PB's Profile

Member since September 15, 2005

  • Name

    PB

Favorite Files

Recent Posts

  1. Comment - How soon will enterprises adopt Windows Server 2008?

    (Feb 20, 2008 - 2:28 PM)

    Built on Server 2003? Well, kind of, but that doesn't explain where we are today. Here's what happened:

    2001: XP (NT 5.1) ships.
    2002: Work on Longhorn begins, having forked off from XP.
    2002: Server 2003 is forked off from the XP codebase to become NT 5.2.
    2003: Server 2003 (NT 5.2) ships.
    2004: XP SP2 ships. This is NT 5.1 SP2. They port these same fixes to the NT 5.2 codebase in order to make 2003 SP1.
    2004: Meanwhile, Longhorn was originally based on XP (NT 5.1) WITHOUT all the changes in XPSP2. The XPSP2 changes were huge enough that the current Longhorn codebase is extremely out-of-date, so they decide to scrap the current codebase and start over by forking the 2003 SP1 codebase. NT 5.2 SP1 was forked into NT 6.0.
    2005-2006: Work on Vista/Server 2008 takes place in the same codebase (NT 6.0).
    2006: Vista ships: NT 6.0 SP0.
    2007: Work continues on Server 2008, as well as on Vista SP1, under version 6.0 SP1.
    2008: Both Server 2008 and Vista SP1 release simeotaneously, since they are simply different SKUs of the same codebase.

    The original basis on Server 2003 SP1 has nothing to do with the final result. They could have just as easily chosen to fork off Server 2008 into NT 6.1, but they decided to keep client and server in sync so that patches & future service packs can be shared between the two. This is the same as what happened with Windows 2000 (NT 5.0). This is NOT what happeend with XP & 2003 (5.1 and 5.2).

  2. Comment - How soon will enterprises adopt Windows Server 2008?

    (Feb 19, 2008 - 2:21 PM)

    He heard right. They're the same thing (NT 6.0 SP1). Probably around 90% of the files installed by Server 2008 are also installed by Vista SP1, and are identical bit-for-bit. The remaining 10% or so would be features specific to one SKU or the other (e.g. Media Center in Vista, various services in Server, etc.)

    It's exactly like the relationship between Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server. It's UNLIKE the relationship between XP and Server 2003 (those were completely forked codebases).

  3. Comment - How soon will enterprises adopt Windows Server 2008?

    (Feb 19, 2008 - 2:18 PM)

    Bitlocker works on 32-bit Vista, and I'm pretty sure that ASLR does as well. One thing that is 64-bit only is PatchGuard (kernel patch protection). (It was actually introduced with XP/2003 x64 editions.)

  4. Comment - Vista SP1 'on schedule' for March RTM

    (Jan 26, 2008 - 3:35 PM)

    If Apple were to make Mac OS available for use on non-Apple hardware, then Microsoft's supposed "monopoly" on "operating systems for x86-based computers" would be gone.* Then Microsoft would be free to bundle to their hearts content (something that every other OS does), and go back to its 90s OEM tactics.

    *(Some, including me, argue that the monopoly label should have never been assigned; Linux has always been a viable alternative, and even with Mac OS only available for Macs, it still competes with Windows.)

  5. Comment - Microsoft Allowed to Argue Invalidity of Eolas Patent

    (May 31, 2007 - 11:38 PM)

    The Eolas patent needs to be thrown out.

    Microsoft Word had the ability to have embedded objects, such as Excel spreadsheets, years before the Eolas patent was filed. They took this same technology (OLE) and applied it to web pages, allowing it to host the same embedded objects.

    Given that there was prior art for embedding objects in a Word document, how can Eolas feel that applying the same concept to HTML documents instead, is novel and unobvious?