Just to let you know

Mines in the mail. Hopefully I'll install this weekend. let us know how it works.

Yeah, let us know how it's working for you. I want it, but I'm so afraid that not all my apps will work in it. Laurie

I know poser works in it i'm runnin it right now. Its great with one exeption it asked me to reinstall 3d studio max, and it will not let me use my efilm reader 5.0. But hey its great

till now, everything runs fine , poser,bryce....

The importproblem with largerfiles in bryce seems to be solved too.Can load scenes with 20-30 mb without probs, before about 10 mb was max

Next year, you'll have to pay another licensing (rental) fee to Micro$oft to continue using Win XP on your computer, or didn't you know that hidden feature?

With what I just read about what Rtamesis, forget about XP just stick with Win2000Pro!

That is for Office XP, not Windows (yearly license fee) and even then only for businesses! Laurie

Attached Link: http://www.lindows.com/

Has anybody heard about Lindows? The company say it will run windows and Linux apps for just $99, released soon!!! *fingers crossed* that it will be a breath of fresh air in a Micro$oft dominated market :o)

XP has been running my apps smoothly. Only problem was with 3D Studio Max's C-dilla licensing. However, Discreet has an update for the licensing problem within XP posted at their site.

I just installed XP as well. So far so good, if only for the fact that it hasn't crashed my computer. I was the only human bieng in my graphic arts class to be using windows ME, I just used it to see the look on everyones face...priceless. One good thing about ME, I was able to buy an upgrade for only $100.00, not bad really. But where is the big celebration I was promised? remember when everyone waited in line all night for win 98? I was the only one in the store this mourning, plenty of copies of XP for everyone.

Hi, "Another free program offline..." to quote Tron :) Well as much as I loathe them, Laurie is right. You only have to pay once for Xp, but you have to ask Microsoft's permission to upgrade your computer... The one you have to pay the rolling fee's for is the "next step" the Behemoth known as .Net One of the more interesting things I noticed today was that MS CEO Steve Balmer was on CNBC Europe, and he openly acknowledged that Xp would only run on about 40% of the world PC's, (those bought in the last two years apparently) if your box is older than that you're stuffed, and they're not interested in you or your money. So, "legacy" kit isn't going to be supported then huh? :) High amusement! later jb

I've heard yays and nays from both camps. Basically, the general concensus is if you are currently running Windows ME, then upgrade. Windows Me is the buggiest thing since rotten meat. If you are currently running Windows 98, you may want to hold off until it becomes a legacy OS or you buy a new machine. I'm still not sure what I want to do, because I know Microsoft products don't get the bugs worked out for months after they are released, and since I'm not the adventurous type, I tend to be slow at getting around to these things :). Laurie

Next year, you'll have to pay another licensing (rental) fee to Micro$oft to continue using Win XP on your computer, or didn't you know that hidden feature?

Since that isn't true there is simply no reason for anyone to have heard about it :) There has been no indication that this is the case or going to be the case. The license would have had to state such a fact and it simply doesn't.

In other words, this is just a rumor that some folks with a serious paranoia problem seem to be having started.

Well as much as I loathe them, Laurie is right. You only have to pay once for Xp, but you have to ask Microsoft's permission to upgrade your computer...

Well, no, not really. The license also does not grant MS the right to DENY you a WPA code that anyone has shown. The system will want to re-authorize after major sequential upgrades but that is not a "permission" issue, just a technical one.

You can find out more about this here and here.

The one you have to pay the rolling fee's for is the "next step" the Behemoth known as .Net

.Net is a technology family geared to the supplying of technical services. The actual subscription or payment model is not built into the .Net infrastructure. It is not a single product or a single technology. It is not an operating system :)

For instance, ASP .Net is a fairly cool set of tools we are using in our company to provide our dynamic page content management to our self and some select clients under a variety of fee structures.

So, "legacy" kit isn't going to be supported then huh? :)

Well to be fair, the "legacy" systems need a serious overhaul anyway. I doubt that the older systems are particularly useful for more than surfing the web without a memory upgrade anyway.

That said, XP actually is a better performer for us than Win98 is on similar hardware - the much better memory management gives us much better stability in low memory systems.

