it's not that hard to get rid of Windows legacy to save space. most of it is just multiple dll files to point apps to compatible versions. get rid of those and the driver database and the OS is pretty small
Not really sure if that's true, and even if it is doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Windows" on ARM?
I mean what is Windows, at this point, if not a promise of compatibility? If you have to kill that off to achieve a reasonable mobile footprint, what is it for?
Not really sure if that's true, and even if it is doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Windows" on ARM?
I mean what is Windows, at this point, if not a promise of compatibility? If you have to kill that off to achieve a reasonable mobile footprint, what is it for?
Not really sure if that's true, and even if it is doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Windows" on ARM?
I mean what is Windows, at this point, if not a promise of compatibility? If you have to kill that off to achieve a reasonable mobile footprint, what is it for?
Possibly, but then you have the following scenario: MS is actively supporting two mobile operating systems, one of which they have to strip down to function within hardware constraints, and one that they're busily adding functionality to. So that maybe they figure out how to run a new version of Office on a new Windows ARM Professional Mobile Edition (or whatever they would call it) but they are also surely working to bring Office functionality to Windows Mobile-- and none of this even touches on the historic problems of Windows in a touch environment.
Plus there won't be any merging of the two, because they derive from different code bases.
So while it's possible that MS intends to launch of "full" Windows for ARM that requires everyone to buy all new apps, that's pretty much a train wreck from a product roadmap perspective, since then you have two incompatible mobile operating systems competing for the same space (and no, just tacking on "Professional" to one set of products doesn't fix that).
I'm sure Microsoft did a lot of work, making it work with their Xbox, and Zune market place, but it's not their technology. Apple, however, has developed everything on the iPad. It created the hardware and iOS, and software except for iTunes, which was bought from Cassady and Greene, called SoundJam, 10 years ago. Now that I think of it, where would Apple be if they had never bought SoundJam? The ipod may had never been produced and Apple may not even be around today if that purchase never happened. Hmmm.
I kinda got off the subject, but my point is that Microsoft's successful new toy is just licensed technology. Since Apple had early knowledge of the technology, I bet they are working on their own version behind the scenes.
Why is DED always attacked? Because he was followed to AI by an asinine mob of idiots who also did the same when his articles appeared on Digg...
Hahahahaha, why don't you go to roughlydrafted.com, and read his article about him complaining that Apple's release of new products was derided by critics as being "disappointing", accusing them of Apple not living up to the hype that they generated?
Don't dish it if you can't take it. While we cannot say this was DED for sure, it still is very fun pointing out his hypocrisy.
I'm sure Microsoft did a lot of work, making it work with their Xbox, and Zune market place, but it's not their technology. Apple, however, has developed everything on the iPad. It created the hardware and iOS, and software except for iTunes, which was bought from Cassady and Greene, called SoundJam, 10 years ago. Now that I think of it, where would Apple be if they had never bought SoundJam? The ipod may had never been produced and Apple may not even be around today if that purchase never happened. Hmmm.
I kinda got off the subject, but my point is that Microsoft's successful new toy is just licensed technology. Since Apple had early knowledge of the technology, I bet they are working on their own version behind the scenes.
Right, and where would iOS, more specifically, the iphone be without Fingerworks?
So are all companies second-rate for acquiring companies to use their IP or just Apple?
No one company can come up with 100% of everything. But for the OP, it's a reminder that Apple didn't come up with multi-touch, and for that matter, should have never had a patent granted on it.
No one company can come up with 100% of everything. But for the OP, it's a reminder that Apple didn't come up with multi-touch, and for that matter, should have never had a patent granted on it.
So spearhead sweeping changes to patent law. Until then, live with companies and their use of intellectual property.
No one company can come up with 100% of everything. But for the OP, it's a reminder that Apple didn't come up with multi-touch, and for that matter, should have never had a patent granted on it.
1) Yes, patents should be granted for this. It?s not the concept of using multiple inputs at once. It?s how these are implemented.
