引用:

原帖由 igodfather 于 2010-5-28 14:52 发表

三红机只是微软众多失败之一而已，且不说浏览器市场份额直线下滑，移动平台的全面垫底，就连个ZUNE也乏人捧场，微软的竞争力实在是乏善可陈

呦呦呦，这样踩就没意思了吧，老实说能列举出这几个也算不错了，不过某个公司的产品呢，go，memory stick，umd，更不用说walkman这么一个几乎是20年的代名词，到今天几乎消失殆尽。

其实看看INTEL和AMD就知道了
AMD也曾经风光一时，但是，在技术和工艺差距越来越大的情况下，现在被INTEL玩的死死的。新出的旗舰还跑不过人2年前的旗舰

所以，个人认为，微软敢于在研发上大量投入，是很踏实和稳妥的风格

引用:

原帖由 小黑屋专用 于 2010-5-28 15:39 发表


呦呦呦，这样踩就没意思了吧，老实说能列举出这几个也算不错了，不过某个公司的产品呢，go，memory stick，umd，更不用说walkman这么一个几乎是20年的代名词，到今天几乎消失殆尽。

某个公司可见不是苹果，然而却能让PS3后发制人，这不就是公然扯下了微软技术官僚们的遮羞布了么？

PS3后发制人.......

我不知道SONY的VAIO笔记本里装的是什么系统 貌似不是他们自己研发的XMB系统 也不是苹果的MAC 谁能告诉我？？

引用:

原帖由 朱塞佩.梅阿查 于 2010-5-28 19:05 发表
我不知道SONY的VAIO笔记本里装的是什么系统 貌似不是他们自己研发的XMB系统 也不是苹果的MAC 谁能告诉我？？

vaio爱好者纷纷表示可以弃用某视窗，启用免费的无帮拖和林纽克斯，免费，无毒，手动功能强大，各软件兼容，美丽大方又方便

引用:

原帖由 小黑屋专用 于 2010-5-28 19:09 发表


vaio爱好者纷纷表示可以弃用某视窗，启用免费的无帮拖和林纽克斯，免费，无毒，手动功能强大，各软件兼容，美丽大方又方便

恩恩 SONY的高层可以集体剖腹自杀了 每年付给微软这么多钱装的视窗系统还不如你说的那些好

引用:

原帖由 朱塞佩.梅阿查 于 2010-5-28 19:17 发表


恩恩 SONY的高层可以集体剖腹自杀了 每年付给微软这么多钱装的视窗系统还不如你说的那些好

SONY高层又纷纷表示，这个费用有vaio爱好者支付了~~~~~

lz的意思技术创新——不是创新？

引用:

原帖由 Epilogue 于 2010-5-28 18:08 发表


可惜还是全球垫底，而且苹果早已经把sony干高潮不只一回了:D

甭管谁垫底，都还有一千多万台三红机在下面垫着，都还有曾经的第一科技企业的电子垃圾陪绑，不急

微软研究院最新mobile surface演示...英文讲的有点那个啥
Flash: http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMTU1Njk4NTY0/v.swf


[ 本帖最后由 爱游戏 于 2010-5-28 21:34 编辑 ]

posted by wap, platform: Firefox

蛋疼的转载一下老文，技术的微软做事情就是很有技术

I worked at Microsoft for ten years, most of it on the core Windows NT/2000 (hereafter referred to as NT) networking code. As such I briefly dealt with the Hotmail team, mostly to hear them complain about the lameness of the telnet daemon in NT (a valid point). I do know that when Microsoft bought Hotmail, the email system was entirely running on FreeBSD, and Microsoft immediately set about trying to migrate it to NT, and it took many years to do so. Now it seems that the transition is not complete. Well, what are you gonna do.

On the other hand, I know a lot about the TCP/IP stack that is running on NT. Here is a short history of it (some of this may also be told in the book How the Web Was Won, but I haven't read it):

The original plan for NT was that a few members of the core NT team (which numbered about 15 developers) would write all the networking code. However, in 1990 a small team was started up in the LAN Manager group at Microsoft to do some of that NT networking work. Eventually that team moved over to be a part of NT (this coincided with the IBM-OS/2 "divorce", if anyone is interested).

Microsoft's networking software at the time ran over a network protocol called Netbeui, but it was decided that TCP/IP was gaining in importance, and should be included in NT. In addition, the user-mode API associated with Netbeui, which was called Netbios, was too Netbeui-specific and couldn't be adapted to allow user-mode access to TCP/IP. As a result, the decision was made:

1) To put a TCP/IP stack in NT

2) To adapt the sockets user-mode API for NT

#1 was solved by licensing code from a company called Spider Systems. However, Spider's TCP/IP stack was written to run within an environment called STREAMS, which was a wrapper that specified how the various parts of the stack would communicate with each other (TCP/IP is really several pieces of code -- two of which are TCP and IP -- layered on top of each other. Most network protocols are like that, which is why they are referred to as "stacks". As a result, STREAMS also had to be ported to NT.

#2 involved the creation of the winsock API, which persists today.