Enjoy!

And we all know about Win98's memory leakage ;). In all fairness soulhuntre, I can see why folks have heard about paying a yearly fee...I heard it too, but not about Windows XP but about Office XP. Just for business tho. And to my knowledge it was just suggested, not that it would be implemented anytime soon. It's easy for people to mix up the facts I guess. Most folks are paranoid because the new registration process of XP is, well, a little invasive. The only major problem I have with it is if I do upgrade my PC (which I do frequently enough), will I have to call Microsoft. Waiting on the phone until they decide to get around to my call is something I don't want to have to do. I'd rather be beaten with a wet noodle :). Laurie

Watch out!! "Big Brother" is watching you. Do you know the "Passport" function in XP? Try to check it out!!!

Hey there :) You shouldn't have to call them. Generally, you have to change three major components SIMULTANEOUSLY before it's even an issue ... so changing your video card ever few months won't ever cause you grief. Let's say that you trip "the trigger", then your machine has an unspecified number of re-authorizations from Microsoft (online BTW - you don't have to call if you don't want to). This is at least 3, but might be as many as 12. So, if you make major simultaneous changes more than say, 6 times , you might have to call Microsoft - but during the beta period the hold time was less than 3 minutes :) Ken

To read about how WPA works, check out this link: http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt It is one of the best explanations of WPA to date. Soulhuntre, According to the above doc, your hardware configuration at startup is compared to the hardware configuration when XP is installed, so if you change enough devices, you will have to reactivate windows.

Agreed .. but the intermediates arent until a re-auth. In other words, if you change your video card - and then change it again, and again, and again and so on that is only one change.

Attached Link: http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/projects/story/0,23008,3355460,00.html

True, you can only upgrade a few (3-5) items in your computer before XP requires a re-authentication, but the internal counter is reset every 120 days, so unless you're a hardware upgrade nut like me, it's likely that very few users would ever even be affected by it, or even aware of it if not for all of the publicity. I've been following reports & reviews at tech sites & in magazines for a few weeks. The most significant thing in all the debate I've seen is how even reviewers & publications that are notorious for bashing microsoft with great relish at every oportunity (& boy, does MicroSoft give them plenty of oportunities!) are pretty much agreeing that this time MS has gotten it more right than ever before. The harshest thing i've seen apart from the authentication fuss & the (now moot) scandal over embedded links, is the rather catty statement that this is the OS that WIN95 should have been. A couple of good places to get useful, relatively non-technical info on XP are ZDTV's website (See link) and the Northern Light WIN-XP se (special edition) page. Personally I'm not buying the upgrade to XP for my computer, only because I'm replacing the computer shortly, & expect to get XP on the new one.

I went to buy Windows 2000 pro this morning, rang the Compustore here in Ireland to order it and guess what they told me.

"Since the introduction of XP all copies of previous operating systems, including 2000 pro, have been removed from stock on Microsoft Ireland's instructions, only XP is now available."

How about that for a stranglehold on the retail market! If you want to upgrade you will HAVE to buy XP and will be FORCED into the authentication system, so what is coming next after XP?

Well I don't like people forcing me along particular routes, so I ordered 2000 pro from the UK (where it is still available from retail outlets despite XP).

On the off chance that someone from Microsoft reads this please pass this on:

"Up yours Bill Gates, we use your stuff because we have to and not because we want to. Many of your customers dislike your company intensely and given a half decent option would consign your products to history."

Looks like Microsoft have learnt nothing from all the court cases and are still intent on the same kinds of practice with the customers being screwed again.

I can see this creating a situation where many honest people with legal copies of XP will start looking to the pirates for authentication process cracks.

Nice one Gatsey, this is going to push lots more people into the warez twilight zone! (Irony, in case anyone thinks I am advocating warez!)