2) What Fingerworks had was cool, but much like what Xerox PARC had, it wasn?t a product until Apple shaped it.
3) A great painter isn?t untalented because others have access to that same canvas and paints. It?s not the materials, it?s now you manipulate them that affects the world.
So spearhead sweeping changes to patent law. Until then, live with companies and their use of intellectual property.
Me? WTF?
Don't you think if Tim Cook had a brain that he should use his companies many billions of resources to do that themselves?
No, of course not. Apple is patenting retarded double taps on their touchscreen for their nano, then finding themselves being sued for a patent on "double click", updated to include taps.
1) Yes, patents should be granted for this. It?s not the concept of using multiple inputs at once. It?s how these are implemented.
2) What Fingerworks had was cool, but much like what Xerox PARC had, it wasn?t a product until Apple shaped it.
3) A great painter isn?t untalented because others have access to that same canvas and paints. It?s not the materials, it?s now you manipulate them that affects the world.
And you can implement it in 20 different ways. Apple essentially patented a bunch of computer code.
Or do you think then that patent case against apple for "double tapping" should stand as well?
Or do you think then that patent case against apple for "double tapping" should stand as well?
I believe that all case should stand. I?m not a lawyer or judge or jury, and I don?t think that any patent should simply not exist or some company should automatically be allowed or disallowed without due process if they are challenged. it?s silly for you to take such an unwavering stance without knowing even a fraction of the facts.
Possibly, but then you have the following scenario: MS is actively supporting two mobile operating systems, one of which they have to strip down to function within hardware constraints, and one that they're busily adding functionality to. So that maybe they figure out how to run a new version of Office on a new Windows ARM Professional Mobile Edition (or whatever they would call it) but they are also surely working to bring Office functionality to Windows Mobile-- and none of this even touches on the historic problems of Windows in a touch environment.
Plus there won't be any merging of the two, because they derive from different code bases.
So while it's possible that MS intends to launch of "full" Windows for ARM that requires everyone to buy all new apps, that's pretty much a train wreck from a product roadmap perspective, since then you have two incompatible mobile operating systems competing for the same space (and no, just tacking on "Professional" to one set of products doesn't fix that).
that's where the market is going and even on iOS there is some fragmentation. there are separate OS files you download for each device supported with different drivers and feature sets in them
apple spearheaded the way with the iphone and ipad but as the products mature people will want more features in their apps and most of the apps now are nothing more than browser bookmarks or lite versions of desktop apps. which is why they are so cheap. people will demand the products mature.
just like PC's. in 1980 they barely did anything. then came office apps and photoshop and Mac desktop publishing. every year the software matured to where you could run more tasks on it that were previously only possible on mainframes
as things matured we went from command line, to simple GUI overlays, to real GUI and file management and other things. expect the same cycle to be repeated in the mobile space
A step? MS just announced that they'll introduce copy and paste to Windows Phone 7; a feature that made its way into iOs 19 months ago.
So I think, yeah, it's safe to say they're at least than a step ahead.
And how long did it take c&p to show up in iOS? It wasn't six months after the 1.0 release. Your point is what? Microsoft is doing exactly what Apple did 4 years ago? Apple didn't have that feature 4 years ago and other handsets did. They didn't have MMS and other handsets did. Apple has repeatedly lied about missing features not being compatible so they can sell the next gen iPhone. That's fact.
It's a 1.0 release after admitting they screwed the pooch, they are working very hard and very quickly to add functionality and your example of it inferiority is a feature that took Apple two years to add, in the face of all the headscratching from it's users? Hell, Apple didn't even have MMS added until two years after initial release. If you are going to criticize WP7 you can't ignore the massive amount of time that Apple has taken to introduce features to their mobile OS. Most of those features were widely criticized for not being there and Apples obvious strategy was to release them to coincide with a handset upgrade. Microsoft is behind and they've admitted it but to write them off because they haven't put every feature in day one is absolutely no different than what Apple did on iOS 1.0. They haven't been ahead in the most basic features, not by a long long way.
