger molecular level can be more advantageous than using an single atoms spin as a representative for a bit.



			
				Janglur said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein-coated_disc
> I haven't seen any sold yet, but the man working on it says that they should be available right about... now.
> 
> I'd love a 50 TB disk, it would give me someplace to store all the crap on my PC that I don't access frequently, but don't want to get rid of.Â Â Plus I could finally complete my life's dream of attempting to download (near) every game ever made for cartridge and early CD consoles.Â Â For historical and archival purposes only, of course.


I wouldin't mind a terabyte of ram the size of a dime to be used with calculations. ^.^


----------



## Janglur (Jul 16, 2007)

(Long ass quote)

DNA computing has a lot of advantages.  For one, it can be mass-produced and manipulated with relatively simple methods that we already have available now.  Several products may be hitting the market within the next couple years using DNA computing or a step down from such (protein disks, for example)

Also, DNA computers are FAR more reliable than quantum, at present, because the DNA method of storing data is reliable and concise.  Additionally, unlike quantum computers which typically only store data in a binary manner, DNA computers can function on a base-4 system natively.


----------



## Oni (Jul 16, 2007)

Janglur said:
			
		

> (Long ass quote)
> 
> DNA computing has a lot of advantages.Â Â For one, it can be mass-produced and manipulated with relatively simple methods that we already have available now.Â Â Several products may be hitting the market within the next couple years using DNA computing or a step down from such (protein disks, for example)
> 
> Also, DNA computers are FAR more reliable than quantum, at present, because the DNA method of storing data is reliable and concise.Â Â Additionally, unlike quantum computers which typically only store data in a binary manner, DNA computers can function on a base-4 system natively.


Hmm, that's interesting, Babe. :d

*superhero voice*

"Time to do some research!!!!"


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 16, 2007)

I officially declare this thread DERAILED.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 16, 2007)

Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> I officially declare this thread DERAILED.



I'd like to think of it as having fittingly switched tracks, since some of the discussion was about all the technology currently in practical use being basically just refinements of technology that's been around for quite a while. I think the question of whether or not said technology's capacity for advancement is finite is one worth probing.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 17, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Ron Overdrive said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I consider it derailed when it goes from the concept of technology to biology. While they do have some similarities they are still two different things.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 17, 2007)

Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> Wolf-Bone said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if what people are saying here has any merit, that may be changing.

Next question: how many places do we have to go to stop this and how many suicide bombers will it take?


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 17, 2007)

Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Ron Overdrive said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heh, I'm pretty sure there are some patents somewhere that will double or even triple the amount of time needed to take it to that level.


----------



## ADF (Jul 19, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> GPL v.3
> 
> Microsoft will have serious problems themselves because they have used thousands of copyrighted things, and GPL v.3 addresses them with special scrutiny. The backdoor in the v.2 that allowed them to do so is no longer present in v.3
> 
> ...


Looks like Microsofts answer to GPL v.3 is to sue anyone who goes near it.


----------



## hypr (Jul 19, 2007)

there are some at betaarchive.co.uk who make their own OS based on the various windows, linux and mac kernels, they seem to do a good job, dunno if one gets better support with it, I tried Alphabetas (based on the 2000 kernel) but no 64 bit support, it had crashed my system, so I just threw Ubuntu on it, and use it as a spare hooked up to my KVM switch.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 20, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> yak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Honestly they really can't sue because it would require them the identify each patent of the <i>minimum</i> 235 they claim are being violated. Most of M$'s patents and copyrights are stupid little things that have little to no impact on how things work. I mean hell, they copyrighted every letter in the alphabet before the suffix indows. I'm pretty sure they have on more then one occasion tried to silently patent binary code.


----------



## yak (Jul 20, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> yak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting.
So now Microsoft is subtly threatening to sue all GPL v3 products? I'm sure the European committee or whatever's bee sueing Microsoft for the last year will be glad to hear about that.

All this is so fabulously and incredibly retarded i'm having a hard time with periodic reality checks. 
Is this real? Is this all that the ingenious and creative mind of the homo sapiens can come up with? In all honesty, world would be much better without Microsoft. If it wasn't for constant oppression of new and revolutionary ideas based on past and *zing* copyrighted knowledge, all these stupid lawsuits - we'd probably be shaking hands with aliens about now.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 20, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now to play some devil's advocate here... In Microsoft's defense they're not the sole reason for the oppression of new innovative ideas, concepts, products, etc. Many corporations do this on a regular basis. The biggest problems is how copyright has been managed over the years and the patent office itself.

But I do agree, too much fighting over bragging rights and ownership of an idea or method has prevented us from obtaining the technological evolution needed for us to colonize space.


----------



## ADF (Jul 23, 2007)

I really hope this is a mis read, that I got it wrong. Any amount of embarrassment will be worth getting this wrong.