It was recognized that using Spider's stack was a temporary measure, because nobody really wanted a stack that depended on STREAMS and its associated overhead. So, a short time after this, work was begun on a new version of TCP/IP, written entirely by Microsoft.

Along with Spider's stack came versions of various TCP/IP-related utility programs, such as ftp, rcp and rsh. Those were ported from BSD sockets to winsock (not a huge change) and bundled with NT.

Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."

Eventually the new, from scratch TCP/IP stack was done and shipped with NT 3.5 (the second version, despite the number) in late 1994. The same stack was also included with Windows 95.

However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California (BSD is short for Berkeley Software Distrubution, Berkeley being a branch of the University of California, for some reason referred to as "Berkeley" on the East Coast and "California" on the West Coast...and "Berkeley" is one of those words that starts to look real funny if you stare at it too long - but I digress).

Keep in mind there is no reason to rewrite that code. If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.

I won't even swear on a stack of bibles that the "new" TCP/IP now shipping in NT/2000/XP and Windows 95/98/Me is completely free of the old code from Spider. Since I don't work there I don't have access to the source code. Certainly some parts of TCP (the checksum calculation comes to mind) are the same everywhere and once someone has written an optimized version, why rewrite it? And once again, this would be perfectly legitimate for Microsoft to do under the license.

But it is certainly misleading of the Wall Street Journal to say that BSD code is used "deep inside" the NT networking code, unless they mean the STREAMS wrapper itself, which I believe is still there in case someone wants to write a transport using it (I think there is an OSI TP4 STREAMS transport lurking somewhere out there, if anyone cares - but I just checked, nobody does). But the TCP/IP in NT certainly doesn't use STREAMS.

And implying that the TCP/IP stack uses BSD code is also false. As I said above there may be small vestiges of it in there, although I doubt it. Anyway the FreeBSD programmers who reported all this to the Wall Street Journal can't see the NT TCP/IP source either, so they can't have been referring to that.

But whatever! It isn't the first time Microsoft has been maligned by the press, and it won't be the last.

However, this history does illustrate Microsoft's view of the GPL. As you may recall, Microsoft VP Craig Mundie recently claimed that the GPL is anti-competitive, un-American, flea-infested, locust-plagued, etc. This followed up on similar claims by another VP, Jim Allchin, so it appears that this is the angle Microsoft has chosen to attack Linux.

On the face of it, Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. Microsoft has no source license at all to speak of (for the general public anyway)! Anyway when did the source license of a piece of software become an issue for the average Joe who wants to buy it? As a former Microserf, I'll be the first to admit that Mundie's arguments make no sense for the industry in general.

Still from Microsoft's point of view, the source license of software does matter, because Microsoft might want to license the code. As it did in the case of the TCP/IP code it got from Spider, which was under the BSD license. If Spider's code had been under the GPL, Microsoft couldn't have used it. In other cases, Microsoft has licensed software from companies that were not open source at all, but Microsoft was able to negotiate a private license for its own use.

Again I'm not defending Microsoft's viewpoint. For any given piece of code, there may be five companies in the world that want to license it, 500 programmers who want to modify it, and 5 million users that want to use it. So the GPL is a good thing in general. Microsoft's main goal with the anti-GPL rhetoric is to discredit Linux, not to make it easier for it to license third-party software.

Still you can see how Microsoft's stance, from its own weird, warped perspective, almost makes some little iota of sense.

引用:

原帖由 Epilogue 于 2010-5-29 02:03 发表


是啊，大家都知道ps3垫底，就你脑补ps3第一，另外说到电子垃圾，sony当年的笔记本电池差点炸死人，还害的人家以为恐怖分子把机场关掉了，世界10大it灾难之一，论电子垃圾，微软的360咋能和sony的电池媲美？

即便不算三红的电子垃圾和没硬盘的XB1.5，三红机依然没有蓝光，依然和真正的次世代主机有一定差距，这一点不是你脑补能解决的

说到索尼的电池，人家认错了，召回了，改进了，提高了，然而微软就死皮赖脸的不肯召回三红机，这就是很有些垄断企业的流氓无赖嘴脸了

我们用XX分之一的人均耕地养活了全球四分之一的人口

我们用XX分之一的研发投入实现了超越微软的市值

结论： Jobs堪比袁隆平？？？

引用:

原帖由 Epilogue 于 2010-5-29 15:27 发表


召回有毛用？人家笔记本公司的信誉都被你索尼败坏了，人都被你炸伤了。
所谓的蓝光优势我P都没看出来，生化危机5ps3版比360大多少？结果画面还不如360，你慢慢脑补好了，你再脑补你家主子sony仍然是垫底的命。

当然有用，所以索尼的企业形象高居全球次席，这就十分的难能可贵，至于三红机着火烧全家，黑老三教唆玩家杀全家的惨剧就不是这么简单了，可以说微软赚了不少黑心钱，所以微软的企业形象就十分的败类，完全的和索尼木法比

蓝光优势不是你说没有就没有的，一个天朝的索黑在这事上可是没有丝毫的发言权:D