And how long did it take c&p to show up in iOS? It wasn't six months after the 1.0 release. Your point is what? Microsoft is doing exactly what Apple did 4 years ago? Apple didn't have that feature 4 years ago and other handsets did. They didn't have MMS and other handsets did. Apple has repeatedly lied about missing features not being compatible so they can sell the next gen iPhone. That's fact.
So you?re saying they are lying because they eventually showed up? Need I remind you that Apple created a mobile OS from the ground up and that hadn?t had any experience with a smartphone OS whereas MS had WinCE with cut/copy/paste for many, many years. The fact that MS is doing "exactly what Apple did 4 years ago? and is being able to step in their footprints faster than Apple was able to make them is only proof that Apple is leading the pack. Even now after 2 major version of iOS with cut/copy/paste no other modern mobile OS has implemented a systemwide cut/copy/paste that is even close to as good as Apple?s implementation. That?s fact.
I believe that all case should stand. I?m not a lawyer or judge or jury, and I don?t think that any patent should simply not exist or some company should automatically be allowed or disallowed without due process if they are challenged. it?s silly for you to take such an unwavering stance without knowing even a fraction of the facts.
What facts? The fact that apple patented the sliding lock on their phone, the hold an icon to make them jiggly so as to move them? That's patentable?
What an "invention"; taking the concept of something already done and doing it in software.
So the first decade of the 21st century had 11 years in it did it? -2000, 01, 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 & 2010???
No, they are being consistent and counting 2000 as the tenth year of the PERVIOUS decade, which started the moment the ball in Times Square dropped to turn 1991. You might object (as I initially did until I thought about it) to this seemingly "off" convention unless you track it all the way back to the reference point of our calendar and notice that... there was not a year "0". So if you count off years from that reference point, the end of the first "decade" is quite clearly the end of year 10, and the next decade starts just after midnight on Jan 1, 11. Follow that logic up each ten years until we reach now... and you find out that they are correct.
Comments
it's not that hard to get rid of Windows legacy to save space. most of it is just multiple dll files to point apps to compatible versions. get rid of those and the driver database and the OS is pretty small
Not really sure if that's true, and even if it is doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Windows" on ARM?
I mean what is Windows, at this point, if not a promise of compatibility? If you have to kill that off to achieve a reasonable mobile footprint, what is it for?
Not really sure if that's true, and even if it is doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Windows" on ARM?
I mean what is Windows, at this point, if not a promise of compatibility? If you have to kill that off to achieve a reasonable mobile footprint, what is it for?
Marketing purposes.
Not really sure if that's true, and even if it is doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Windows" on ARM?
I mean what is Windows, at this point, if not a promise of compatibility? If you have to kill that off to achieve a reasonable mobile footprint, what is it for?
a way to sell the latest version of Office?
a way to sell the latest version of Office?
Possibly, but then you have the following scenario: MS is actively supporting two mobile operating systems, one of which they have to strip down to function within hardware constraints, and one that they're busily adding functionality to. So that maybe they figure out how to run a new version of Office on a new Windows ARM Professional Mobile Edition (or whatever they would call it) but they are also surely working to bring Office functionality to Windows Mobile-- and none of this even touches on the historic problems of Windows in a touch environment.
Plus there won't be any merging of the two, because they derive from different code bases.
So while it's possible that MS intends to launch of "full" Windows for ARM that requires everyone to buy all new apps, that's pretty much a train wreck from a product roadmap perspective, since then you have two incompatible mobile operating systems competing for the same space (and no, just tacking on "Professional" to one set of products doesn't fix that).
I'm sure Microsoft did a lot of work, making it work with their Xbox, and Zune market place, but it's not their technology. Apple, however, has developed everything on the iPad. It created the hardware and iOS, and software except for iTunes, which was bought from Cassady and Greene, called SoundJam, 10 years ago. Now that I think of it, where would Apple be if they had never bought SoundJam? The ipod may had never been produced and Apple may not even be around today if that purchase never happened. Hmmm.
