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?!

 
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> 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
>


That's what a competitive business does.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Waylon Kenning
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
T'was the Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:27:01 +1300 when I remembered Rudy Seoa
<(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like this:

>Could be useful as a Windows server base for Virtual Server, something
>with low overhead similar to VMware ESX?
>
>Or for specialised server installs that run as virtual machine instances
>with minimal resources.


Interesting point. Though visualization is going deeper down the run
time path from running the host OS in Ring 0 and running the guest OS
in Ring 1, to running the host OS in Ring -1 and running the guest OS
in Ring 0.

There's an interesting video about it on
http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=163022 (thanks to Nathan
for the link).
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:26:24 +1300, David wrote:

> That's what a competitive business does.


No.

That's what a monopolist does when it faces a threat that it cannot FUD to
death or sue out of existance or buy out.


Have 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
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:13:06 +1200, Don Hills wrote:

>>That's what a monopolist does when it faces a threat that it cannot FUD
>>to death or sue out of existance or buy out.

>
> Telecom springs to mind...


Yeah!

And isn't it interesting that Telecom & Micro$oft are working together for
Xtra's website!


Have 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
 
Don Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Have A Nice Cup of Tea <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>That's what a monopolist does when it faces a threat that it cannot FUD to
>death or sue out of existance or buy out.


Telecom springs to mind...

--
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
 
David
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:13:06 +1200, Don Hills wrote:
>
>>> That's what a monopolist does when it faces a threat that it cannot FUD
>>> to death or sue out of existance or buy out.

>> Telecom springs to mind...

>
> Yeah!
>
> And isn't it interesting that Telecom & Micro$oft are working together for
> Xtra's website!
>
>
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea
>


Its also interesting that Microsoft recently warned the government about
the dire state of our broadband limiting the services they could make
available to New Zealanders.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SchoolTech
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> 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?


Because Internet Explorer is part of the operating system.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Have A Nice Cup of Tea
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:08:50 +1300, SchoolTech 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?

>
> Because Internet Explorer is part of the operating system.


But Internet Explorer is a web browser.

Are you suggesting that Micro$oft Windows is really just a wacking great
bloated web browser?


Have A Nice Cup of Tea

--
"Microsoft don't need any moral right to be a hypocrite. It's an oxymoron.
They will do what they can get away with. Of course this makes it difficult
for their advocates to occupy any high moral ground."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Matthew Poole wrote:
> *SNIP*
> > 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?

>
> ROTFL. Microsoft finally cottoned on to something that the OSS community
> have been saying for years.
> How much smaller is the footprint of this new version, Nathan? I don't
> imagine that having to drive a GUI is a terribly efficient use of
> resources.


Its around 1/5th of the footprint

Cheers
Nathan

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-28-2006
Don Hills 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

<snip>

Agreed, it obviously wasn't a high priority feature for Microsoft, and
Microsoft customers weren't voting with their cheque books requesting
it

I think partially because there was 3rd party solutions available for
NT/Windows and then it got built into Win2003:

Emergency Management Services
The Microsoft® Windows Server 2003 family provides native support for
server operation and management that can be performed without a local
keyboard, mouse, or monitor. Emergency Management Services is one
element of an out-of-band management solution that you can use to
manage servers remotely when the operating system is not running
properly. Emergency Management Services is available with or without a
video card.

 
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