Disgusted with Microsoft
STORM

"The importproblem with largerfiles in bryce seems to be solved too.Can load scenes with 20-30 mb without probs, before about 10 mb was max " Er... did I miss something on this, or is my copy of bryce just strange? I'm having no problems importing 40 - 60mn obj files into bryce on a 600 with 512mb and Windows 2000. I only get the "out of memory" error messsage in Win98SE. Thanks for the heads up, Storm. I can tell you right now that if that becomes MS's world wide marketing policy, "black" copies of Win2k and Win98SE are going to become real prevalent out on the warez sites. And a lot of techies will turn a blind eye to it... Nice of Billy to give the pirate software bidness such a massive shot in the arm. ;]

Personally, after checking out all the information on the links posted above (thanks guys). I think it is just too damned expensive to upgrade my little home network (5 computers) to XP. I don't mind paying once for a software upgrade for my home use, but having to buy 5 licences for my family is rediculous - I think $500 every year or two is just too much for a single family to have to pay for the "right" to use Windows in their home! Furthermore, as I understand it, my DSL router and hardware firewall which connect my little network to the internet won't work in XP because Bill Gates wants me to use his built-in software router (which forces you to use MSN messenger as part of the "bundle"). Its bad enough that Windows Media Player keeps trying to be my MP3 player and my MPEG player in spite of the fact that I have far more useful programs that I prefer to use - now MS wants to control even more of my applications. I am really TIRED of Microsoft shoving INFERIOR TECHNOLOGY down my throat and calling it a "feature" of an Operating System! Just my opinion, but if this trend continues, in another year or two Bill Gates will want to be your default 3D editor too!

How about that for a stranglehold on the retail market! If you want to upgrade you will HAVE to buy XP and will be FORCED into the authentication system, so what is coming next after XP?

I am not at all sure why Microsoft (or any other company) should be forced or expected to keep old and out of date software available. For that matter, MS has a really good track record of supplying support for discontinued software well past any reasonable time frame.

In other words, you can still get support for Win95 if you call Microsoft for example.

One of the biggest problems with the software market right now is the incredible lag time between the useful life end of an operating system and the time people stop expecting things to support it. Win95 is dead as a doornail, has been for 2+ years and some folks still complain if a new software product doesn't run on it.

I think it is a smart move for Microsoft here, there is simply no reason for them to provide more retail copies of Windows2000... speed up the conversion and cut down dramatically ont he costs of both their own manufacturing and the computer retailers inventory.

Are people upset Ford doesn't still sell a 1995 model pick up truck in 2000? No. A product moves on and the old stuff stops being sold. That's life.

That said, large clients can still legally add Windows2000 to more machines without any problem, they simply purchase more licenses or expand their existing site license and all is well.

"Thanks for the heads up, Storm. I can tell you right now that if that becomes MS's world wide marketing policy, "black" copies of Win2k and Win98SE are going to become real prevalent out on the warez sites.
And a lot of techies will turn a blind eye to it..."

This won't change - the warez sites and newsgroups have had OEM and Retail versions of Win2K available as ISO images for years now - as well as the recent XP RC candidates and retail versions.

There has NEVER been any lack of pirate trading in the Windows systems - how in the world would the discontinuation of Windows2000 make it more available when it is already completely universal?

While we are talking about it, any techie who is willing to install/admin pirated software is already doing so - you don't honestly think many smaller companies actually purchase Windows2000 licenses for their workstations? 90% of them buy one copy and simply install it on all their boxes.

Exactly the sort of thing that drove the introduction of WPA. No matter how much pirating WPA will "drive" peopel to do - it will cut down on much, much more than it causes. That is a net win for MS.

If nothing else, but bringing the average user into the situation of having to find a "pirate" copy they will at least start realizing they are doing something wrong.

"I don't mind paying once for a software upgrade for my home use, but having to buy 5 licences for my family is rediculous - I think $500 every year or two is just too much for a single family to have to pay for the "right" to use Windows in their home!"

I am a little unsure why you would have any inherent "right" to a Microsoft product. BTW - there are discount packs available.

"Furthermore, as I understand it, my DSL router and hardware firewall which connect my little network to the internet won't work in XP because Bill Gates wants me to use his built-in software router (which forces you to use MSN messenger as part of the "bundle")."

You are incorrect. I am not sure where that information came from, but if I were you I would start looking for an unbiased source of technical information.

WindowsXP is perfectly happy to use your external router/firewall. You don't have to use connections haring if you don't wish to and you can disable the inbuilt firewall.