I kinda got off the subject, but my point is that Microsoft's successful new toy is just licensed technology. Since Apple had early knowledge of the technology, I bet they are working on their own version behind the scenes.
Why is DED always attacked? Because he was followed to AI by an asinine mob of idiots who also did the same when his articles appeared on Digg...
Hahahahaha, why don't you go to roughlydrafted.com, and read his article about him complaining that Apple's release of new products was derided by critics as being "disappointing", accusing them of Apple not living up to the hype that they generated?
Don't dish it if you can't take it. While we cannot say this was DED for sure, it still is very fun pointing out his hypocrisy.
Microsoft did not develop it. It is licensed from an Israeli company, PrimeSense. Supposedly Apple had first crack, but was not easy to deal with. http://www.cultofmac.com/how-apple-a...ntroller/67951 .
I'm sure Microsoft did a lot of work, making it work with their Xbox, and Zune market place, but it's not their technology. Apple, however, has developed everything on the iPad. It created the hardware and iOS, and software except for iTunes, which was bought from Cassady and Greene, called SoundJam, 10 years ago. Now that I think of it, where would Apple be if they had never bought SoundJam? The ipod may had never been produced and Apple may not even be around today if that purchase never happened. Hmmm.
I kinda got off the subject, but my point is that Microsoft's successful new toy is just licensed technology. Since Apple had early knowledge of the technology, I bet they are working on their own version behind the scenes.
Right, and where would iOS, more specifically, the iphone be without Fingerworks?
Right, and where would iOS, more specifically, the iphone be without Fingerworks?
So are all companies second-rate for acquiring companies to use their IP or just Apple?
Onhka, You were correct in the post. This decade is six days old. 2010 was the final year of the first decade of the 21st century.
So the first decade of the 21st century had 11 years in it did it? -2000, 01, 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 & 2010???
So are all companies second-rate for acquiring companies to use their IP or just Apple?
No one company can come up with 100% of everything. But for the OP, it's a reminder that Apple didn't come up with multi-touch, and for that matter, should have never had a patent granted on it.
No one company can come up with 100% of everything. But for the OP, it's a reminder that Apple didn't come up with multi-touch, and for that matter, should have never had a patent granted on it.
So spearhead sweeping changes to patent law. Until then, live with companies and their use of intellectual property.
No one company can come up with 100% of everything. But for the OP, it's a reminder that Apple didn't come up with multi-touch, and for that matter, should have never had a patent granted on it.
1) Yes, patents should be granted for this. It?s not the concept of using multiple inputs at once. It?s how these are implemented.
2) What Fingerworks had was cool, but much like what Xerox PARC had, it wasn?t a product until Apple shaped it.
3) A great painter isn?t untalented because others have access to that same canvas and paints. It?s not the materials, it?s now you manipulate them that affects the world.
So spearhead sweeping changes to patent law. Until then, live with companies and their use of intellectual property.
Me? WTF?
Don't you think if Tim Cook had a brain that he should use his companies many billions of resources to do that themselves?
No, of course not. Apple is patenting retarded double taps on their touchscreen for their nano, then finding themselves being sued for a patent on "double click", updated to include taps.
Have fun!
1) Yes, patents should be granted for this. It?s not the concept of using multiple inputs at once. It?s how these are implemented.
2) What Fingerworks had was cool, but much like what Xerox PARC had, it wasn?t a product until Apple shaped it.
3) A great painter isn?t untalented because others have access to that same canvas and paints. It?s not the materials, it?s now you manipulate them that affects the world.
And you can implement it in 20 different ways. Apple essentially patented a bunch of computer code.
Or do you think then that patent case against apple for "double tapping" should stand as well?
Or do you think then that patent case against apple for "double tapping" should stand as well?
I believe that all case should stand. I?m not a lawyer or judge or jury, and I don?t think that any patent should simply not exist or some company should automatically be allowed or disallowed without due process if they are challenged. it?s silly for you to take such an unwavering stance without knowing even a fraction of the facts.