Link

â€œLike Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The company also confirmed that it is *considering a subscription model to complement Windows*, but did not provide specifics or a time frame.â€

Subscription model... as in pay to use? Small initial payment followed by monthly payments? A Windows OS you never really own and continue to spend money on through the years of use?

Tell me I got this wrong, they cannot really expect people to put up with this?


----------



## yak (Jul 23, 2007)

Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> Now to play some devil's advocate here... In Microsoft's defense they're not the sole reason for the oppression of new innovative ideas, concepts, products, etc. Many corporations do this on a regular basis. The biggest problems is how copyright has been managed over the years and the patent office itself.
> 
> But I do agree, too much fighting over bragging rights and ownership of an idea or method has prevented us from obtaining the technological evolution needed for us to colonize space.


The thing is, one side makes money out of things and wants to make even more money through copyrights,
and another side writes publicaly-available free hobby code.

Microsoft targeted GPL V3 software, which is absolutely free of charge. It didn't target other large corporations that are making money as well, no - they had to pick on free software enthusiasts.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 23, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> I really hope this is a mis read, that I got it wrong. Any amount of embarrassment will be worth getting this wrong.
> 
> Link
> 
> ...



There's been talk about that for a while now. Originally from what I heard they were gonna do that with Office 2007, but that never happened. If they switched to a subscription service they'd better offer something EXTREMELY good like daily updates or something to make it worth it. Otherwise they're gonna loose ALOT of users to Mac OS X and Linux or even Google's new OS if it ever comes out.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 23, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Subscription model... as in pay to use? Small initial payment followed by monthly payments? A Windows OS you never really own and continue to spend money on through the years of use?



That's not a hell of a lot different than it is now. You "license" Windows. You don't own it. The main difference is that now, they require you to pay for your subscription up front.


----------



## ADF (Jul 23, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> That's not a hell of a lot different than it is now. You "license" Windows. You don't own it. The main difference is that now, they require you to pay for your subscription up front.


It is possible to make much more money from small monthly/yearly payments than one large up front payment, MMORPG companies figured that out ages ago. But customers are less likely to realise they are paying much more for the same product if it is spread out enough. Even when the product gets dumped like windows 98/95, Microsoft could still be milking it.



			
				Ron Overdrive said:
			
		

> There's been talk about that for a while now. Originally from what I heard they were gonna do that with Office 2007, but that never happened. If they switched to a subscription service they'd better offer something EXTREMELY good like daily updates or something to make it worth it. Otherwise they're gonna loose ALOT of users to Mac OS X and Linux or even Google's new OS if it ever comes out.


I've heard about it, just like I heard about the possibility of a modular OS were you have to buy a DRM heavy core operating system and 'license' all the different Microsoft certificated features separately. But hearing about such horrors and actually seeing them officially considered are different things. A subscription OS is beyond a cash cow, what happens if you miss a few payments? Do they just turn off your operating system or lock down its features like with Vista? Gah, this is insanity! How could they possibly justify making something like this with all the anti monopolization agencies watching them? They would probably make so much money they could pay the fines as a side cost.

 I have to say though that Mac isn't any better; it may make them seem innocent in comparison if Microsoft pulls this, but Mac has just as big a thumb in DRM and user restrictions as Microsoft. Linux would really be the only safe option, that is if they ever get their act together and produce a *real* consumer friendly OS and not one where you have to be a computer geek just to install a game let alone run it.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 23, 2007)

What's keeping me from jumping ship to Linux is that it would require a lot of effort on my part for an improvement that would be marginal at best.

If Microsoft went subscription or forced DRM on us any more than they already do, well, that marginal improvement would be less marginal...


----------



## ADF (Jul 23, 2007)

See I am a gamer, I like to just install games and play them. I don't want to mess with emulators or learn how to hack the game just to play it! You shouldn't have to go through so much trouble just to do something you can do faster and easier on the most wildly available and supported OS. 

But lets say a miracle happens, a bunch of Linux programmers get a clue and design a distribution that is user orientated rather than a computer geeks badge of honour. You can install and run everything as easily as you can on windows. But you see I'm a university student; and all the computers at my university are running Windows, with applications designed for Windows, students are being taut on Windows and when I graduate and go into the job guess what my employers computers will be running?

So even if I took the time to re learn how to do everything on Linux, get a penguin T-shirt and claim to be better than all those 'M$ fanboys'. It is not a skill I can apply in my education or at work, so I might as well stick with the OS that is the industries standard. Microsoft releasing a modular OS that requires subscriptions would be a major and I mean MAJOR kick in the nuts, but what am I supposed to do about it?


----------



## net-cat (Jul 23, 2007)

To be fair, it isn't just the Linux developer's burden. You have to hack games to run on Linux because most of them were never designed to run in Linux.

But yes. Part of the problem with developing for "Linux" is that the only thing you're guaranteed is the kernel. When developing for Windows, you've got maybe three different OS targets at one time. (Right now, it's Windows XP, Windows Vista and maybe Windows 2000.) With Linux, you have to support half a dozen distributions or it's not really Linux compatible. (The few game developers that do do Linux ports generally just dump a bunch of statically-linked binaries in some directory somewhere and call it good.)