"I am really TIRED of Microsoft shoving INFERIOR TECHNOLOGY down my throat and calling it a "feature" of an Operating System!"

Personally, I get a little tired of  incorrect technical information based on a anti MS bias being passed as if it were a fact. To me, that is a much bigger problem than having to say "no" to a dialog asking me if I want to switch to Media Player. BTW - I was not speaking of you... but rather whoever gave you that technical info about the firewall.

Winamp, Quicktime, Netscape, Opera and many many other applications ask the same question about becoming your default tool for certain types of files - are they guilty too?

Just my opinion, but if this trend continues, in another year or two Bill Gates will want to be your default 3D editor too!

SoftImage IS a nice program... they can bundle that if they want :)

"I am not at all sure why Microsoft (or any other company) should be forced or expected to keep old and out of date software available. For that matter, MS has a really good track record of supplying support for discontinued software well past any reasonable time frame." Sounds good soulhuntre, even reasonable at first glance. The problem is we are not talking software applications like Poser or PhotoShop here. We are talking about the engine, the OS, and people have very different considerations when choosing it like: Most software applications are backwardly compatible and will work on more-recent previous versions of the OS systems and there is often a competitive choice of software applications to do a given job. However, not all the software that currently works on your machine is guaranteed to work on XP, despite the hype, and there is a big difference in price between e.g. your copy of Maya (if one were so lucky) and XP. In those circumstances I would want a proven OS. Remember the half a million+ bugs in Win 98. Look around the forums here, one of the most frequently asked questions has been the compatibility of Poser with Win 2000pro. That is what most people are concerned about here and throughout the computing world. "Are people upset Ford doesn't still sell a 1995 model pick up truck in 2000? No. A product moves on and the old stuff stops being sold. That's life." Bad analogy, when you sell your Ford and replace it, it is a total solution, the equivalent of a new OS and new software applications in one go. You do not have to carry over a large investment in components like you do with existing software and PC hardware. Replacing your OS is equivalent to replacing your Ford's engine and possibly finding out later that the brakes, steering, gearbox etc. also have to be replaced in order to work with it. Sorry, but I view Microsoft's "initiative" as a cynical attempt to exercise control over what we use, how we use it and the frequency we have to shell out our hard earned dollars to them and their industry partners. If Microsoft were Ford they would simply not be able to get away with this because of the serious competition from other manufacturers. Unfortunately they have been allowed and encouraged to dominate the world market and attempts to curb the monster have failed in the courts (and therein lies a story!) and now it is pay-back time. "There has NEVER been any lack of pirate trading in the Windows systems - how in the world would the discontinuation of Windows2000 make it more available when it is already completely universal?" It will because of the demand from people who would have normally and willingly paid for the OS, but now have to turn to the Pirates to get it. That is what Ironbear means. And when previously honest people are forced to go this route it is likely that they will begin to source all their other software requirements in this way as well. Bottom line Microsoft is not like any other software manufacturer. It is crucial to the majority of us because it has connived to create a situation where we have to use the Windows product in order to run the software and hardware we use to earn a living, to communicate and to have fun. That is why so many people get so angry about the issue. Abusing that monopolistic dominance on a global scale is what this is about. It is for this very reason that so many people are so anti-Microsoft. If they extend the Irish retail policy worldwide watch the anger and outcry. Regards STORM

Not quite analaguous Soulhuntre. Automanufacturers and a number of others are required to provide support for older models and older technology [for lack of a better term] for at least ten years. Computer and software manufacturers seem to be exempt on this. There's no reason why you shouldn't still be able to buy a replacement older EIDE drive, or ATA-33 drive if you need one - a lot of perfectly good older systems out there that you just flat can't find a replacement drive for, and the BIOS won't upgrade to the newer tech. It's forced obsolesence. Software IS analogous: AutoCad 2002 doesn't offer any significant upgrade to AutoCad 2001 or ACad 2000, but architectural companies will be forced to upgrade to it because of lack of support past a certain period for older versions. Same with other software: there are a lot of people perfectly happy with Win98SE or Win2k that aren't going to care for XP. There's a lot of people who aren't going to care much for the built in security holes, or the need to patch them to reduce system vulnerability. And you misread the statement: sure, there's always been a pretty good black market in all software. This is still going to boost it over previous levels. You don't have to believe me on that one... you can head out on the web and do your own research. The number of copies out there will boom.