Possibly, but then you have the following scenario: MS is actively supporting two mobile operating systems, one of which they have to strip down to function within hardware constraints, and one that they're busily adding functionality to. So that maybe they figure out how to run a new version of Office on a new Windows ARM Professional Mobile Edition (or whatever they would call it) but they are also surely working to bring Office functionality to Windows Mobile-- and none of this even touches on the historic problems of Windows in a touch environment.
Plus there won't be any merging of the two, because they derive from different code bases.
So while it's possible that MS intends to launch of "full" Windows for ARM that requires everyone to buy all new apps, that's pretty much a train wreck from a product roadmap perspective, since then you have two incompatible mobile operating systems competing for the same space (and no, just tacking on "Professional" to one set of products doesn't fix that).
that's where the market is going and even on iOS there is some fragmentation. there are separate OS files you download for each device supported with different drivers and feature sets in them
apple spearheaded the way with the iphone and ipad but as the products mature people will want more features in their apps and most of the apps now are nothing more than browser bookmarks or lite versions of desktop apps. which is why they are so cheap. people will demand the products mature.
just like PC's. in 1980 they barely did anything. then came office apps and photoshop and Mac desktop publishing. every year the software matured to where you could run more tasks on it that were previously only possible on mainframes
as things matured we went from command line, to simple GUI overlays, to real GUI and file management and other things. expect the same cycle to be repeated in the mobile space
A step? MS just announced that they'll introduce copy and paste to Windows Phone 7; a feature that made its way into iOs 19 months ago.
So I think, yeah, it's safe to say they're at least than a step ahead.
And how long did it take c&p to show up in iOS? It wasn't six months after the 1.0 release. Your point is what? Microsoft is doing exactly what Apple did 4 years ago? Apple didn't have that feature 4 years ago and other handsets did. They didn't have MMS and other handsets did. Apple has repeatedly lied about missing features not being compatible so they can sell the next gen iPhone. That's fact.
It's a 1.0 release after admitting they screwed the pooch, they are working very hard and very quickly to add functionality and your example of it inferiority is a feature that took Apple two years to add, in the face of all the headscratching from it's users? Hell, Apple didn't even have MMS added until two years after initial release. If you are going to criticize WP7 you can't ignore the massive amount of time that Apple has taken to introduce features to their mobile OS. Most of those features were widely criticized for not being there and Apples obvious strategy was to release them to coincide with a handset upgrade. Microsoft is behind and they've admitted it but to write them off because they haven't put every feature in day one is absolutely no different than what Apple did on iOS 1.0. They haven't been ahead in the most basic features, not by a long long way.
And how long did it take c&p to show up in iOS? It wasn't six months after the 1.0 release. Your point is what? Microsoft is doing exactly what Apple did 4 years ago? Apple didn't have that feature 4 years ago and other handsets did. They didn't have MMS and other handsets did. Apple has repeatedly lied about missing features not being compatible so they can sell the next gen iPhone. That's fact.
So you?re saying they are lying because they eventually showed up?
I believe that all case should stand. I?m not a lawyer or judge or jury, and I don?t think that any patent should simply not exist or some company should automatically be allowed or disallowed without due process if they are challenged. it?s silly for you to take such an unwavering stance without knowing even a fraction of the facts.
What facts? The fact that apple patented the sliding lock on their phone, the hold an icon to make them jiggly so as to move them? That's patentable?
What an "invention"; taking the concept of something already done and doing it in software.
So the first decade of the 21st century had 11 years in it did it? -2000, 01, 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 & 2010???
No, they are being consistent and counting 2000 as the tenth year of the PERVIOUS decade, which started the moment the ball in Times Square dropped to turn 1991. You might object (as I initially did until I thought about it) to this seemingly "off" convention unless you track it all the way back to the reference point of our calendar and notice that... there was not a year "0". So if you count off years from that reference point, the end of the first "decade" is quite clearly the end of year 10, and the next decade starts just after midnight on Jan 1, 11. Follow that logic up each ten years until we reach now... and you find out that they are correct.
Thompson