Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > New version of Windows without a GUI?!

Reply
Thread Tools

New version of Windows without a GUI?!

 
 
Don Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
A Nice Cup of Tea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable component
>of the Windoze OS?


I'll bet they pull a weasel out of the hat and say that it was really an
integrated and inseparable component of the GUI.

It does amuse me to see Windows finally get a feature that OS/2 had from the
beginning - the ability to run and be administered "headless". A real-world
example was the IFS (Integrated File Server) attachment for an IBM AS/400
midrange system. It was effectively a PC on a card that used a "virtual
disk" on the AS/400's hard drives, and was administered via the AS/400's
console as though it were just another part of the system. OS/2 ran
unmodified in such a configuration, and when the NT version shipped the
customers were disgruntled to find that it required a separate display and
keyboard to administer it because the interfaces didn't exist to allow allow
it to be fully administered headless.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:00:49 +1300, someone purporting to be A Nice Cup of
Tea didst scrawl:

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:01:52 +1200, Don Hills wrote:
>
>> It does amuse me to see Windows finally get a feature that OS/2 had from
>> the beginning - the ability to run and be administered "headless".

>
> I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.
>

It does. But the definition is usually accepted as not including remote
GUI being a necessity for operation. If you can't run it over a serial
cable, which is how headless administration was originally done, it's not
a headless box.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Murray Symon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:06:51 +1300, A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:28 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>> Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
>> server running as a
>> File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
>> anyway?

>
> So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable component
> of the Windoze OS?
>
> A Nice Cup of Tea


Libraries.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Aaron Lawrence
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On a pleasant day while strolling in nz.comp, a person by the name of
Waylon Kenning exclaimed:
> So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I
> agree with the direction. Less installed applications means less areas
> open for attack, and more processing power for things your server
> needs.


Shows that Microsoft can still change direction and learn from their
opponents. They are getting slower at doing it, but still...

--
aaronl at consultant dot com
For every expert, there is an equal and
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:35:06 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:

>> I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.
>>

> It does. But the definition is usually accepted as not including remote
> GUI being a necessity for operation. If you can't run it over a serial
> cable, which is how headless administration was originally done, it's not
> a headless box.


In that case my file server is headless, and my firewall isn't.

My firewall is administered via browser, and my file server via ssh
(altho' I've actually got a console attached but switched off and can be
plugged into my firewall if needs must. Both can be operated without KVM
attached) )


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Adam L. Penenberg: "The next time Bill G. promises to make software that is
so fundamentally secure that customers never have to worry about it, ask him
what decade he plans to release it."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:09:44 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:

>>> Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
>>> server running as a
>>> File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
>>> anyway?

>>
>> So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable
>> component of the Windoze OS?

>
> Libraries.


What about the librarary?


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Buffer-overflow vulnerabilities are simply programming errors; they occur when
coders fail to deploy proper memory-management techniques.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:09:44 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:
>
>>>> Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
>>>> server running as a
>>>> File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
>>>> anyway?
>>> So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable
>>> component of the Windoze OS?

>> Libraries.

>
> What about the librarary?
>
>
> A Nice Cup of Tea
>


Internet explorer comes with libraries that provide heaps of useful
stuff for developers, and microsoft (especially explorer) also makes use
of them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:41:42 +1200, Aaron Lawrence wrote:

> Shows that Microsoft can still change direction and learn from their
> opponents. They are getting slower at doing it, but still...


Yeah - started without a GUI, just cp/... err... DOS. Then copied the idea
of having a GUI from Apple, then took more than three attempts to get the
GUI right. Then upgraded to a 16/32 bit system with a 16/32bit GUI still
laying on top of DOS. Then making the browser an "inseperable part of the
GUI. Then dumped DOS, making the GUI an "inseperable" part of the new "NT"
os. Then dumping the GUI in favour of the "NT" os without a GUI attached.

Micro$oft started with an OS that was without a GUI, then claimed a GUI
was utterly indispensible and that Windows couldn't work without it, now
release an iteration that has dumped the GUI.

Micro$oft will do anything to beat it's competition and to make ever more
and more money. Nothing else is important to it.


A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"I'd hate to be furniture in Ballmer's office."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:03:12 +1300, David wrote:

> Internet explorer comes with libraries that provide heaps of useful stuff
> for developers, and microsoft (especially explorer) also makes use of
> them.


So why doesn't Micro$oft provide those libraries as a part of the OS,
rather than as a part of a programme?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
A: because it messes up threading
Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
A Nice Cup of Tea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|
|I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.

Yes. Your point was...?

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? MowGreen [MVP] ASP .Net 5 02-09-2008 01:55 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? PA Bear [MS MVP] ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 03:28 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? V Green ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 02:45 AM
open a new window without javascript and without hyperlink Dan ASP .Net 8 11-24-2004 08:10 AM
Express Version Kills Current Version Lloyd Sheen ASP .Net 11 07-02-2004 02:45 PM



Advertisments