"We are talking about the engine, the OS, and people have very different considerations when choosing it like"

And they are free to continue to use the system they have if they chose. I am simply mentioning that Microsoft surely isn't responsible for making sure they keep obsolete product taking up space and inventory in the retail channel.

"your copy of Maya (if one were so lucky) and XP."

Then continue to use Maya on the systems it is on under NT or 2000 if you wish. Microsoft is not coming in and erasing your systems. If you want to legally load a new machine with Maya it will probably have shipped with XP anyway - and I am fairly certain Maya will upgrade soon :)

"Replacing your OS is equivalent to replacing your Ford's engine and possibly finding out later that the brakes, steering, gearbox etc. also have to be replaced in order to work with it. "

Windows XP has been available to the public for months now - and many, many small companies took advantage of the opportunity to test it and see if they should move. Those who found no problems will now be switching if they wish and those who don't want to switch can simply stay put for a while.

No one is taking that choice away.

"Abusing that monopolistic dominance on a global scale is what this is about. It is for this very reason that so many people are so anti-Microsoft."

I have to tell you, I am obviously simply missing the point. I cannot imagine why there is a problem with Microsoft saying "we have advanced the product, and we will be only selling the current product to new customers".

I don't see anyone complain that Curious Labs won't still sell Poser 1.0.

Of course the OS is different - and that is why I fully support the initiative to get everyone moved as soon as possible. As a professional in the software industry I have seen how many hours and dollars go into trying to support obsolete operating environments for users who simply want to cling onto them like grim death.

Best if everyone get on the bus. For those that want to stay behind, fine, stay ... but they have to realize it is not Microsoft or other software producers job to maintain and improve your 5 year old software from now to eternity.

Ah well.. thanks for not flaming me :)

It looks like Lindows is simply a Linux release with some additional goodies based on the work done under a project called WINE.

WINE is an OK tool for running some Windows software under Linux, but it will never be current with Microsoft technology and it is never intended to be a total replacement.

In short, I seriously doubt Lindows will be a real alternative. If for no other reason than getting tech support for your software if you are running it will be almost impossible.

No need to flame you. ;] It's just a difference of opinion. I like Win2k, you like XP. Some people actually like WinME... I do still believe that computer manufacturers have an obligation to provide support for legacy products. Other manufacturers can't get by with forcing people to scrap everything everytime a new version comes out, why should MS, Apple or any other computer comapny be exempt just because they make software or componenets? If I want to flame someone, I'll flame Microsoft or a hardware manufacturer for their practices, not you or some other program owner - their policies aren't your fault.

Imagine the outcry if Microsoft were to simply stop making Windows. Since most software in the world is made for Windows, we would suddenly have nothing to run these programs on. I'm not a huge fan of Bill Gates, but he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. He won't be the ONLY one requesting that you register your software this way, he is just the FIRST. And what about when software becomes totally web based? No cd, nothing tangible for your money. Pay per use...now that's what scares me. Not that the OS could ever be designed that way, but technology will move on for everything. No one forces you to use Windows. No one holds a gun to your head. It's just that the alternatives require all new software and hardware (Macintosh) or almost a degree in computer programming (Linux). Windows is just a choice, not a necessity. For instance, I can choose to use Windows98 for years if I like. I'd never be able to update any of my other software because it will center around the latest OS. But that's the way it has ALWAYS been. Laurie

I do still believe that computer manufacturers have an obligation to provide support for legacy products.

And so do I - for a reasonable period. Microsoft is still providing support for 95, 98, 98SE and WinME, I have clients who call them for phone support on occasion and they generally get helped. So we aren't really talking about support going away - just new sales.

And what about when software becomes totally web based?

I don't think it will happen in that way. The bandwidth needs of a program like Poser and so on will mean that it will be a long time before that is practical. I do think that programs will become much more modular. Software will be downloadable and grab updated chunks of themselves as needed.

Pay per use...now that's what scares me.