----------



## Janglur (Jul 23, 2007)

IMHO, a subscription service might not be a bad idea.  it'd be MUCH more secure, as they could re-design the security central protocols each phase/update.

I picture paying a very small fee ($50 tops) for the OS, which works just fine.  However to continue receiving updates, and perhaps online capabilities, pay a small monthly fee of $5 for home and $10 for pro.  That's only be $60 and $120 respectively a year:  Nearly the cost of Vista for the only 3 years it's expected to exist before it's replaced.  (They've already got an ETA for the next OS at 3 years.  That's pathetic.  $300 and it's useless in 3 years.)
Plus, if you decide you hate it, just cancel your monthly subscription and yer only out $55/$60, instead of $300 like Vista.
God.
God.
God I regret buying Vista.  Worst $300 ever wasted.


Plus, my idea would be effective in one positive, and one negative way.
Since you can just buy the OS itself for cheap, you can still game and stuff for the casual user.  However, doing so online puts you as risk of virii and exploits.  (The 'underhanded' plus M$ has been doing some time now)
And it gives them a REASON to stuff all that crap in the OS.  People who WANT it, can pay for it.  WMP10+, for example.

Shit, i'd be fine with a non-GUI OS if it could multitask effectively and have relatively quick, easy commands.  Or even a command shell ala DOS.
i'd prefer that for the efficiency.


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 23, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> net-cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually Apple despises DRM which is why they offer a DRM-free model in iTunes now. Steve Jobs believes it hinders sales and adds extra head aches (which it does). The whole TDM chip on the Intel Macs basically turns it into a console videogame system in the sense by limiting hardware you make the system easier to develop for which makes its more stable and faster.

And like Net-Cat said about Linux, being Open Source there's no one you can really point fingers at when there's problems. Linux has come a LONG way from where it used to be. Everything is pretty much run in the GUI now a days. Hell installing software is now a breeze so long as its a DEP file, RPM file, or downloaded straight through the Add/Remove Programs. If its source you still have to compile it, but its only a slight learning curve for that. The things that really hold it back is driver support and the lack of a videogame market.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 23, 2007)

I'd love to see a system like FreeBSD's ports take hold for programs that need to be compiled from source.

1. Go to the directory for the program you want.
2. su -l
3. make install clean
4. ???
5. Profit!


----------



## Ron Overdrive (Jul 24, 2007)

net-cat said:
			
		

> I'd love to see a system like FreeBSD's ports take hold for programs that need to be compiled from source.
> 
> 1. Go to the directory for the program you want.
> 2. su -l
> ...



Yeah linux is a little more complex.

1. goto directory
2. sudo
3. ./configure
4. make; make install
5. delete directory
6. profit!


----------



## net-cat (Jul 24, 2007)

You forgot "???."


----------



## hawse (Aug 2, 2007)

*Of New os's..*

When someone asks, is a new os possible, I come up with a few different answers..

1) It's *ALLWAYS* possible, just not necessarily economically feasible.

2) It's not only possible, but within 20 years will be necessary....

As we keep kicking moore's law around and find new ways to shrink systems and memory cells, we keep getting denser and faster machines.. BUT, they are all based on a Von Neuman architecture.

If you have been keeping up with quantum physics, you might have seen that we now have working Qubits, a necessary first step towards building a quantum computer.  We are also getting these quantum spin manipulating systems down to the micro and nano level's where we can pretty much fit everything needed onto a single chip.

It's been conservatively (Mabye agressively?) speculated that we should have a working quantum computer by 2020... what will we run on it? Sure as hell won't be Vista....

My point being, the architecture of the machine, as well as the market needs, is typically what drives the large comercial os's..  As the architecture changes drastically, so shall the OS in order to be of any use.  This means that , by necessity, a new OS shall come into existance to make that machine useful.

As for other os's.. eh.. I'm happy with linux or windows.. I use both for development, but my targets are allways microcontrollers that use either *NO* Os.  or a fairly reduced OS without a lot of capaiblities. And CERTAINLY no big bloated graphics drivers. 

Cyahs.
Hawse


----------



## southmunjoy (Aug 12, 2007)

The problem with OS's is not getting the new OS, it's getting existing App's ported to it, or having killer App's made for it that everybody needs to have. Case in point being BeOS/YellowTab. --It's a fantastically fast OS, that is easy to use, and very stable, but the problem with it is that there were no App's ported/coded for it so it remained a state of the art piece of almost complete uselessness.


----------



## hypr (Aug 21, 2007)

There is an operating system (not very common) but it is EComstation by IBM, it apparently works with Windows programs, doesn't crash as much etc. And it still is being worked on with Beta version 2.0

It seems promising its ported from OS/2 I believe.


----------