I used to think it might be bad... but I think now it will be good. Sometimes you want to buy 3dS Max... you just want to render one specific poser scene for  client of for fun ... wouldn't it be nice to just drop $5 and do that one render?

Of course, you will always have the option of unlimited usage contracts - economic pressure will demand it.

I'd never be able to update any of my other software because it will center around the latest OS.

This is true in many cases. With good reason - Operating Systems provide essential services for software, and newer versions generally provide new and useful abilities. Those new abilities are often added specifically to allow the easy creation of more powerful software.

It often doesn't make any sense to ignore those new abilities when you write software.

soulhuntre, You have a real knack for quoting people out of context and making yourself look good, but you ignore the fundamental point. You argue for Windows-xx as if it were an application NOT an Operating System. The Operating System is the only single piece of software actually REQUIRED to make a computer functional, and therefore must be considered as a special case. If we were talking about MS Word, your comments would mostly hold true. Microsoft has a reputation for dirty tricks, unfair competition, infringing on copyrights and using their "operating system" as a platform for locking us in to their associated products - most of which are inferior to their competitive equivalents. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact, verifiable by public documents. We would all be much better off if MS were prohibited from integrating applications (like I.E., media player, etc.) with their operating system, thereby severely crippling competition in that area. Do you know, statistically, what single program causes the most page fault errors in Windows?? It is Internet Explorer by Microsoft (the kernel of which CANNOT be uninstalled). Have you ever right-clicked an image on the internet to save it, and found "unknown.bmp" to be the result? Do you know WHY this happens - even now in I.E.6? - Are you aware that this behavior is INTENTIONAL on the part of MS, and that they never intend to fix it? I think you need to take your blinders off, and look around.

You have a real knack for quoting people out of context and making yourself look good

Sorry if that's what happening, I am simply putting in enough text to give folks an idea of the reply point. Since the entire thread is up there above my post I figure the context is all where it needs to be.

Anyway, apologies to anyone who thinks i was trying to manipulate their words.

You argue for Windows-xx as if it were an application NOT an Operating System

There are two points here...

• I don't see that the difference should bind the software maker to any more restrictive set of responsibilities.
• I do see that they are different, I just don't agree with you (apparently) on what that difference actually means.

most of which are inferior to their competitive equivalents

Funny, most of the popular Microsoft products are very competitive with the other products in the market. Word is without a doubt one of the best word processors on the planet, IIS is a strong and stable web server, SQL server is a world class database system and so on. I am a little unsure what inferior products you feel locked into.

This isn't an opinion, it is a fact, verifiable by public documents

This I am always confused by. When the courts come to a decision people don't like - then the courts are stupid. When it is one someone does like then they point to the courts as if that is the final word on what is real.

This is doubly confusing when software issues come in. When a court puts some poor guy in jail for a bizzare copyright issue there is a huge protest of how the court doesn't have a clue on tech issues - but when the court is anti-MS it is suddenly full with a clue?

Jackson was biased. The "public documents" you mention bring that out as well. In fact, his conduct of the case was one of the most strongly slapped down judgments in the last decade. It was a stunning embarrassment for the courts, and they rebuked him in strong language.

So I wouldn't rely on the court to tell me what is real.

We would all be much better off if MS were prohibited from integrating applications (like I.E., media player, etc.) with their operating system, thereby severely crippling competition in that area.

Why? Why in the world should I have to pay someone for something MS is willing to give me? Besides, media playback is a function that is deeply tied into an operating system - there is no reason for a media player to NOT be included in the OS. It would be silly to try and force it out.

I'll tell you what. When you get Apple to stop giving away Quicktime we can talk about forbidding MS from shipping Media Player :)

It is Internet Explorer by Microsoft (the kernel of which CANNOT be uninstalled).

I'll be very interested in seeing the source of that statistic... I wonder what versions of IE on what platforms... of course, IE is the most used program on windows if personal experience is any gauge so it would make some sense.

And no, you cannot rip out the HTML rendering engine of I from the newer MS OS's - nor should you be able to. You can use an alternate if you prefer but taking HTML/XML away from the XP UI would be the same as ripping QuickDraw out of MacOS... it just doesn't make any sense.

Have you ever right-clicked an image on the internet to save it, and found "unknown.bmp" to be the result?

Yes. it was a memory error failure condition. I do work as a support guy you know :)

Do you know WHY this happens - even now in I.E.6

Interesting, I never have seen it happen on IE 6. What OS has that happened to you on? A quick check on google doesn't turn up anyone else I can see having the issue with IE 6.

Are you aware that this behavior is INTENTIONAL on the part of MS, and that they never intend to fix it?

Again, I will be very interested to see the source for this conclusion... as I maintain a large number of systems that use IE it would be helpful to have some concrete information on this if it is as yous ay it is.

I think you need to take your blinders off, and look around.

So far, this conversation has been fairly polite. It would be nice if it could stay that way don't you think?

I don't have blinders on. I maintain and own systems that run MacOS, Linux and Windows. I have run Linux systems since the kernel was first posted to the 'net and Unix systems before that. I have run MacOS systems since they were introduced. I am not "blind" to the alternatives nor am a in Microsoft's pocket.

The simple reality is that Microsoft is providing a fantastic operating system at a reasonable price. It's unfortunate that that is annoying to some people, but there it is.

I've not heard anyone complain so far that Mac OS 10 had i-movie, Sherlock and Quicktime built in. Hmmmm..... Laurie

Thanks, soulhuntre, I agree that there are many who feel the same way, because it all looks so good on paper. I also agree that XP is probably the best, most stable operating system that MS has RELEASED. Too bad we will never know what they might have produced had there been any healthy competition. All I can tell you is that as a former developer for Microsoft (back in the early days of DOS and the original Windows), I can clearly remember the mandates which came down to us programmers to "develop and embed code that is hostile to competitive applications" (specifically Lotus and Netscape - both of whom are now virtually out-of-the-game)." Furthermore, I also remember that some programmers were fired for being "too good" at finding stable solutions to known problems because MS wanted to "reserve" those fixes for a later commercial release rather than offer them as free patches to the current release. That was many years ago, and as I look back, I see that MS achieved ALL the objectives that they set, and effectively eliminated competition (not by offering a better product - but by reducing the effectiveness of competitive products in their operating environment). That is my first-hand experience. I was just a kid at the time, and thought MS was being very clever in doing these things. I actually helped. Today, when I see what we have available, and think what we MIGHT have had, I am ashamed to have been part of it. I just don't think that an operating system should be used as a tool to restrict competition at the APPLICATION level. We all suffer the result; whether you admit it or not is irrelevant, as we will never know what might have been. Having once been on the "inside" I had a peek at what might have been, and can only tell you that it bears no resemblance to what we actually have. One of the key "features" of XP is its video handling ability. The price we will pay, however is incompatibility with several existing (and superior) codec/technologies. If you want to edit videos on XP you will do it their way or not at all. Once competition is eliminated, whatever reamins is OF COURSE, the "Best thing available". It just surprises me that so few people see that.

""reserve" those fixes for a later commercial release rather than offer them as free patches to the current release."

Well, that certainly may have been the case all those years ago - but it's a different game now, and has been for a long time. Constant patches/upgrades for ALL operating systems are a matter of course and holes and bugs need to be patches quickly to stay competitive. The 'net makes it basically impossible to hide problems like that anymore.

As for hostile code - I am much more concerned with the privacy problems of Real and the faintly vicious position Netscape took at it's beginning. And we won't talk about Sun.

"(not by offering a better product - but by reducing the effectiveness of competitive products in their operating environment)."

I would like to get a handle on this - is there any example of a competitor product that was significantly hurt by such a tactic of Microsoft? Having been along for this whole ride I don't remember a single one.

"One of the key "features" of XP is its video handling ability. The price we will pay, however is incompatibility with several existing (and superior) codec/technologies. If you want to edit videos on XP you will do it their way or not at all."

I don't see how this is true. I can install QuickTime with no problems, I can develop content for Real Player if I chose with no problem and no compatibility issues. The Microsoft video format allows third partied to develop and distribute codec's and so there is no restriction on what technology you can plug into the system.

What am I missing?

Anyway - thanks for replying :)